[ ]

Tag: IntergenerationalJustice

Posted on

Daniel Billy et al. v Australia

Date: 22 September 2022

Court: United Nations Human Rights Committee

Citation: Views adopted by the Committee under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning Communication No. 3624/2019

Short summary 

The indigenous minority group of four low-lying islands in the Torres Strait region, one of the most vulnerable populations to climate change impacts, filed a petition against the Australian government alleging a violation of articles 2, 6, 17, 24 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) due to Australia’s failure to implement measures for mitigation and adaptation to climate change, threatening habitability on the islands and displacement of the Torres Strait Islanders. In finding a violation of articles 17 and 27, the Committee requires Australia to make full reparation to individuals, providing adequate compensation, engaging in meaningful consultation with affected communities for assessment and continue implementing strategies for the safe existence of the islands and their inhabitants.

Summary by: Irene Sacchetti

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

Though not legally binding, for the first time the Committee ascertains State’s responsibility for climate inaction leading to a violation of multiple rights, including cultural rights under the ICCPR.

Key facts 

The petitioners’ claims were based on Australia’s failure to implement adaptation strategies (e.g., infrastructure such as sea walls) and mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to combat adverse climate change impacts. They argued that sea level rise — already causing coastal erosion – flooding, and the destruction of marine ecosystems and resources all result in violations of Islanders’ rights to life and a healthy environment (article 6), home (article 17), practice cultural traditions on ancestral land (article 27) and intergenerational equity (article 24).

Citing the Teitiota decision, Australia responded that the petitioners “invoke a risk that has not yet materialized” and that “the State party is taking adaptation measures in the Torres Strait, thus rendering the harm invoked by the authors too remote to demonstrate a violation of the right to life.”

The Committee was asked to determine whether Australia violated the Covenant by failing to implement adaptation and/or mitigation measures to combat adverse climate change impacts within its territory resulting in harms to the authors’ rights.

Previous instances 

None: The petitioners’ rights under the ICCPR are neither protected by the Australia Constitution nor other domestic legislation – and the highest Court in Australia has ruled that the state have a duty of care to prevent environmental harm – so this was a case of first impression before the Committee.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 288/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20

Date of judgement: 24 March 2021

Court: Federal Constitutional Court of Germany 

Citation(s): BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021 – 1 BvR 2656/18 -, paras. 1-270

Short summary 

In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court classified the German Climate Protection Act in its current form as violative of fundamental rights because it disproportionately shifts the burden of greenhouse gas reduction to future generations, thereby recognising for the first time the existence and violation of the intertemporal dimension of their civil rights. 

Summary by: Robert Los

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

The order bears immense weight in Germany as the judgement indirectly grants a right to future generations with regard to protection or relief from CO2 emissions and other climate changes. 

Key facts

The Federal Climate Change Act (Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) was drafted in response to the need for greater climate action efforts. Its purpose is to afford protection against the effects of global climate change (§ 1 S.1), and as stated under § 1 S.3, the basis of the KSG is the obligation under the Paris Agreement as well as the commitment made by the Federal Republic of Germany to pursue the long-term goal of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050. 

Greenhouse gas emissions must be gradually reduced by the target year 2030 by at least 55%, relative to 1990 levels (§ 3(1)). In conjunction with Annex 2, § 4(1) sets out the annual permissible emission levels for various sectors in line with the reduction quota for the target year 2030. Provisions applicable beyond 2030 are not contained in the KSG. Rather, § 4(6) provides that in the year 2025, the Federal Government must – by way of ordinances – set annually decreasing emission levels for periods following 2030.

In support of their constitutional claims, the complainants − some of whom live in Bangladesh and Nepal − relied primarily on constitutional duties of protection arising from Art. 2(2) of the German Constitution Grundgesetz (GG), and Art. 14(1) GG, as well as the a fundamental right to a future in accordance with human dignity, and the fundamental right to an ecological minimum standard of living (ökologisches Existenzminimum), which they derived from Art. 2(1) GG in conjunction with Art. 20a GG and from Art. 2(1) GG in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG. 

With regard to future burdens arising from the obligations to reduce emissions in the periods following 2030 – described by the complainants as an “emergency stop” – they relied on fundamental freedoms more generally.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Posted on

Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom 

Date: 11 December 2012 

Court: European Court of Human Rights 

Citation(s): Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Application no. 35622/04 (11 December 2012) 

Short summary  

Former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and their descendants brought an action to contest the U.K.’s bar on resettling the islands. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed previous judgments from U.K. courts barring the plaintiffs’ petitions for resettlement, in part due to the risks of climate change to the Islands. 

Summary by: Luke Hancox 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The European Court of Human Rights is the sole body positioned to adjudge claims lodged under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its rulings are generally, though not universally, recognized as valid and enforceable by European parties to the Convention.  

Key facts 

Between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to expel or bar the return of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. This was done to facilitate the construction of a United States military base on the island of Diego Garcia. This action was brought by those former inhabitants and their descendants (1,786 people). The applicants brought their action under Articles 6 & 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

The litigation of this case involves multiple cases in domestic U.K. courts over the past 50 years regarding the events surrounding the colonization and eventual expulsion of inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. 

On 8 November 1965, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Order in Council (SI 1965/120) established a new colony, including the Chagos Islands and other islands formerly part of the Colony of Mauritius and of the Seychelles. When agreeing to give the U.S. military access to the islands, the

U.K. treated the islands as having no permanent population in order to avoid obligations under the United Nations Charter. They claimed the population was overwhelmingly migrant workers who no longer had jobs because the plantation operated on the islands had been acquired by the U.K. government to transfer to the U.S. 

As a result of the above acquisition, the islands’ inhabitants were evacuated. The BIOT Commissioner passed an ordinance in 1971, making it unlawful and a criminal offense for anyone to enter or remain in the territory without a permit. The evacuation caused immeasurable damage to these communities by uprooting their lives and forcing resettlement elsewhere. The U.K. government paid 650,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to Mauritius to aid the resettlement effort.  

A 1975 case brought in the High Court of London led the U.K. government to settle all claims with the islanders. The settlement resulted in monthly payments of 2,976 GBP a month to 1,344 Chagossians between 1982 and 1984. In 2000, a case challenging the 1971 Order was brought in London. The court held that the islanders had no permanent right to the land or its use but that the Order was nevertheless invalid as outside the scope of authority of the BIOT Commissioner. This led to the bar on entry to the islands by the former inhabitants being lifted. However, none of these inhabitants went to live on the islands afterward. The U.K. government also began a study to determine the viability of resettlement of the islands after this case. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Moiwana Community v. Suriname

Date: 15 June 2005

Court: Inter-American Court of Human Rights  

Citation: IACtHR, Moiwana Village v. Suriname, Judgment, 15 June 2005, Series C, No.145 (2005) 

Short summary  

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)held that the State of Suriname violated the Moiwana’s right to property by its failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events which caused the internal displacement of the Moiwana community. The Court stressed the profound ties of the Moiwana community to their traditional lands which were integral to their identity and existence.  

Summary by: Wong Ho Yin

Link to original judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The IACtHR applies the American Convention on Human Rights and States that have recognised the jurisdiction of the IACtHR are bound by its judgments.  As this case originated in an application against Suriname, a then State who recognised the jurisdiction of the IACtHR, the judgment is binding and Suriname must implement its recommendations.  

Key facts 

The N’djuka maroon village of Moiwana faced attacks and massacre by members of the armed forces of Suriname in 1986. Inhabitants of Moiwana were forcibly displaced within Suriname and they were unable to maintain their means of livelihood and subsistence. There was not sufficient investigation of the massacre, not to mention prosecution or punishment of the perpetrators.  

Previous instances  

In 1997, the human rights organization Moiwana ‘86 filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with respect of Articles 25 (right to judicial protection), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention against the State of Suriname. The Inter-American Commission found the petition admissible and made recommendations to Suriname to take actions to address the massacre. After unsuccessful attempts to facilitate compliance with its recommendations, the Inter-American Commission referred the case to the Inter-American Court. 

Summary of holding 

The Court decided that Suriname’s failure to investigate the events has directly prevented the Moiwana community from resuming their lives in the traditional lands which were their ancestral territory.  

The Court held that even when the Moiwana community did not own formal legal title to the territory (as the land belonged to the State), they obtained “official recognition of their communal ownership” of the land by mere occupation of the land pursuant to customary practices. The Court took into account the “unique and enduring ties that bind indigenous communities to their ancestral territory”.(para. 131). The Court opined that: 

“The relationship of an indigenous community with its land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of its culture, spiritual life, integrity, and economic survival. For such peoples, their communal nexus with the ancestral territory is not merely a matter of possession and production, but rather consists in material and spiritual elements that must be fully integrated and enjoyed by the community, so that it may preserve its cultural legacy and pass it on to future generations.” (emphasis added) (see para. 131) 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress