In the case of Mali, section 15 of its 1992 Constitution provides:Įvery person has a right to a healthy environment. On the African continent, the relatively recent Constitutions of Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Republic of South Africa provide good examples. For the present purposes, a few examples will suffice to illustrate this increasing state practice. Moreover, in a few cases, these two approaches are combined. In some cases, such constitutional provisions are declaratory of the state's duty to pursue environmentally sound development, sustainable use of natural resources and the maintenance of safe and healthy environment for the citizens of the state, while in others the constitution provides for the individual's right to a clean and healthy environment and a person's duty to protect and conserve the environment and natural resources.
The proponents of the right to environment have pointed to its acceptance and incorporation into more than 60 national constitutions (as well as the constitutions of several component states of the United States of America). It is proposed to briefly consider the proponents' view here. In fact, there is abundant legal literature affirming or rejecting the existence of a right to environment. While some scholars maintain that an international human right to environment presently exists as part of the international bill of rights, others contend that no such right has emerged.
The controversial question is whether there is an international 'human right to environment'. More specifically, part of the current international discourse on the subject centres on the concept of the 'right to environment'. United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur, Mrs Fatma Zohra Ksentini, observed in her report on human rights and the environment that the state of the environment is nowadays seen as a worldwide problem that should be addressed globally, 'in a co-ordinated and coherent manner and through the concerted efforts of the international community'. In contemporary times, the 'environmental issue' (particularly, environmental protection) is arguably one of the most important subjects on the global community's agenda. In finding Nigeria in violation of the Charter, the Commission stated that the right to a satisfactory environment 'requires the state to take reasonable and other measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation, to promote conservation, and to secure an ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources'. The decision recognises a nexus between socio-economic rights and the right to environment to the extent that the environment affects the quality of life and safety of individuals and groups. It is encouraging that the African Commission recently decided a case concerning the impact of oil operations in the Niger Delta, concluding that the African Charter recognises the importance of a clean and safe environment. National courts and global and regional human rights monitoring bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission, have addressed this issue. Moreover, it is suggested that there is an increasing trend by victims of environmental damage to invoke human rights for protection and redress. This article emphasises that the right to a satisfactory, healthy or clean environment is enshrined in over 60 constitutions from all regions of the world. However, the views expressed here and any inaccuracies contained herein remain mine alone. I acknowledge the useful comments of Adv Morné van der Linde of the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, South Africa, on the earlier version of this article.
0 kommentar(er)
