International Law And The Right To A Healthy Environment As A Jus Cogens Human Right

Jacklyn J. Dyer March 15, 2023

I. JURISPRUDENTIAL BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL ISSUES

To date, the traditional worldwide law does no longer bear in mind human environmental rights to an easy and healthful environment to be a jus cogens human proper. Jus cogens (“compelling law”) refers to preemptory prison principles and norms binding on all international States, regardless of their consent. They are not derogated because States can not make a reservation to a treaty or make domestic or worldwide laws that can be a struggle with any international agreement that they have ratified. For that reason, they’re a celebration. They “be successful over and invalidate international agreements and different rules of global regulation in a struggle with them… [and are] difficult to modification best via a next norm… Having the same individual.” (1) Thus, they’re the axiomatic and universally regular prison norms that bind all international locations under jus gentium (law of nations). For instance, a few U.N. Charter provisions and conventions in opposition to slavery or torture are considered jus cogens guidelines of global law which can be nondelegable by events to any worldwide conference.

While the global legal gadget has advanced to embody or even codify simple, not-derogate human rights (2), the evolution of environmental felony regimes has now not advanced as far. While the previous have located a place at the very best degree of universally diagnosed prison rights, the latter have best lately and over a great deal of competition, reached a modest level of reputation as a legally regulated activity in the economics and politics of sustainable improvement.

1. The global criminal network acknowledges the equal assets of international law, as does the USA’s felony system. The three sources of worldwide regulation are said and defined inside the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the US (R3dFRLUS), Section 102. The first supply is Customary International Law (CIL), described because the “well known and consistent exercise of states followed out of a feel of felony duty” (3) (opinion juries size necessitates), in place of out of ethical duty. Furthermore, CIL is violated every time a State, “as a matter of country coverage,… Practices encourage or condone (a) genocide, (b) slavery… (c) the homicide or inflicting the disappearance of people, (d) torture or other merciless, inhuman, or degrading remedy… Or (g) a regular pattern of gross violations of internationally diagnosed human rights.” (4) To what volume such human rights need to be “across the world recognized” is not clean. Still, surely a majority of the world’s nations should apprehend such rights earlier than a “steady sample of gross violations” results in a violation of CIL. CIL has similarities to “direction of dealing” or “usage of exchange” within the home business felony gadget.

Evidence of CIL includes “constitutional, legislative, and govt promulgations of states, proclamations, judicial selections, arbitral awards, writings of specialists on international regulation, global agreements, and resolutions and guidelines of global conferences and organizations.” (five). It follows that such evidence is enough to make “internationally diagnosed human rights” covered below universally identified global regulation. Thus, CIL may be created through the general proliferation of the legal acknowledgment (opinion jurist) and movements of States of what precisely constitutes “across the world recognized human rights.”

RELATED POSTS :

2. The subsequent degree of binding global regulation is that of global agreements (treaties) or Conventional International Law. Just as jus cogens rights and guidelines of regulation, in addition to CIL, are number one and universally binding criminal precepts, so do worldwide treaties form binding global regulation for the Party Members which have ratified that treaty. The same way that some States’ home constitutional regulation broadcasts the simple human rights of each State’s citizens, so do international treaties create binding law regarding the rights delineated therein, in line with the customary worldwide jus gentium precept of pasta sent servants (agreements are to be respected). Treaties are in turn internalized using the home prison device as a rely on the law. Thus, for instance, the U.N Charter’s provision towards the usage of force is binding worldwide regulation on all States and it, in flip, is binding law in the United States, as an example, and on its residents. (6) Treaties are analogous to “contracts” inside the domestic legal device.

Evidence of Conventional International Law consists of treaties, of the path, in addition to associated fabric, interpreted beneath the same old canons of the creation of counting on the text itself and the words’ normal meanings. (7) Often, the conventional law must be interpreted within the context of CIL. (8) As a realistic count, treaties are often modified by amendments, protocols, and (usually technical) annexes. Mechanisms exist for “circumventing the strict application of consent” by using the birthday party states. Generally, these mechanisms encompass “framework or umbrella conventions that merely nation popular duties and set up the machinery for further norm-formulating devices… Character protocols establishing specific sizeable duties… [and] technical annexes.” (nine). Most of these new instruments “do no require ratification but input into force in a few simplified manners.” (10) For example, they will require most effective signatures, or they enter into force for all original events whilst a minimal wide variety of States ratify the amendment or unless a minimal wide variety of States object within a sure time body, or is going into pressure for all besides people who object. (eleven) Depending on the treaty itself, once a simple consensus is reached, it isn’t essential for all to consent to positive adjustments for them to enter effect. “[I]n an experience these are instances of an IGO [(international governmental organization)] organ ‘legislating’ without delay for [S]tates.” (12)

3. Finally, rules of global law also are derived from frequent General Principles of Law “not unusual to the predominant criminal systems of the arena.” (Thirteen). These “trendy principles of law” are principles of regulation as such, now not of worldwide regulation according to use. While many don’t forget those standard standards to be a secondary supply of international regulation that “can be invoked as supplementary regulations… Where suitable” (14), some recollect them on a “footing of formal equality with the 2 positivist elements of custom and treaty”. (15) Examples are the standards of res judicata, equity, justice, and estoppel. Frequently, these rules are inferred with the aid of an “analogy to home regulation concerning rules of technique, evidence, and jurisdiction.” (sixteen). However, “even as shared standards of-of internal regulation can be used as a fall-returned, there are severe limits because of the characteristic variations between worldwide law and inner law.” (17). Evidence of General Principles of Law includes “municipal legal guidelines, doctrine, and judicial selections.” (18)

Treaty provisions and their inherent obligations can create binding CIL if they’re “of a fundamentally norm-creating man or woman such as could be regarded as forming the basis of a fashionable rule of regulation.” (19). A fundamental premise of this article is that the “tremendously extraordinary approaches (of lawmaking) of the beyond aren’t appropriate for cutting-edge instances.” (20). Jonathan Charney keeps that the latest CIL is increasingly being created with the aid of consensual multilateral boards, in place of State practice and opinion juries, and that “[consensus, defined as the death of expressed objections to the rule via any participant, may additionally often be enough… In idea, one truly phrased, and strongly endorsed statement at a near-prevalent diplomatic forum could be sufficient to set up new international law.” (21). This manner must be prominent conceptually as “well known international regulation,” in place of CIL because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has often achieved.

In like vein, Professor Gunther Handl argues that each one multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) of “global applicability” create “preferred international law”:

“A multilateral treaty that addresses essential issues of the global community at large, and that as such is strongly supported by the sizable majority of states, with the aid of international businesses and other transnational actors,– and this is, of direction, precisely the case with the biodiversity, weather, and ozone regimes, among others, may additionally indeed create expectations of standard compliance, in short, this kind of treaty may become seen as reflecting felony standards of standard applicability… And as such should be deemed capable of growing rights and responsibilities both for third states and 1/3 agencies.” (22)

Notwithstanding, Daniel Bodansky argues that CIL is so rarely supported by using State action that it isn’t always standard law. “International environmental norms mirror not how states regularly behave, however how states communicate to each other.” (23) Calling such regulation “declarative law” that is a part of a “fantasy system” representing the collective ideals and the “verbal exercise” of States, he concludes that “our time and efforts might be better spent attempting to translate the general norms of worldwide environmental family members into concrete treaties and movements.” (24)

However, a evaluation of the contemporary popularity of international human rights and environmental law may screen the mechanisms for raising environmental rights to the extent of jus cogens rights. For instance, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), whose negotiation was initiated in 1972 and signed in 1982, was considered by most nations to be CIL when it got here into pressure in 1994. (25)

II. CURRENT STATUS OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT No State today will publicly kingdom that it’s far within its sovereign rights to damage its a home environment, lots much less that of the international community, but maximum States do now not guarantee environmental protection as a primary human right. Currently, environmental law is composed of ordinarily Conventional International Law and some CIL. The former relies on specific consent and the latter on implied consent until a State avails itself of the Persistent Objector precept, which precludes it from being bound through even most CIL. Unlike human rights and global crimes, there may be no well-known environmental rights courtroom in existence nowadays. While the Law of the Sea Tribunal and different U.N. Forums (e.G., the ICJ) exist for attempting cases of treaty violations, non-treaty particular violations don’t have any international venue at present. Italian Supreme Court Justice Amedeo Postiglione states that

“[T]he human proper to the surroundings, need to have, on the global degree, a selected organ of protection for a essential criminal and political cause: the environment is not a proper of States but of individuals and cannot be correctly protected by using the International Court of Justice within the Hague because the predominantly financial pastimes of the States and current institutions are frequently at loggerheads with the human right to the environment.” (26)

Domestic treatments would have to be pursued first of the route. However, standing would be granted to NGOs, people, and States while such treatments proved futile or “the dispute raises issues of worldwide importance.” (27). For example, even though the ICJ has an “environmental chamber” and U.S. Courts often hire “unique masters” to address these forms of disputes, it is clear that the popularity of the human right to the environment desires a global court docket of its own to recognize this kind of proper and treatment international violations efficiently and equitably. (28)

III. THE JUS COGENS NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Irrespective of particular treaty obligations and domestic environmental rules, do States, or the international community as an entire, have an obligation to take measures to save you and shield towards environmental hazards?

Human rights are “claims of entitlement” that rise up “as of right” (31) and are independent of external justification; they may be “self-obtrusive” and essential to any person living dignified, wholesome and effective, and worthwhile lifestyles. As Louis Henkin points out:

“Human rights are not some summary, inchoate ‘right’; they may be described, unique claims indexed in worldwide devices together with the [U.N.’s] Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major covenants and conventions. They are those benefits deemed critical for a person’s well-being [sic], dignity, and achievement, and that mirror a not unusual feel of justice, fairness, and decency. [No longer are human rights regarded as grounded in or justified by utilitarianism,] natural regulation,… The social agreement, or every other political idea…[but] are derived from general concepts, or are required through customary ends-societal ends, including peace and justice; character ends that include human dignity, happiness, and success. [Like the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, these rights are] inalienable and imprescriptible; they can not be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they can not be misplaced by using having been usurped, or by using one’s failure to workout or assert them.” (32)

Henkin distinguishes among “immunity claims” (such as ‘the State can’t do X to me’; the hallmark of the U.S. Constitutional jurisprudential machine) and “resource claims” (such as ‘I have a proper to Y’) such that the character has the right to, as an example, loose speech, “food, housing, and other fundamental human wishes.” (33) In cutting-edge “global village,” the Right to a Healthy Environment is honestly an “aid declare” and a basic human need that transcends national boundaries.

According to R.G. Ramcharan, there may be “a strict responsibility… To take powerful measures” by States and the global community as an entire to defend the surroundings from the potential dangers of monetary improvement. (34) His role is that the Human Right to Life is a. Jus cogens, a non-derogate peremptory norm that via its very nature includes the right to a smooth environment. This obligation is clearly spelled out in multilateral treaties because of the UN Convention on Desertification, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. (35) It is expounded within the Stockholm, Rio, and Copenhagen Declarations as a central aspect of the principle of Sustainable Development. It bureaucracy the idea of NAFTA’s, the WTO’s and the European Union’s monetary development agreements, and the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified by way of maximum nations inside the world, such as the USA.

The Human Right to a Healthy Environment is explicitly contained inside the Inter-American and African Charters and within the constitution of over 50 international locations worldwide. Whether it is primarily based on treaties, CIL, or “simple concepts,” the obligation of the worldwide community to the surroundings is nowadays simply spelled out and enforceable through worldwide tribunals. For example, the Dhaka Honhat Amid Curiae Brief identified Argentina’s indigenous peoples’ rights to “an environment that helps physical and nonsecular well-being and improvement.” (36). Similarly, in a separate decision, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission upheld the proper of the Yanomami in Brazil to a wholesome and clean environment. (37) On a worldwide stage, the UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that environmental harm is “a violation of the proper to existence contained in Article 6(1) of the [ICCPR]”. (38)

Thus, nowadays, the erga omnes responsibility of States to take effective steps to safeguard the surroundings is a duty that no State can shirk or forget about. If it does, it runs the danger of prosecution by way of international courts and having to institute measures commensurate with its responsibility to defend its percentage of the “worldwide Commons.” Interestingly, the concept of jus cogens emerged after World War II due to the typically held view that the sovereignty of States excused them from violating any of the then so-called CILs. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “there may be a close connection among jus cogens and the recognition of ‘public order of the international community… Without expressly using the notion of jus cogens, the [ICJ] implied its existence whilst it noted duties erga omnes in its judgment… In the Barcelona Traction Case.” (39)

IV. THIRD GENERATION HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Is environmental safety is an erga omnes duty, that is, one owed to the international network as a whole as jus cogens human proper?

In a separate opinion to the Case Concerning the Gebecikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judge Weeramantry, the Vice President of the ICJ, expounded at the felony basis for sustainable development as a well-known precept of global regulation. In the system, he concludes that environmental safety is a customary erga omnes legal norm that is both CIL in addition to a general principle of regulation in step with me. In Gebecikovo, ostensibly to had been decided upon the merits of the treaty governing the building of strength flowers along the Danube, as well as using worldwide commonplace law, the ICJ held that the right to improvement must be balanced with the right to environmental protection by the principle of sustainable improvement. Even in the absence of a selected treaty provision, the idea of sustainable improvement has ended up a prison principle that is “a vital principle of modem worldwide regulation.” (forty)

Sustainable improvement is also diagnosed in State practice, which includes the Dublin Declaration with the aid of the European Council on the Environmental Imperative. (41) As such, sustainable development has in impact been raised to the level of CIL.

For example, the Martens Clause of the 1899 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land was interpreted in 1996 employing Judge Shahabudeen of the ICJ as presenting a legal foundation for inferring that general concept rise above custom and treaty, having their foundation in “standards of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.” (forty-two) According to Weeramantry, “when an obligation which includes the duty to shield the surroundings is so well normal that everyone citizen act upon it, that obligation is a part of the prison system in question… As well known standards of regulation recognized via civilized of countries.” (43)

Sustainable improvement acts as a reconciling principle among financial improvement and environmental protection. Just as financial improvement is an inalienable right of States’ self-determination, environmental protection is an erga omnes responsibility of all States to benefit the global commons that each percentage. “The principle of sustainable improvement is for that reason part of modern worldwide law through purpose no longer only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also with the aid of reason of its wide and general recognition through the worldwide network,” and now not simply employing growing nations. (44)

Drawing upon the wealthy records of diverse cultures’ legal structures and what he calls “residing law,” Judge Weeramantry factors out that conventional respect for nature has been a guiding ethical and criminal principle for monetary improvement at some point in history. The ICJ has additionally diagnosed those ideas in such previous choices as Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain) in 1972. (45) Judge Weeramantry concludes that the “ingrained values of any civilization are the supply from which its legal concepts derive… [and that environmental protection is] amongst those pristine and time-honored values which command global popularity.” (forty-six)

The first technology of Human Rights had been the ones declared with the aid of the “smooth law” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the proper to life liberty and security of character.” Art. 3. It turned into modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights and the American Declaration of Independence. This was echoed within the binding ICCPR (“Every person has the inherent proper to existence.”, ICCPR, Art. 6(1) (1966)), which the U.S. Has ratified, and the American Convention on Political and Civil Rights of the Inter-American System (which attracts direct connections among human rights and environmental rights).

The 2d technology of human rights emerged with the Economic, Social, and Cultural (ECOSOC) Rights evolved in such treaties because of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; which the U.S. Has now not ratified), and lots of foreign State’s Constitutions (e.G., Germany, Mexico, and Costa Rica). These consist of the right to the unfastened desire of work, too (generally loose) education, rest, entertainment, and many others. Highly complied with in Europe, these rights have moreover been accelerated via the EU of their European Social Charter (1961), creating a whole lot of regulation for the safety of workers, girls, and youngsters.

The third and modern era of human rights has emerged from the Eco-Peace-Feminist Movement. These include the Right to Development, the Right to A Safe Environment, and the Right to Peace. In essence, this 1/3 era of rights addresses the hassle of poverty as a social (and therefore legally redressable) unwell that lies at the core of environmental issues and violations. The “environmental justice” motion considers cases that show that environmental pollution is disproportionately generic in minority communities, whether or not at a nearby or worldwide degree. Authors John Cronin & Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have explicitly entitled their the observer of environmental pollutants along the Hudson River The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim Our Environment as a Basic Human Right. (47) This predominantly U.S. Motion specializes in “environmental racism” as a way for searching for remedies or the disproportionate pollutants of minority communities as violations of cutting-edge civil rights rules by “exploring] the use of the international locations’ environmental legal guidelines to defend the rights of the negative.” (forty-eight)

V. RECOGNITION, COMMITMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT OF A RIGHT: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AS A MODEL FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING The key mechanisms for setting up binding international law are the reputation of duty or proper, dedication to its safety, and powerful enforcement methods. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the “maximum vital precedent in global regulation for the control of worldwide environmental harms.” (forty-nine). It serves as a model for plenty of other environmental concerns that require decision-making in the face of medical uncertainty, global non-consensus, and high harm avoidance fees. It turned into the primary worldwide “precautionary” treaty to cope with an international environmental difficulty whilst now not even “measurable evidence of environmental harm existed.” (50) Although ozone depletion by using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). The attendant harms of overexposure to dangerous ultraviolet radiation were suspected of employing scientists inside the early Nineteen Seventies. It changed into not until 1985 and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer that international action was taken to cope with the trouble.

THE VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER At the Vienna Convention, the U.S. Represented over 50% of the global consumption of CFCs in a $3 billion market for aerosol propellants alone. Overall, CFC products represented a $20 billion marketplace and about a quarter of one million jobs in America alone. (fifty-one) The Clean Air Amendments of 1977 and the 1978 EPA ban on all “non-important” uses of CFC in aerosol propellants became quickly accompanied across the world with the aid of similar bans by Sweden, Canada, and Norway. (fifty-two) These moves have been an instantaneous reaction to consumer stress and market needs by newly environmentally-conscious purchases. (fifty-three) Incentives have also been furnished to the developing countries to “ramp up” at reasonable levels of reductions. (54)

Creative ratification incentives included requiring the best eleven of the top-thirds of CFC generating countries to ratify and produce the treaty into pressure. (fifty-five) As a result of such flexibility, innovation, consensus, and cooperation, the Montreal Protocol has been hailed as a prime achievement in international diplomacy and international environmental regulation. Today almost every nation inside the Global is a member (over 175 States).

THE LONDON ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS OF 1990 By 1990, medical confirmation of worldwide warming and the depletion of the ozone layer led to the London Adjustments and Amendments. Again, U.S. organizations that include Dupont, IBM, and Motorola reacted to large terrible media interest and promised to halt entire manufacturing by 2000.

Non-compliance methods had been made even extra user-pleasant, and no sanction for non-compliance became initiated towards a country that becomes failing to attain quotas even as performing in suitable religion. Technology switch becomes made in a “fair and favorable way,” with developed nations taking the lead in helping growing nations attain compliance. (56) The U.S. instituted “ozone depletion taxes,” which did a good deal to get greater complete compliance, as well as promoting studies into CFC options. (fifty-seven) To emphasize the large enforcement mechanisms hired, consider that via early 1998, the U.S. Justice Department had prosecuted sixty-two individuals and seven businesses for unlawful smuggling into the emergent CFC black markets. Despite a global crackdown using the FBI, EPA, CIA, and Interpol within the worldwide police attempt Operation Breeze, 5 to ten thousand lots are smuggled annually into Miami on my own, second only to cocaine smuggling. (58) In 1992, the Copenhagen Amendments required every State birthday party (nearly the complete world) to institute “processes and institutional mechanisms” to determine non-compliance and enforcement. (fifty-nine)

VI. CONCLUSION: CRITICAL WEAKNESS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

The crucial weaknesses of the existing machine encompass self-serving pronouncements by way of non-complying States, lack of powerful enforcement mechanisms, political obstacles consisting of State sovereignty and the “margin of appreciation,” and the shortage of time-honored consensus on basic human rights terminology and their enforcement. As long as States can forget about commonplace violations of human rights (sporadic instances of torture, occasional “disappearances”) and shun the edicts of human rights judicial choices, there can be no effective machine of international human rights enforcement. Moreover, until a State commits such outrageous acts on a mass scale that affects world peace, consisting of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, it can often prevent its obligations underneath international human rights treaties.

Few international agreements admit of ordinary jurisdiction for his or her violation through any State in the international. All CIL, but, is by way of its very nature prosecutable under common jurisdiction. “Crimes against humanity” (e.G., War Crimes, Genocide, and State-supported torture) are universally held to be beneath frequent jurisdiction, normally inside the International Court of Justice, advert hot struggle crime tribunals the brand new International Criminal Court.

While interpretive gaps exist, it isn’t improbable that the proper to healthy surroundings can be extrapolated from present-day worldwide environmental treaties and CIL. At the treaty level, the protection of the surroundings appears to be of paramount importance to the worldwide community. At the level of CIL, there may be lots of proof that the right to healthy surroundings is already an across the world, including the right, as a minimum as some distance as transboundary pollutants are worried. In any case, it seems to be universally held that it should be included as a right. The impression is that there’s an unmistakable consensus in this regard. “Soft law” over the years turns into CIL.

The U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development launched the Earth Charter in 1987. It has but to be absolutely applied on an international scale. Its huge topics include recognizing and taking care of the surroundings, ecological integrity, social and monetary justice, democracy, nonviolence, and peace. (60) The argument may be made that the safety of the environment has reached the brink of Customary International Law by way of now. Whether the international locations of the sector choose to thereafter apprehend the proper to healthy surroundings as jus cogens human right will depend upon the close to conventional consensus and political will of a maximum of the countries of the sector. Until then, so long as human life is still destroyed employing “human rights ratifying” nations, how much enforcement will be hired towards violators of environmental laws. In contrast, the right to a healthy environment is not upheld as a simple human right stays to be seen. It will take the cooperation of all international locations to make certain that this turns into a not-derogate, unalienable proper and recognizing it as critical to the Right to Life.

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the USA, § 102 cm. Ok (1987).
The elements can also be located inside the Vienna Convention, Article 53.
2. For example, the Right to Life is free from Torture, Genocide, and Murder.
Three. R(3d)FLUS § 102(l)(a) and cut. H.
Four. Id., § 702 (my emphasis).
5. Mark W. Janis, An Introduction to International Law 6 (3d. ed, Aspen Law & Business 1999).
6. R3dFRLUS § 102(2).
7. Janis, supra.
Eight. David Hunter, et al., International Environmental Law and Policy, p. 306 (2nd. Ed., Foundation Press 2002).
9. Paul Szasz, International Norm-Making, in Edith Brown Weiss, Ed., ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1995), as quoted in Id, p. 307.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
Thirteen. R3dFRLUS § 102(l)(c), as offered in Donoho, supra.
14. Supra, R3dFRLUS §102(four).
15. Shabtai Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law 69 (1984), as quoted in Hunter, Id, p. 317.
Sixteen. Hunter, supra, p. 316 (Foundation Press 2002).
17. Id, p. 316.
18. Janis, supra, p. 29.
19. Id, p. 312.
20. Jonathan Charney, Universal International Law, 87 Am.J.Int’l.L. 529, at 543-forty eight (1993), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 322.
21. Id.
22. Gunther Handl, The Legal Mandate of Multilateral Development Banks as Agents for Change Toward Sustainable Development, 92 Am.J.Int’l.L. 642, at 660-62 (1998), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 324.
23. Daniel Bodansky, Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law, three Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. One zero five, a hundred and ten-119 (1995), as quoted in Hunter, Id.
24. Id.
25. Id, p. 659.
26. Amedeo Postiglione, The Global Environmental Crisis: The Need for and International Court of the Environment, ICEF INTERNATIONAL REPORT at 33-36 (1996), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 495.
27. Id., p. 496.
28. Id.
29. Id, p. 1298.
30. Id, p. 1299.
31. L. Henkin, “The Human Rights Idea,” The Age of Rights (reprinted in Henkin, et al., Human Rights, 1999), as provided in Donoho, supra, p. 14-sixteen.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. The Right to Life, p. 310 (The Hague, 1983), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 1297.
35. Hunter, supra, p. 341.
36. Id, p. 1299.
37. Id, p. 1294.
38. Id, p. 1295.
39. Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 864. (West 1999).
Forty. Hunter, supra, p. 339-341.
41. Id footnotes 1 through 6, pp. 341-342.
42. Id, pp. 317-318.
43. Id, p. 345.
Forty-four. Id, p. 342.
Forty-five. Id, p. 315.
Forty-six. Id, p. 344.
47. In particular, see pages 35, 38, 159, 162, 177-199 and 221 (Scribner 1997).
48. New York Law Journal, January 1993, Friday, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, p. 3. See also, DISCUSSION: REFLECTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, sixty-five Alb. L. Rev. 357, 2001.
49. Hunter, supra, p. 526.
50. Id, p. 527, quoting Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy 2 (1998)
51. Id, p. 532.
Fifty-two. Id, p. 535.
Fifty-three. Id, p. 542.
Fifty-four. Id, p. 545.
55. Id.
56. Id, p. 550-54.
Fifty-seven. Id, p. 562.
Fifty-eight. Id, p. 559.
59. Id, p. 566-67.
60. Roland Huber, International Environmental Law Seminar: Human Rights and the Environment, p. 24, in Donoho, Douglas L., INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS (revealed by the Shepard Brad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University, 2002).