Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Environmental rights are diagonal if they are held by individuals or groups against the governments of states other than their own. The potential importance of such rights is obvious: governments' actions often affect the environment beyond their jurisdiction, and those who live in and rely upon the environment affected would like to be able to exercise rights against the governments causing them harm. Although international law has not adopted a comprehensive, uniform approach to such rights, human rights law and international environmental law have begun to develop some possible bases for diagonal environmental rights. Human rights law operates primarily along a vertical axis, setting out individuals' rights against their governments and the corresponding duties owed by the governments, but it may also be diagonal, giving rise to duties on the part of states that extend beyond their own territory. The scope and extent of diagonal human rights are often controversial, and environmental rights face additional difficulties, because the environmental protection required by human rights is clarifying only gradually, on a case-by-case basis. To the extent that human rights require such protection when aligned vertically, it would be logical to conclude that they require the same degree of protection whenever they may be aligned diagonally. Human rights law provides few precedents to support that conclusion, however. Compared to human rights law, international environmental law (IEL) provides a clearer and more specific set of duties with respect to environmental protection. Moreover, most IEL is extraterritorial, in that it requires states to regulate actions within their control that could harm the environment beyond their territory. The problem with grounding diagonal environmental rights in IEL is that, in contrast to human rights law, most IEL operates along a horizontal axis: its duties are owed by states to other states, not to private actors. If the challenge for human rights law is to extend rights from the vertical axis to the diagonal, the challenge for IEL is to derive diagonal rights from horizontal ones.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
W. J. Talbott (2010). Human Rights and Human Well-Being. Oxford University Press.
Angus Taylor (1996). Animal Rights and Human Needs. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):249-264.
Nghia Hoang, International Human Rights Law and the Protection of the Individual's Rights in the Age of Terrorism: The Case of the United Kingdom.
Chris Miller (2003). Environmental Rights in a Welfare State? A Comment on DeMerieux. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 (1):111-125.
Ovadia Ezra (2003). Human Rights. Social Philosophy Today 19:217-235.
James W. Nickel & Eduardo Viola (1994). Integrating Environmentalism and Human Rights. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):265-273.
Eduardo Viola (1994). Integrating Environmentalism and Human Rights. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):265-273.
Shari Collins-Chobanian (2000). Beyond Sax and Welfare Interests. Environmental Ethics 22 (2):133-148.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #41,973 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?