The Judicial Recognition and Enforcement of the Right to Environment: Differing Perspectives from Nigeria and India (R. Temitope Ako)

Author

Rhuks Temitope Ako

Keywords

Human Rights, Environmental Rights, Comparative Law, Common Law, Constitutional Law, Nigeria, India, Political Economy, Oil

Abstract

Environmental rights are one of the emerging rights in the arena of international human rights law and international environmental law. This paper analyses the judiciary’s roles in advancing the right to a healthy environment in Nigeria and India. These two countries have certain similarities and yet there exists a remarkable difference between the levels of recognition of the right to environment in both countries. The concept of environment rights will be traced by drawing the link between the environment, human rights and sustainable development. Further, the Nigerian oil industry has impacts on the country’s political economy and the environment of host-communities. In fact, there are reasons why there are certain peculiarities that Nigerian courts face in deciding oil-related environmental cases. An analysis of legal provisions and statutes of both the countries will be presented to highlight the status of the right to environment.

Citation

(2010) 3 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review 423

Paper

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmail

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing (EHRA)

Author

Environment and Human Rights Advisory

Keywords

Fracking, Hydraulic Fracturing, Human Rights, New York City

Abstract

This report assesses the human rights impacts of hydraulic fracturing

Citation

Report, Environment and Human Rights Advisory, 2011.

Publication

A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Environmental Justice and International Environmental Law (Gonzalez)

Author

Carmen G Gonzalez

Keywords

Environmental justice, sustainable development, equity, ethics, colonialism, post-colonialism, special and differential treatment, common but differentiated responsibility, ecological debt, climate change, human rights, environmental human rights, Aarhus Convention, transnational corporations

Abstract

Environmental justice lies at the heart of many environmental disputes between the global North and the global South as well as grassroots environmental struggles within nations. However, the discourse of international environmental law is often ahistorical and technocratic. It neither educates the North about its inordinate contribution to global environmental problems nor provides an adequate response to the concerns of nations and communities disproportionately burdened by poverty and environmental degradation. This article examines some of the root causes of environmental injustice among and within nations from the colonial period to the present, and discusses several strategies that can be used to integrate environmental justice into the broader corpus of international law so as to promote social and economic justice while protecting the planet’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Citation

Shawkat Alam, Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan, Tareq M R Chowdhury, Erika Techera (eds.),ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Routledge, 2013); Seattle University School of Law Research Paper No. 12-11.

Publication

Environmental Justice and International Environmental Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Payment for ‘ecosystem services’ and the ‘green economy’: green-washing or something new? (K. Wilkinson)

Author

Kate Wilkinson

Keywords

ecofeminism, green economy, payment for ecosystem services, ecosystems, environment, capitalism, free market, economics, REDDES, REDD+, UNFCCC, ITTO, forests, natural resources, gender, participation

Abstract

Using an ecofeminist critical analysis, this paper examines the extent to which two forest-related ‘payments for ecosystem services’ (PES) schemes maintain a mainstream anti-nature and exploitative conceptualization of human/nature relationships. It does so by integrating various ecofeminist themes to analyse the two PES schemes and to assess the extent to which they can protect women and nature while marketizing and commodifying the environment. The author examines the justifications for integrating PES into a green economy, including the proposed benefits resulting from the implementation of PES, and safeguards ensuring the inclusion and participation of local communities. The author concludes that an ecofeminist examination highlights the inherently exploitative nature of PES and its continuation of the currently exploitative free market paradigm.

Citation

(2014) 5/2 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 168-191

Paper

Payment for ‘ecosystem services’ and the ‘green economy’: green-washing or something new?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmail

‘A price for everything?’: The ‘natural capital controversy’ (R.Read, M.Scott Cato)

Authors

Rupert Read and Molly Scott Cato

Keywords

sustainability, natural capital, capital controversy, ecosystem services

Abstract

‘Sustainability’ is a contested concept. This contestability – and its basis in deep, oppositional convictions – means that the argument between those who would substitute financial for natural capital and those who believe that such substitution is impossible and/or dangerous is unlikely to be resolved. Some of those in the latter group who have previously argued for a strong view of sustainability (one that privileges nature or perhaps ‘natural capital’ as primary and sacrosanct) appear to have despaired of their ability to influence policy and have capitulated to capitalist hegemony – in semantic terms, at least – by adopting its language, that is to say, the language of ‘money’. Our purpose in this paper is to argue that this is a logically inconsistent position and that acceptance of the monetary valuation of nature necessarily entails acceptance of its commodification – a commodification inimical to sustainability in the deep sense. We further suggest that this debate might be called the ‘natural capital controversy’. Thus we explicitly draw a parallel between this debate and the so-called ‘capital controversy’ that took place in some of the leading economics journals in the 1950s to 1970s.

Citation

(2014) 5/2 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 153-167

Paper

‘A price for everything?’: The ‘natural capital controversy’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmail