Collections
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NORMATIVE, LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR GREENING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Moses Maranga,[*] Jack Busalile Mwimali,[†] Irene Ndirangu,[‡] Edgar Ayongah.[§]
Abstract
This paper aims to highlight the relationship between the operations of the justice system and environmental sustainability through a greening perspective. It investigates the legal, normative and practical framework adopted to implement environmentally friendly initiatives within the justice system. Specifically, it seeks to highlight the obligations derived from existing legal and normative instruments and how these obligations have a bearing on the operations of the justice system actors and the overall administration of justice.
1. Introduction
The justice system's role in environmental conservation is not just important, but it is of paramount significance. It not only administers and enforces civil and criminal laws that have an environmental bearing but also plays a pivotal role in the entire process of environmental protection. The system's responsibility to ensure social order, safeguard individual and collective environmental rights and establish processes for resolving disputes is a cornerstone of environmental conservation. Its role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of all members of society extends to environmental dispute adjudication. Whether addressing civil matters like resolving land disputes or handling criminal cases involving alleged violations of environmental laws, the system is required to ensure fair and just outcomes, provide a structured and transparent process for addressing conflicts, and uphold legal accountability in environmental matters. This not only helps maintain social order but also contributes to the overall stability and well-being of the community.
Furthermore, the justice system institutions, in carrying out their functions, are not required to be just reactive in addressing environmental breaches, crimes and harms They are also duty-bound to be proactive in promoting sustainable practices that uphold environmental well-being and foster a more environmentally conscious society. Beyond the primary responsibility of enforcing compliance with environmental dictates in the law, the justice sector institutions are also duty bearers required to carry out their mandate in an environmentally compliant manner since they cannot be enforcers on the one hand and violators on the other.
Given the increasing recognition of the human contribution to environmental degradation, the role of the justice sector in addressing the impact of climate change has expanded significantly. However, there is still a gap in understanding and action within the sector regarding how various actors can intervene. This study, one in a series of publications arising from research carried out by the National Council on Administration of Justice (NCAJ), aims to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between the functioning of the justice system and environmental sustainability. Its goal is to enhance existing knowledge and provide guidance for practitioners looking to implement environmentally friendly initiatives within the justice system. Specifically, this paper seeks to highlight the legal, normative and practical framework that governs the justice sector in the process of greening.
2. Conceptualising the Justice Sector from an Environmental Conservation Framework
The justice system is a complex network of interconnected institutions, each with its own responsibilities, processes, and procedures. These institutions intersect during service delivery, shaping the administration and accessibility of justice. Key institutions include law enforcement and investigative agencies, prosecution bodies, trial institutions such as courts and tribunals, correctional facilities like prisons, probation institutions and civil justice organisations. Additionally, non-state entities such as law firms, private sector organisations, and civil society groups also play integral roles in the system. Each of the players has a core role in the administration of justice as mandated by the law and is individually required to develop its own processes and procedures to effectively perform its duties.
In environmental justice, the law enforcement and investigative roles are principally undertaken by the police through criminal investigation directorates and by specialised entities such as environmental management authorities, who are required to be proactive to detect and prevent the occurrence of breaches of law, and when they occur, to pursue the offenders and process them through the civil and criminal processes.
The prosecutorial institutions and litigation departments, for their part, are required to pick the baton from the investigation actors to identify whether breaches worthy of litigation have occurred and determine the best approach to address them through an adjudicative process. In this respect, in 2022, the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) adopted an Opinion on the role of prosecutors in environmental protection, noting the global environmental concern.
[1] The opinion pointed to the necessity of the adoption of legal tools and investigative techniques at the disposal of prosecutors to combat environmental crime. The Opinion drew a link between environmental crimes and other serious crimes, notably organised crime and corruption, as well as crimes committed in the context of armed conflicts through means of warfare. Furthermore, it recommended parallel financial investigations simultaneously focusing on both environmental crimes and the connected money laundering offences to identify larger criminal networks and disrupt financial flows as a mode of combating environmental degradation.
The prosecution and litigation departments work closely with judicial institutions, such as courts and tribunals, to resolve disputes that arise in society. [2] Environmental dispute proceedings often involve balancing environmental protection with economic development. To guide the adjudication of environmental disputes, three key principles have been suggested: First, environmental protection and economic development can coexist. Second, conflict management and dispute resolution can lead to creative solutions and improved relationships. Lastly, technology has transformed global business interactions and can be used in conflict resolution. [3]
At the tail end, the correctional services seek to ensure accountability for those who have gone through the legal processes and are convicted. According to Moser (2023), jails contribute to massive environmental degradation due to practices such as the massive discarding of plastic and papers that are not recycled and the massive use of electricity, which releases toxins into the atmosphere. In their guide to greening corrections, Feldbaum et al. identified various ways correctional facilities can green their facilities and operations.[4] Some of the initiatives proposed include constructing buildings with low energy and resource consumption, educating and training inmates to prepare for re-entry, including environmental literacy on the green economy and opportunities offered by green-collar jobs. As White and Graham affirm, community gardening, taking care of endangered species of animals, beekeeping, and greening prison gardens are essential greening initiatives that can be undertaken by correctional service.[5] Moreover, since correctional facilities are mandated to provide offenders with programs for re-entry back into the community, it has been suggested that sustainable justice ought to adopt a community-based approach to help transform deviant individuals into law-abiding citizens.[6] This approach should prioritise improving offender outcomes over punishment and consider the health and physical needs of people interacting with the justice system. Hence, according to Feldbaum et al, educating inmates on environmental literacy for re-entry is vital.[7]
It is notable that all the institutions involved in the process are also duty-bearers under the environmental conservation framework. Therefore, while undertaking their core mandates, they are also required to adopt measures that are sustainable and limit their negative impact on the environment. They must be guided by the normative and legal framework aimed at greening their spheres of influence.
3. The Normative and Legal Framework for Greening the Justice System
To operationalise the justice system, states must adopt principles through which they commit to specific actions or abstentions to achieve certain ends. The commitments are often in the form of national legislation and policies providing the guiding framework regulating state and individual actions and priorities, as well as normative instruments and binding agreements in the international and regional spheres.
At the national level, policies and legislation play a crucial role in shaping the priorities and creating binding obligations for all participants in the justice system. These measures are essential for empowering coercive actions when necessary to enforce these obligations. In this context, civil and criminal justice structures are deployed within the national system to effectively regulate the conduct of both public and private entities, ensuring accountability and adherence to legal and ethical standards.[8]
On the other hand, international obligations on states and other actors primarily arise from states’ commitments to certain norms. These norms may be expressed in declarations of political or moral commitments by states. Although these non-binding commitments are not intended to create legal rights and obligations among the states, over time, they may concretise into binding obligations in the form of customary international law through consistent practice by states.[9] Other commitments emerge from treaties – the formal, legally binding written agreements concluded by sovereign states either bilaterally or multilaterally. [10] Under the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith.[11]
The transboundary nature of environmental concerns necessitates that they are addressed at the national as well as international, and regional levels. Thus, many environmental legal and normative instruments on environmental protection must guide the justice sector on their role in environmental protection through greening processes. The following section reviews the instruments that have the potential to significantly affect the greening of the justice system.
3.1 National Framework for Greening their Justice Sector
Appreciating the exigencies of environmental conservation, states have developed policies and laws within their municipal systems from which legal obligations are derived to regulate the environment. Some of these regulations are found in policies and laws generally aimed at governing how humans interact with their environment, seeking to protect humanity from the harmful effects of their activities. For example, national environmental policies and laws usually seek to address air and water quality by controlling the emission of pollutants and providing for waste management rules to regulate the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of all manner of waste. States have also developed policies and laws to govern the use of chemicals in human activities and provide the framework for the clean-up of contaminated environments by the removal of contaminants and pollutants from environmental and chemical safety.
Other state regulations include policies and laws that govern the management of natural resources, such as forests, minerals, or fisheries, and related topics. Most of these require environmental impact assessments to determine the impact of human activities on the environment. In contrast, other policies and laws provide for resource sustainability by governing the ownership and use of water resources, regulating minerals and mining activities, and determining how resources such as plants, wildlife, and fish are exploited and how their benefits are shared.
Within the national laws, the mandates of the various justice system institutions require that they undertake particular roles in enforcing the existing environmental laws. Thus, modern statutes generally create environmental offences such as wildlife crimes, illegal mining, pollution crimes, illegal fishing, and illegal logging. Common law regulations have also traditionally allowed private actions for environmental-related harm.[12] For instance, the law of nuisance has been employed to deal with such cases as the explosion of improperly constructed water reservoirs,[13] foul smells emanating from human activities such as pigsties[14] and improper dumping of garbage.[15] These statutory and common law mandates require their holders, such as environmental management bodies, prosecutors, and judicial bodies, to act on the breaches of environmental laws or to resolve disputes related to the exploitation of the natural environment.
Furthermore, the justice sector actors, being crucial members of society, are bound by the laws and policies established at the national level. These regulations prevent them from causing harm to the environment and necessitate that they adhere to specific measures outlined in the law to mitigate any negative impact on the environment stemming from their activities.
3.2 International Normative Framework for Greening
Over the years, global institutions have set out to articulate principles that are very instrumental in the current greening movement that ought to inform the justice system's activities. These are in the form of declarations, charters and goals. Some of the most critical are highlighted below.
3.2.1 The Stockholm Declaration
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which was held in Stockholm in 1972, was the first world conference to make the environment a major issue. Out of it came the Stockholm Declaration, a non-binding instrument with 26 principles that emphasise international environmental issues linking economic development, pollution and the general welfare of the people. The Conference also came up with several critical resolutions touching on the stewardship of natural resources while carrying out day-to-day activities.
Within the Declaration, Principle 2 emphasises the finite nature of natural resources and highlights the collective obligation to safeguard them. At the same time, Principle 3 establishes a responsibility to uphold the quality of renewable resources through preservation efforts. Other key principles in the Declaration include human-centredness,[16] sustainable development,[17] preventive measures,[18] compensation for victims,[19] and cooperation[20] in addressing the exploitation of natural resources and preserving the environment.
Within the justice system, the Declaration inspires the creation of policies, laws and guidelines to tackle environmental challenges. It creates a framework for the development and review of laws that strengthen litigation of climate-change disputes. Justice sector agencies like policing authorities, prosecution and courts play an essential role in the protection and enforcement of the obligations stated in the Declaration. They do so through the investigation, arrest, prosecution and trial of perpetrators destroying renewable resources. Moreover, the justice system institutions must also be guided by these principles in safeguarding resources within their control as they carry out their mandates in line with Principle 5, which articulates the need to protect non-renewable resources.
3.2.2 World Charter for Nature
In 1982, The United Nations General Assembly developed a code of conduct for the protection and preservation of global natural habitats and resources titled the World Charter for Nature. The non-binding Code established five “principles of conservation” by which all human conduct affecting nature should be guided and judged.[21]
The Charter emphasized that social and economic development cannot be considered without taking natural systems into account. Thus, Article 23 states that all persons should have the opportunity to participate in formulating decisions through legislation that directly concerns their environment, individually or with others. Furthermore, it is envisaged that all individuals shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.
In line with the provisions in the Charter, it is the duty of the justice system to enforce laws that seek to safeguard nature, provide redress mechanisms for violation of environmental conservation norms and enforce community involvement and participation in environmental decision-making. This involves upholding regulations that protect the environment, as well as addressing any environmental breaches. Additionally, it is the duty of the justice system institutions to ensure that communities have a voice in environmental matters and are actively engaged in the decision-making processes that affect their local environments.
3.2.3 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development was made during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development that was held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Declaration reaffirmed the commitments made during the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. It made environmental protection an integral part of the development process to equitably meet the environmental needs of present and future generations.
Critical to the functioning of the justice sector, Principle 26 provides that states shall resolve all their environmental disputes and conflicts peacefully and appropriately per the UN Charter. The Declaration also adopts principles encompassing certain rights that ought to be enforced through the justice system. For example, Principle 10 recognises the right to information, access to justice and sound environmental governance. It specifies that states shall provide adequate access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, in environmental matters.
Greening the justice system requires enforcing all three access rights established under Principle 10. Justice agencies are required to support access to information and better governance by applying progressive laws and policies. Moreover, the proposed peaceful and consensual mode of dispute resolution has implications for the justice sector, which extensively advocates and entrenches alternative methods of resolving conflicts.
3.2.4 Sustainable Development Goals
As part of the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030, the United Nations (UN) embraced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. These goals are interconnected and cover 17 areas and 169 targets on critical social, economic and environmental issues. The primary aim of SDGs is to create a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive global society.
Given the increasing challenges related to climate change, SDGs offer strategic interventions that can guide the greening of the justice system. For instance, SDG 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. It targets increasing the use of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydropower, and improving energy efficiency. Since the justice system institutions use energy, especially in transportation and electric power, the proposal to conserve and use renewable energy applies to it. Justice sector agencies can use green fleets to minimize carbon emissions by vehicles. Additionally, the justice sector could upscale the use of solar energy to decrease its reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
SDG 11 on Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities seeks to promote sustainable transportation options, sustainable cities and communities that can reduce the carbon footprint. Since the justice system buildings are located in cities and other urban areas, implementing measures to reduce commuting by staff and clients to these institutional buildings would reduce carbon footprint emissions. By encouraging public transportation, carpooling, cycling and walking, the justice sector can improve air quality and reduce congestion in urban areas, aligning with SDG 11's vision of creating inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities.
For its part, SDG 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production aims to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, including reducing waste generation and promoting resource efficiency. As part of society, justice system institutions generate waste and would, therefore, require proper waste management at their internal operational level. By implementing comprehensive waste management systems and promoting recycling programs, the justice sector institutions can minimize their environmental footprint and contribute to climate resilience. Additionally, the system enforces laws on waste management, including investigating and prosecuting violators.
Moreover, SDG 13 on Climate Action focuses on combating climate change and its impacts, covering, among others, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting climate resilience, and enhancing climate-related education and awareness. The hallmark of the justice system is to investigate and resolve disputes that may arise timeously, including timely punishment of offenders who fail to reduce or comply with GHG emissions requirements domiciled in various laws and policies. Moreover, by increasing the use of digital documentation and electronic filing systems, resilience and adaptation to climate-related hazards can be increased in the justice system.
Lastly, SDG 16 on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions emphasizes having practical and accountable institutions that promote justice, inclusiveness and access to information. By reorienting justice sector institutions to enhanced internal accountability, the institutions would optimally promote climate justice and environmental protection. The justice system is expected to ensure adherence to the rule of law on all matters, including those on greening. The SDG also recognizes that vulnerable and marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted by climate change, which requires the justice system to strengthen mechanisms to protect these groups.
3.3 International Legal Framework
Beyond the foregoing non-binding instruments, there are also binding provisions in international law which determine how the justice system should operate. Some of the notable ones are highlighted below.
3.3.1. Stockholm Convention on Waste Management
The Stockholm Convention on Waste Management is a global treaty that was adopted by the United Nations in 2004. The treaty aims to promote effective strategies and practices for managing waste and preventing the release of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) into the environment. The Convention aims to protect human health and the environment from hazardous, long-lasting chemicals by restricting and eliminating their production, use, trade, release and storage.[22] It was created to address the growing concerns regarding waste disposal's environmental impacts and encourage countries to adopt sustainable practices. The declaration emphasizes the importance of reducing waste generation, promoting recycling and reuse, and implementing environmentally sound methods for waste disposal.
The Convention has implications for the justice system due to its role in the apprehension and prosecution of violators where supporting laws have been enacted.
3.3.2. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted during the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The UNFCCC sought to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system by stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Enhancing international cooperation and partnerships on climate justice endeavours were underscored in accordance with the UNFCCC principle of international cooperation. Further, green infrastructure and practices are prominently featured, echoing the principle of promoting sustainable development pathways. Therefore, by retrofitting the justice system buildings with energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy systems, and sustainable materials would reduce carbon footprints.
By training on environmental awareness, stakeholders in the justice system can align with the UNFCCC principle of education and public awareness. Hence, a human interface of empowering judges, lawyers, police, prosecutors, and correctional service staff would support efforts to minimise environmental interference. Also, establishing specialised environmental courts would align with the UNFCCC principle of adaptation. Since they would expedite the handling of disputes on climate change impacts. Moreover, community-based conflict resolution processes can promote local ownership and sustainability, amplifying the effectiveness of climate justice initiatives.
By encouraging the utilisation of mediation and arbitration to resolve environmental disputes, justice actors can mitigate adversarial confrontations and foster collaborative problem-solving. This aligns with the UNFCCC principle of inclusivity and participatory approaches.
3.3.3. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
Another outcome of the 1992 Rio Conference was the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Convention is a binding agreement that promotes the conservation and sustainable use of the earth's biodiversity. It calls for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from using genetic resources. The outcome points to commitments to upholding the rule of law in climate change matters, especially investigating and resolving disputes on sharing benefits. Justice sector agencies can introduce continuous professional development courses on environmental protection. Further, by fostering partnerships amongst institutions, it would be easier to leverage collective expertise and resources to effectively tackle environmental issues.
3.3.4. The Paris Agreement
Adopted in 2015, the Paris Agreement builds on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), setting ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It calls for limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The Agreement is supported by an extensive framework of transparency and accountability, which involves commitments from all the parties. It requires countries to submit a national inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources biannually for them to be evaluated, except for less developed countries and small island states, which may submit this information voluntarily. Further, the Paris Agreement encourages signatory countries to establish legal frameworks instrumental in realising climate justice.
It has been noted that in order to ensure the Paris Agreement is realised, there is a need to develop robust policies on enhancing energy efficiency and addressing carbon emissions from construction materials. Also, improving policies to reduce carbon emissions through sustainable practices is necessary. The justice sector can enforce policies and laws, influence its constructions by including climate actions and strengthen the accountability envisaged in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Hence, the Agreement provides an impetus for the justice sector agencies to support the implementation of the regulatory frameworks developed.
3.3.5. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is an agreement that was adopted during the Conference of Parties (COP) 15 in 2022. It supports the achievement of Agenda 2030 by halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity. It builds upon the successes, lessons learned and gaps of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the achievements of other relevant multilateral environmental agreements. The agreement contains four long-term global goals and 23 targets. The goals, in summary, aim at protecting and restoring biodiversity, prospering human beings with nature, ensuring fair sharing of benefits of resources and investing and collaborating on adequate implementation tools. The global goals are envisaged to be attained by 2050, while the targets are to be achieved by 2030.
The realisation of the goals is to be tracked by implementing a monitoring framework covering capacity development and technical and scientific cooperation. There are targets in the framework that have direct, indirect or combined implications for the justice sector, especially when the enforcement of supporting laws and investigations and resolutions of disputes may arise during the implementation.
The justice sector institutions have investigation, prosecution, and enforcement mandates and can directly contribute towards reversing biodiversity loss through greening. For instance, ensuring sustainable, safe and legal trade of wild species and reducing pollution to non-harmful levels would require the involvement of the justice system institutions.
3.4. Regional Frameworks Legal and Normative Framework
Besides the international normative and legal framework, there are regional structures providing frameworks for the greening movement that should guide the justice sector in addressing environmental concerns. Some of the notable ones existing within the African, European and Asian regions are highlighted below.
3.4.1 The African Regional Framework
Within the African region, Agenda 2063 of the African Union, adopted during the 24th Ordinary Assembly of the Heads of State and Governments of the African Union in 2015 in Addis Ababa, serves as a comprehensive strategic framework for the socio-economic transformation of the African continent. It envisions an integrated, prosperous, and peaceful Africa, propelled by its citizens to become a dynamic force in the global arena. This agenda aims to address significant challenges, including climate change, through collaborative efforts and by leveraging diverse skills and disciplines available within African Union Member States. A key objective of Agenda 2063 is to contribute to global climate change mitigation efforts by aligning with international targets. This commitment includes striving to limit the increase in global temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as stipulated in international agreements.
Agenda 2063 underscores the pivotal role of justice sector institutions, such as courts, in holding governments, corporate entities, and individuals accountable for their environmental actions. Through its focus on accountability in the environmental domain, Agenda 2063 seeks to ensure the adoption of sustainable and responsible practices at all levels of governance and private enterprise.
Other notable frameworks in the African Region that relate to the judiciaries are the Johannesburg, Maputo and Nairobi Declarations of 2017, 2018 and 2023, respectively. These were made during the symposiums focused on supporting countries in mainstreaming and integrating environmental law in judicial training institutions as part of a sustainable curriculum. The Declarations covered the sustainable integration of environmental law into African judicial curricula to strengthen judges' awareness of environmental challenges, ecological justice, and the growing jurisprudence in environmental law. The Declarations also sought to create a platform for African countries to identify emerging environmental issues, exchange best practices, evaluate progress made and identify challenges faced in advancing judicial education.
3.4.2 The European Regional Framework
Within Europe, enforceable environmental principles arise from either primary law or secondary law and are indirectly applicable to how each EU policy and activity is defined and implemented.[23] Thus, it has been noted that within Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, “ such environmental principles as the principle of a high level of environmental protection, the precautionary principle, and the principle that preventive action should be taken in environmental matters, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at the source, and that the polluter should pay” are included.[24]
A comprehensive framework for greening exists in the form of the European Climate Law, which was adopted in 2021 to guide Europe into becoming a climate-neutral society by 2050.[25] The Framework aims to ensure that all European Union policies contribute towards achieving climate neutrality and that all sectors of the economy and society play a role in promoting environmental sustainability. The Law targets having net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2050, with an emissions reduction of 55 per cent by 2030.
Under this law, member states are also required to take measures at the national and EU levels to ensure the set targets are met. The Law also highlights various measures that member states can use to keep track of their progress and adjust their actions based on their existing systems of governance. The progress made is reviewed every five years in accordance with the global stocktake exercise, as highlighted in the Paris Agreement.
3.4.3 The Asian Regional Framework
Within the Asian region, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Declaration on Environmental Sustainability was made in Singapore in 2007 during the 13th summit of the Association. The declaration acknowledges the increasing global concerns over climate change and the obligations of ASEAN countries to their people regarding achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The Association also made various declarations to intensify international and regional cooperation in sharing, promoting and implementing environmentally sustainable practices. For instance, there is a need to adopt a holistic approach, foster regional cooperation on environmental concerns, and enhance the participation of all relevant stakeholders.
Within the ASEAN framework, the Association has sought to implement measures and policies to combat transboundary environmental pollution, such as haze pollution. Additionally, the framework seeks to build capacity, raise public awareness, strengthen law enforcement, and combat illegal logging and other environmental crimes. An implication of this Declaration to the justice sector is the need for strengthening law enforcement in combating transboundary environmental pollution and illegal logging.
4. Key Elements of Greening the Justice System
As per the normative and legal frameworks mentioned above, it can be argued that the resulting obligations for the justice system actors encompass a range of interconnected elements related to environmental sustainability that should be embraced within the justice system and its broader context. The implication is that the legal and normative frameworks not only address traditional justice components but also encompass environmental sustainability considerations. These interconnected elements can include but are not limited to the conservation of natural resources, reducing environmental degradation, and promoting sustainable development. By integrating these elements into the justice system, a more comprehensive and holistic approach to addressing environmental issues can be established, leading to more effective and equitable outcomes for both society and the environment.
For the justice system, the key elements of greening can be categorized as falling under functional, policy, legislative, procedural and physical dimensions. Other key elements include the adoption of technology and green human resources management practices. These are delineated below.
4.1 Functional Greening
The concept of functional greening involves integrating environmental sustainability objectives and practices into institutional roles and functions. It requires incorporating environmental protection requirements into the delivery of institutional functions. For example, law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating environmental crimes, apprehending offenders, and enforcing court decisions as part of their legal function.
Additionally, within the justice system, the litigation of environmental cases in courts is of significant importance and is considered an inherent component of functional greening. The prosecution and litigation of environmental cases in courts involve legal representation of the diverse interests affected and will also invariably involve civil justice departments and environmental lobby groups, all playing essential roles.
Moreover, correctional services provided by prisons and probation authorities during the rehabilitation of offenders are also part of functional greening. These services contribute to the overall goal of integrating environmental sustainability into institutional roles and functions.
4.2 Physical Greening
Physical greening revolves around a collection of initiatives aimed at enhancing the environmental sustainability of physical structures while ensuring compliance with environmental protection standards. The concept encompasses various facets, including construction processes, post-construction installations, waste management strategies, mobility initiatives and the deployment of diverse office equipment and machinery.
Broadly, physical greening involves the integration of sustainable materials, technology, and energy-efficient systems in buildings, as well as the implementation of measures to enhance energy conservation and optimize waste-water management. In this regard, White and Graham have highlighted efforts to promote sustainability in the justice system, predominantly emphasising improvements in physical amenities.[26]
Furthermore, the integration of energy-efficient transportation options in the justice sector, including the implementation of a green fleet to reduce carbon emissions, is a crucial element of physical greening aimed at improving the environmental sustainability of justice system operations.
4.3 Policy Greening
Policy greening involves revising, adapting, or developing policies to ensure they support environmental conservation and mitigate adverse climate change impacts. These policies aim to ensure a sustainable justice system that promotes environmentally friendly practices that mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. They also support the proper functioning of the justice system, especially in upholding the rule of law on environmental protection. Proper policies are also essential in helping to protect the rights of both humans and the natural environment. Moreover, policies aid the implementation of existing environmental laws, treaties or agreements.
As part of the public sector, most legal institutions are bound by the existing national, regional and international policies that seek to conserve the environment. For example, the police, prosecution institutions and judiciary are all bound to implement the United Nations net zero emission policy adopted within national environmental conservation priorities as they use the resources under their control to advance their respective mandates.
Moreover, as a legal requirement or good practice, institutions develop their internal organisational policies to regulate how they carry out their activities. These policies guide them on their priorities and determine how they implement them. For instance, in Kenya, the judiciary has adopted a policy on enhancing green justice and commissioned a multi-sectoral working group to prioritise access to justice on environmental and climate change-related matters through a multi-sectoral approach that incorporates green justice principles. The policy centralizes the embedding environmental sustainability into the operations, procedures and decision-making processes, including both administrative and judicial actions.
4.4 Legislative Greening
Legislative greening revolves around integrating greening practices into legal frameworks. It entails developing new laws or reviewing existing ones while ensuring their compliance with emerging dictates of greening and environmental protection. In legislative greening, the justice system institutions, including Law Reform Commissions and the office of the Attorney General, as well as judicial and other legal bodies, must assess the legal deficiencies within legislation and initiate the necessary reforms.
Moreover, as noted by Osofsky, one existing challenge is the significant variation in environmental legislation across jurisdictions, which impacts the shared global sustainability goals.[27] Law reform institutions must seek to incorporate and align existing international and regional priorities into national laws. Legal reforms for environmental protection and sustainability are ideal for ease of investigation, prosecution and trial by justice sector agencies. Therefore, a concerted effort of law reforms will reinforce environmental priorities, ultimately contributing to the preservation of the environment and the advancement of sustainable development. An emerging field of legislative greening in this regard is environmental constitutionalism, which looks at the roles of the state, society and the private sector within the constitutional framework as a key to solving environmental problems.[28]
4. 5. Procedural Greening
Procedural greening entails ensuring that the ideal greening practices are embedded in most or recurrent procedures in a given institution. Many procedures exist in the daily and strategic operations of justice system agencies. These are diverse and cover the execution of mandates, procurement, financial management, human resource management, and waste management, among others.
There is a need to ensure that the operational procedures of the justice system, crosscutting of institutional, have a greening element. Hence, entrenching ethical and sustainable greening procedures in the justice system is essential.
4. 6. Adoption of Technology
The integration of technology into contemporary justice systems represents a significant transformation, eradicating the constraints imposed by physical barriers and operational inefficiencies, thus improving access to justice. For example, the implementation of videoconferencing technology obviates the necessity for physical presence in courts and other justice sector offices, resulting in more equitable and cost-effective access to justice. This, in turn, contributes to a reduction in the carbon footprint and minimizes greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the digitization of case management systems and other operational processes within all branches of the justice system reduces paper usage, decreases greenhouse gas emissions, and assists in mitigating deforestation while concurrently enhancing service delivery efficiency. The integration of digital document management systems reduces the need for physical storage space, with electronic case filing, electronic case assessment, and e-payments significantly improving the efficiency and effectiveness of justice system processes. Additionally, innovations such as the establishment of e-green corners as knowledge-sharing platforms have the potential to enhance the quality of access to justice.
Therefore, the adoption of technology within the justice system is critical for facilitating eco-friendly and robust access to justice, yielding significant environmental benefits, and promoting a more organized and sustainable justice system environment.
4.7.Green Human Resources Management Practices
To achieve effectiveness, justice system institutions must also cultivate a work culture that aligns with pro-environmental justice through appropriate human resource management practices. The implementation of green initiatives through human resources management involves leveraging human resources practices to promote and strengthen employee dedication to environmental conservation. This encompasses fostering environmentally responsible behaviour among employees by augmenting their knowledge of green practices and reinforcing measurable actions that contribute to sustainability. It encompasses sustainable human resources practices, including recruitment, selection, training, performance management, and compensation.
Central to an organization's human resources practices is transformative leadership that fosters a culture infused with a deep sense of stewardship, wherein every leader advocates and actively participates in institutional values. In this respect, green values should be ingrained within the leadership of justice system agencies to ensure that they are at the forefront of providing strategic direction for environmental protection and sustainability. Leaders of the justice system institutions should prioritize sustainability and innovation to foster continual improvement. Enhanced collaboration among leaders on mutual environmental concerns would establish a dynamic environment for exchanging environmental insights, launching innovative environmental protection initiatives, and spearheading sustainability programmes. Tailored training programs designed for leadership and management teams within justice system institutions would be effective avenues for promoting green governance and climate advocacy.
Another aspect of green human resources involves aligning environmental sustainability goals with employee performance. Embedding environmental sustainability objectives within employees' behaviour and performance is vital for cultivating an eco-conscious workforce. Supervisors should possess the knowledge and tools to establish green performance objectives and effectively evaluate employee compliance with eco-friendly practices. Employee performance assessment should encompass adherence to environmental management practices and staff involvement in initiatives aimed at preserving nature and ecosystems. This also involves enhancing employee feedback mechanisms and providing incentives for employees to adopt eco-friendly practices. Additionally, the implementation of green reward and compensation programs would be pivotal in promoting sustainability. Recognizing and rewarding employees' discretionary environmental initiatives and advocacy efforts would underscore the organization's commitment to environmental protection. Conversely, there is a tangible need to address counterproductive employee behaviours that harm the environment and hinder the achievement of sustainability objectives.
Furthermore, integrating green practices into recruitment and career progression is essential. A justice system with a green focus will attract employees who are passionate about environmental conservation and who will advocate for sustainability in their daily activities as they fulfil their core mandates. Career pathways and work assignments should also be interwoven with green clauses to nurture a skilled and competent justice system workforce attuned to environmental issues.
5. Greening Jurisprudence
Within the justice system, litigation is the primary resource for functional greening, cutting across the roles undertaken by investigative agencies, prosecution and litigation agencies, judicial agencies as well as correctional services. Markell and Ruhl define climate change litigation as any administrative or judicial litigation in which the parties' arguments or court decisions directly and explicitly address a factual or legal matter relating to the causes and impacts of climate change.[29] The litigation covers a wide range of disputes, especially those related to greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation and resilience, environmental regulations, and the protection of natural resources.
While researching the impact of constitutional jurisprudence on climate justice, May and Daly highlighted the significant role of courts in interpreting environmental constitutionalism.[30] Preston, for his part, studied regulatory approaches to promoting cleaner energy in a related study on climate change litigation trends. He examined legal cases to understand the justice system's role in addressing environmental challenges.[31] The study revealed that climate change litigation has become prominent and recommended legal avenues to address climate change issues.
The Global Climate Litigation explored global climate litigation, classifying it into six categories.[32] The first category consists of cases relying on human rights enshrined in international law and national constitutions. The second category of cases challenges to domestic non-enforcement of climate-related laws and policies. The third category is where litigants seek to keep fossil fuels in the ground, while the fourth category is where litigants advocate for greater climate disclosures and an end to greenwashing. The other category revolves around claims addressing corporate liability and responsibility for climate harm. At the same time, the last one falls around claims addressing failures to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Out of climate litigation, courts have been rendering landmark decisions of jurisprudential value regarding environmental protection. Some are noted below. The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Massachusetts v EPA,[33] where petitioners sought the regulation of the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They advocated for the setting of limits on emissions, in line with limits established under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997) and other international treaties. The State of Massachusetts argued that the emissions catalysed global warming, which, in turn, would result in the loss of coastal lands. In its decision, the court held that Massachusetts, as a sovereign state, had demonstrated a particular injury and sufficient failure to take action to regulate greenhouse gases. The case was a success story of courts issuing orders to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2021, in Conservation Law Foundation v ExxonMobil Corp,[34] the United States federal trial court overturned a ruling to terminate a lawsuit challenging a clean water air permit issued to an ExxonMobil terminal in Massachusetts for allegedly failing to consider the impact of climate and the hazards created by allegedly discharged pollutants. The court rejected Exxon's argument that the litigation should wait for the EPA to take action.
In Australia, restorative justice principles were applied in sentencing environmental cases. In the 2007 case of Garrett v Williams,[35] mining operations had caused the destruction of numerous Aboriginal artefacts and desecrated a sacred site. Before the court's ruling, a conference was convened based on restorative justice principles and the involvement of Transformative Justice Australia (TGA). This conference resulted in a significant agreement between the Aboriginal community and the mining company, which complemented the penalties imposed by the court.
In Germany, Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG[36] addressed corporate liability and responsibility for climate harm. The plaintiff alleged that the German electric power company RWE AG's substantial greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the melting of a glacier, which increased the levels of the glacial Lake Palcacocha. Although a German District Court initially found the claim inadmissible, the High Court reversed that decision, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently well-founded to proceed. The High Court acknowledged that a private company is, in principle, responsible for its share of climate damages resulting from its emissions.
In South Africa, in EarthLife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others,[37] the court used human rights provisions to clarify unclear legislative requirements related to environmental impact assessments. This was in response to the climate change impacts of a proposed coal-fired power station project. The court stated that considerations regarding climate change were important, even if not explicitly provided for in domestic laws. The court also acknowledged South Africa's commitments under the Paris Agreement as a reason for considering climate change in the environmental review processes.
In India, a notable case of MC Mehta v Union of India was based on the pollution of the river Ganga by tanneries and soap factories on the banks of the river at Kanpur.[38] The tanneries and soap factories argued that they were discharging waste into municipal drains and that it was the Municipality's responsibility to prevent the drainage into the river. In addition, they argued that the equipment required for regulatory mechanisms was costly and would result in loss of business and jobs. The Supreme Court issued several directives to the Kanpur Municipal Corporation to establish effective drainage and sewage systems to prevent and control pollution of the River Ganga at Kanpur. It was the court's view that the need to protect the environment was a fundamental duty under the Constitution. Also, the right to public health was not comparable to unemployment and loss of revenue.
In Kenya, in Save Lamu & 5 others v National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) & another,[39] the National Environmental Tribunal set aside the issuance of a license by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to Amu Power Company to construct the Lamu Coal-fired Power Plant. The Tribunal ordered the Power Company to undertake a fresh Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study that would include all approved and legible architectural and engineering plans for the plant. The plans also covered the company's ancillary facilities, such as the coal storage, handling facility, and ash pit, and considered all the relevant environmental, natural resource, and climate change laws. The Tribunal ordered NEMA to engage with the lead agencies and the public on the findings of the EIA and subsequently share widely its decision on the grant or refusal to issue an EIA licence. The Tribunal found that these extraordinary measures were necessary to ensure sufficient access to information by the public on the project.
At the international plane, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considered Hungary's non-compliance with a treaty it made with Czechoslovakia in 1977 regarding the construction of dams in the Danube River as part of the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros project in the case of Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia).[40] Whereas Hungary claimed that it had the right to end the treaty based on international environmental protection laws, the Court noted that new environmental laws could be applied to the treaty and that both parties could include these laws with their agreement to make sure that water quality in the Danube was preserved and that nature was protected. In its judgement, the ICJ noted that historically, humanity, driven largely by economic motives, has frequently intervened in nature without considering the environmental consequences. The Court acknowledged that the protection of the environment would yield better quality of life, human health and living space for both present and future generations. It thus held that the Treaty was not static and incapable of adapting to emerging norms of international law and could be interpreted to align with relevant environmental imperatives.
Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons.[41] When discussing international environmental law, the Court stated that States involved in armed conflict have a duty to take environmental factors into account when determining what is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate military objectives.
Unfortunately, in most cases, the effectiveness of environmental law penalties and sustainable development principles in addressing environmental crimes are only partially achieved due to the inability of executive powers to enforce the law.[42]
6. Rights-Based Greening
As a critical purview of greening, international and constitutional laws recognize environmental rights as protected rights of individuals that ought to be secured through the justice system. Myriad examples point to efforts to entrench human rights in international, regional and local greening. For instance, at the international level, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) underscored the intrinsic connection between human rights and climate protection. Through the Resolution on the Human Right to A Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment adopted on 28 July 2022, UNGA acknowledges the vital role of sustainable development across social, economic and environmental domains, emphasising the need to safeguard human welfare and rights for present and future generations. Further, the UNGA recognised that environmental degradation, directly and indirectly, undermines the effective enjoyment of all human rights.[43]
Another critical framework on the human rights approach to environmental conservation is the Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, which requires states to guarantee a clean, healthy, safe, and sustainable environment.[44] These Principles emphasise gender equality and the prevention of conflicts arising from competition for natural resources as core to the human rights approach to environmental conservation.
Moreover, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security adopted in 2012 provide various recommendations and good practices for improving legitimate tenure rights on the acknowledgement that insecure land rights lead to the reduction of incentives within communities to safeguard natural resources.[45] It advocates for secure land rights that would lead to the protection of ecosystems and overall environmental sustainability.[46]
At the regional level, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights recognises that “all peoples have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development” and imposes obligations on member states to protect it.[47]
In the Americas, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has issued an advisory opinion recognising the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right. The advisory opinion highlighted the responsibility of governments for significant environmental damage both within and beyond their borders.[48] The Court emphasised that those potentially affected by transboundary harms must have access to justice regardless of nationality, residence, or the location of the environmental damage. Therefore, citizens of states that recognise the IACHR’s jurisdiction can bring claims regarding environmental harms affecting their human rights to the Court. In such cases, the Court evaluates whether the respondent state has fulfilled the obligations to prevent environmental damages, cooperated with other countries, and enhanced access to information, public participation and justice.
Elsewhere, within the Council of Europe, it has been acknowledged that there are interconnected challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. The Council has recognised that this has adverse effects on vulnerable populations and has consequently adopted Recommendations Concerning Climate Change and Human Rights to be implemented by member states.[49] Under these Recommendations, member states are obligated to prioritise the prevention, precautionary and polluter pay principles to mitigate environmental harms and to hold those responsible accountable. Additionally, states are required to ensure that there is intergenerational equity in current actions, and not compromise the well-being of future generations.
At the national level, some national constitutions, local laws, and court rulings have recognised nature or natural entities as having legal rights or personhood, thus enabling them to enforce the enjoyment of human rights. These legal implications are evident in the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia, court decisions from Colombia, Bangladesh and India, and legislative provisions in Uganda, New Zealand, and Spain.[50]
A potential path to greening has emerged under the transnational Rights of Nature Movement. The Movement recognises the right of nature as a response to environmental degradation and that nature has fundamental rights that depend not only on human needs, but should be protected by the law and, in some contexts, is itself granted legal standing in law.[51] This differs from traditional approaches to environmental law that view the environment solely through human use and exploitation. Thus, it has been argued that nature should not only be protected, but its rights should also be adequately balanced alongside human interests.[52]
From a human rights perspective, the justice system must play a crucial role in protecting environmental rights as an arbiter of conflicts and disputes. It is also the role of the justice system to ensure that the law protects property and land tenure rights by interpreting and enforcing policies and legal provisions on ownership with a view to safeguarding environment-friendly tenure systems. Moreover, as duty bearers, justice system actors must also take measures to ensure that their actions do not violate the right to a clean and healthy environment vested in the individuals within their jurisdiction.
7. Conclusion
A wide range of global, regional, and national legislations, treaties, declarations, and policies exist that have the potential to impact the greening of justice systems. Indeed, significant efforts have been made to mitigate climate change, conserve biodiversity, and ensure sustainable development through treaties, agreements, declarations and legislation.
The legal and normative frameworks from these instruments provide much impetus and diverse areas of adoption and implementation of a robust framework through which the justice system must operate. It has thus been noted that the role of the justice sector is crucial to ensure that the aspirations of the existing normative and legal frameworks are realised through adequate implementation since the justice system is core in enforcing environmental policies and regulations. Through investigations, prosecution, and trial of environmental violations, the justice system is central in undertaking greening by the enforcement of the rule of law.
Furthermore, the justice sector also has a role in facilitating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through various mechanisms and initiatives that aim to address the impacts of climate change as part of their mandate by integrating environmental considerations into the respective procedures, processes and internal operations, policies and practices. Other practical avenues for greening the justice sector are adopting technology and human resource management practices that buttress environmental conservation.
A holistic approach to greening can therefore be developed from the existing normative, legal and practical frameworks to guide the legal sector in undertaking greening activities in a manner that not only improves the quality of services they are expected to provide to the public, but also in creating a clean and healthy environment for the current and future generations.
[*] Executive Director, National Council on Administration of Justice.
[†] Editor, National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).
[‡] Programs Officer, National Council on the Administration of Justice.
[§] Programs Officer, National Council on the Administration of Justice.
[1] CCPE Opinion No. 17 (2022) in October 2022.
[2] Carlo Guarnieri & Patrizia Pederzoli, The Judicial System: The Administration and Politics of Justice (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020) 16.
[3] See Ann L MacNaughton & Jay G Martin, Environmental Dispute Resolution: An Anthology of Practical Solutions (Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association 2002) 4.
[4] Feldbaum et al., The Greening of Corrections: Creating a Sustainable System (US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2011).
[5] White & Graham, ‘Greening Justice: Examining the Interfaces of Criminal, Social and Ecological Justice’ (2015) 55:5 British Journal of Criminology 845-865.
[6] Feldbaum (n 4).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Robert S Summers, Form and Function in a Legal System: A General Study (CUP 2005) 136.
[9] See Jean D’Aspremont, ‘The Custom-Making Moment in Customary International Law’ in Panos Merkouris et al, (eds), The Theory, Practice, and Interpretation of Customary International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2022) 29.
[10] See John Balouziyeh, Principles of International (TellerBooks 2016) 65.
[11] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) art 26.
[12] A good number of these common law provisions are now mentioned in the statutes.
[13] Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1.
[14] Aldred's Case (1610) 77 ER 816.
[15] R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702.
[16] Principles 1 and 15.
[17] Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14.
[18] Principles 6, 7, 8, and 18.
[19] Principle 22.
[20] Principles 24 and 25.
[21] HW Wood, “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations' Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment” (1985) Ecology Law Quarterly 977.
[22] Fiedler et al, ‘The Stockholm Convention: A Tool for the Global Regulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants’(2019) 41:2 Chemistry International 4-11. <https://doi.org/10.1515/ci-2019-0202>.
[23] See A Aragão, ‘Environmental principles in the EU’ in L Krämer & E Orlando (eds), Principles of Environmental Law (Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law 2018)) 449–462.
[24] Colombo, ‘Principles of EU law in climate litigation’ (2024) China-EU Law Journal <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-024-00108-9>.
[25] See European Commission, European Climate Law (2021) <https://libguides.swansea.ac.uk/Oscola/Blogs#:~:text=To%20reference%20information%20from%20a,)%20accessed%20date.> accessed on 29 Aug 2024.
[26] R White & H Graham, 'Greening Justice: Examining the Interfaces of Criminal, Social and Ecological Justice' (2015) 55 British Journal of Criminology 845-865.
[27] Hari M. Osofsky, ‘Introduction: Envisioning Legal and Policy Pathways for Energy Innovation’ (2014) 15 Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology 287 < https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol15/iss1/17>.
[28] Muhtar et al, ‘Addressing the paradox: Why environmental constitutionalism is more than just rights?’ in E3S Web of Conferences (2024) Vol. 506 at 06004.
[29] David Markell & J B Ruhl, ‘An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in The Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?’ (2012) 64 Florida Law Review 15.
[30] James R May & Erin Daly (eds), Human Rights and The Environment: Legality, Indivisibility, Dignity and Geography (Edward Elgar 2019).
[31] Brian J Preston, ‘Mapping Climate Change Litigation’ (2018) 92 Alternative Law Journal 774.
[32] The Global Climate Litigation Report (UNEP & Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, 2023).
[33] 549 US 497 (2007).
[34] 51 ELR 20129.
[35] 151 LGERA 92.
[36] Case No. 2 O 285/15, 2015.
[37] 65662/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 58.
[38] 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR 2.
[39] Tribunal Appeal No NET 196/2016.
[40] [1997] ICJ Rep 88 (1997).
[41] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ GL No 95, [1996] ICJ Rep 226, ICGJ 205 (ICJ 1996), 8th July 1996.
[42] Domenico Amirante, ‘Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India’ (2012) 29 Pace Environmental Law Review 441.
[43] A/RES/76/300.
[44] Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment (2018) A/HRC/37/59).
[45] The Guidelines were officially endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security on 11 May 2012. They were endorsed by the United Nations Committee on World Food Security.
[46] Decision 26/COP.14/.
[47] Art 24 of the Banjul Charter.
[48] Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of 15 November 2017, requested by the Republic of Colombia with respect to State obligations in relation to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and to personal integrity: Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) And 5(1) In Relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
[49] Recommendation CM/Rec (2022) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human rights and the protection of the environment (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 September 2022 at the 1444th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies.
[50] Kauffman & Martin, ‘Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail?’ (2017) 92 World Development, 130-142.
[51] Gilbert et al, ‘Understanding the Rights of Nature: Working Together Across and Beyond Disciplines’ (2023) 51 Human Ecology, 363–377 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00420-1> accessed on 9 November 2024.
[52] David Boyd, ‘Recognizing the Rights of Nature: Lofty Rhetoric or Legal Revolution?’ (2018) 32:4 Natural Resources & Environment, 13-17.