Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reviews the 2022 outputs of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) regarding climate change. It highlights a decline in climate-related mentions in State review processes and analyzes the groundbreaking decision in Billy et al. v. Australia, which established a State's duty to protect people from climate impacts.

• The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) saw a significant decrease in climate change references within its State review process in 2022. While inputs rose from four in 2019 to eight in 2021, 2022 saw a "sharp decline" with only one Concluding Observation (COB) and one List of Issues (LOI) explicitly mentioning climate change, despite the total number of outputs remaining consistent with 2021.
• In its Concluding Observations to the Philippines, the CCPR urged the government to implement recommendations from the 2022 National Inquiry on Climate Change. Specifically, the Committee recommended enacting laws to create "legal liabilities for corporate or business-related human rights abuses" and ensuring that projects affecting climate resilience are developed through "meaningful consultations with and participation of the affected population, including the indigenous peoples."
• The CCPR requested information from Brazil regarding its legal and institutional frameworks to mitigate climate change and environmental degradation, specifically focusing on the "right to life" and efforts to lower carbon emissions through "further investment in sustainable energy sources."
• In the case of Billy et al. v. Australia (3624/2019), the CCPR ruled that Australia violated articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant by failing to implement adequate and timely adaptation measures. This failure impacted the authors' home, family, and their "collective ability to maintain their traditional way of life, to transmit to their children and future generations their culture and traditions and use of land and sea resources." The Committee ordered full reparation, including compensation and needs assessments.
• The Billy et al. v. Australia decision is described as "groundbreaking" because it is the first time a human rights treaty body established a State party's duty to protect individuals under its jurisdiction from climate change impacts and the obligation to provide an effective remedy. However, the Committee did not find a violation of article 6 (right to life) because the 10–15 year timeframe for uninhabitability could allow for "intervening acts by the State party to take affirmative measures."

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2023). Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change. 2023. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change |date=2023 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2023synthesis, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2023}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }