Search Climate Insights Directory

The document asserts that international law provides no basis to restrict State climate obligations to present generations. It argues that the rights of future generations are rooted in the UN Charter, various international environmental agreements, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ and other international bodies. The submission emphasizes that the principles of prevention and precaution require States to act now to avoid irreversible climate harm and warns against relying on speculative future technologies to meet mitigation targets. It includes the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, which provide a framework for the obligations of States and non-State actors to ensure intergenerational justice.

Ten youths challenged the State of Brandenburg for failing to set climate protection goals and emission reduction paths, arguing this violated German constitutional law and endangered future generations. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, noting a lack of federal specifications on state-level emission budgets and the limited influence of states in climate protection areas managed by the federal government.

Eight young people sued the State of Florida, arguing that the state's fossil fuel-based energy system violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The plaintiffs claimed that human-caused carbon dioxide concentrations would impair vital natural resources and discriminately harm current and future generations. Both the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit and the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, ruling that the issues were non-justiciable political questions that must be resolved by the political branches of government rather than the judiciary, citing the separation of powers doctrine.

Ten youth plaintiffs challenged the State of Bavaria's climate legislation, arguing that inadequate greenhouse gas reduction pathways violated their constitutional rights to freedom, life, and physical integrity. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the specific extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, partly because the federal government had not provided specific requirements for state-level emission reductions.

The case Aji P. v. State of Washington involved a constitutional complaint by youth petitioners who argued that Washington's reliance on fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation systems infringed upon their "fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment". The claim was dismissed by the King County Superior Court and the Washington Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Washington ultimately denied the petition for review without providing reasons. However, Chief Justice Steven Charles González dissented, arguing that the court should have decided whether climate change impacts are remediable under state law and that the lower court had "unnecessarily expand[ing] the political question doctrine".

Six Alaskan children sued the State of Alaska, arguing that the state's failure to limit greenhouse gas emissions violated the public trust duty established in Art. VIII of the Alaska Constitution. The Superior Court of Alaska dismissed the case in 2012, ruling it non-justiciable as it involved political questions. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the dismissal in 2014, though it differed in reasoning, concluding that a declaratory judgment would not settle the dispute as it would have no impact on the state's conduct or emissions.

The document details the case of Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, where 19 members of 'Youth4ClimateAction' challenged the constitutionality of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth. The applicants argue that the government's failure to maintain sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets violates rights to human dignity, equality, and a healthy environment. Specifically, they contest the President's authority to modify targets via decree, claiming it constitutes an unconstitutional 'blanket delegation' of power and fails to meet the minimum protective measures required to mitigate climate change impacts, which are noted to be particularly severe in South Korea.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) supports the Special Rapporteur's findings that 'business as usual is a recipe for climate chaos' and urges states to implement mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence for corporate value chains. CIEL emphasizes that oil, gas, and coal are 'the key drivers of the triple planetary crisis' and calls for the elimination of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it describes as a 'substantial obstacle to effective climate and environmental action'. The statement further advocates for the incorporation of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment into national laws and a proposed legally binding instrument on business and human rights.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the Revised Zero Draft of the Plastics Treaty, arguing that the instrument must include legally binding obligations to control primary plastic polymer production and eliminate hazardous chemicals to be effective. CIEL emphasizes the need for a 'shall' rather than 'should' framework, the inclusion of human rights and health dimensions, and the establishment of a dedicated financial mechanism and a robust transparency framework to ensure accountability and a just transition for affected workers and communities.

The document advocates for rooting climate loss and damage responses in international human rights law, emphasizing the right to remedy. It argues that the World Bank is unfit to lead the Loss and Damage Fund due to its continued fossil fuel investments and failure to provide reparations for project-related harms. The author recommends that the Loss and Damage Fund establish a 'firewall' from World Bank policies, implement independent grievance mechanisms, and prioritize grants-based finance over debt-creating loans, guided by the polluter pays principle.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) approach to human rights, highlighting positive inclusions such as the protection of environmental human rights defenders and gender equality, while warning of gaps in corporate accountability and climate-related human rights protections.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Targets 4, 15, and 16. It highlights the positive call to integrate biodiversity into all regulatory processes (Target 4) and the goal to reduce negative corporate impacts (Target 15). However, it criticizes the framework for favoring voluntary 'encouragement' over mandatory regulation, relying on corporate self-reporting through platforms like the TNFD, and omitting human rights protections from Target 15. The author urges civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate government policies and to advocate for a binding UN Treaty on TNCs and Human Rights.

The document analyzes the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, noting its commitment to a human-rights-based approach and the recognition of indigenous territories. While it praises the protection of environmental human rights defenders in Target 22 and gender equality in Target 23, it warns that Target 3's goal of protecting 30% of the world could lead to human rights violations if indigenous peoples are excluded. It highlights critical gaps in Target 15 regarding corporate accountability and Target 8 regarding climate change and human rights, and urges NGOs to push for concrete implementation protocols and legal recognition of indigenous-managed areas.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically Targets 14, 15, and 16, arguing that while it advocates for integrating biodiversity into regulatory processes, it relies too heavily on corporate self-reporting and 'carrots' rather than binding regulations. It criticizes the framework for enabling greenwashing through platforms like the TNFD and for omitting human rights protections in Target 15, urging civil society to use the framework to challenge ineffective government policies.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting its recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the goal to protect 30% of the world's land and sea. However, it criticizes the framework for relying on corporate self-reporting, lacking mandatory regulations for transnational corporations, and promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, which may favor biotech and agribusiness. It also warns that the GBF's approach to restoration and conservation may enable harmful offsetting practices and the 'financialisation of nature'.

The document analyzes Targets 14, 15, and 16 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It acknowledges the goal of integrating biodiversity into regulatory processes and reducing corporate impacts but criticizes the reliance on 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approaches. Specifically, it argues that self-reporting mechanisms like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and corporate-led labelling facilitate greenwashing. The author highlights the omission of human rights from Target 15 and the absence of coherent international systems to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs), urging civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate national policies.

The document evaluates the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, highlighting positive inclusions such as the human rights-based approach and the protection of environmental human rights defenders in Target 22. It notes that while Target 3 recognizes Indigenous territories as conservation areas, there is a significant risk that expanding protected areas to 30% of the world could lead to human rights violations. The author identifies critical gaps, specifically the absence of human rights mentions in Target 15 (private sector) and Target 8 (climate change), and the lack of indicators for Targets 22 and 23. It concludes by advising civil society to use the GBF to push for national legislation on Indigenous-led nature areas and to demand full participation in decision-making.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the French government for attempting to sabotage the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) by demanding that the employee threshold for company applicability be raised from 500 to 5,000. This move would exempt approximately 14,000 companies from the directive's requirements to prevent human rights violations and environmental pollution in their value chains.

Reclaim Finance accuses the French government of attempting to undermine the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The organization claims that France, via Bruno Le Maire, is demanding the company size threshold be raised from 500 employees to 5,000 employees, which would exempt approximately 14,000 companies from the requirement to prevent human rights violations and environmental pollution in their value chains.

NGOs warn that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is at risk of being blocked in the European Council due to pressure from corporate lobby groups and internal divisions within the German government. While the authors argue the directive is a necessary step for regulating multinationals, they criticize the exclusion of financial services from its scope.