Browsing by Subject "precautionary approach"

Due to the accelerating environmental crisis and the frequency of environmentally harmful activities having negative extraterritorial impacts, the traditional notions of state responsibility and jurisdiction are being tested. Restrictive interpretation of jurisdiction within international environmental law and human rights results in gaps in protection, with respect to both individuals and the environment. A significant gap, particularly evident in relation to climate change, also remains between the aspirational promises and agreed targets, on the one hand, and the level of implementation and action, on the other. Climate change does not adhere to political boundaries, thus requiring a transnational approach in relation to the establishment of accountability for environmental damage and resulting human rights violations. This thesis explores the scope of due diligence obligations of states in the interplay of human rights and international environmental law as well as the notions of jurisdiction and control influencing the territorial reach of responsibility. The research is conducted by investigating the environmental due diligence standard under the human rights, international environmental law and climate law regimes. Despite its wide acknowledgement, the concept of due diligence has been relatively understudied in international law. The increasing incidence of transboundary and global environmental harm as well as phenomena such as relocation of harmful activities and carbon leakage prompt the question of the scope of existing due diligence obligations of states – both within and outside territorial boundaries. International environmental law is based on guiding principles, such as prevention and precaution, having the ability to create obligations of customary international law character. It is argued that the standard of due diligence provides a promising way to hold states accountable for environmental harm – even beyond territorial limits. By combining the ambitious environmental policies, often lacking in bindingness, and the effective human rights systems through the standard of due diligence, it is concluded that the already existing legal frameworks may be utilized for environmental protection objectives. Furthermore, the mutually reinforcing relationship between international environmental law and human rights has contributed to the emergence and development of environmental due diligence standard of extraterritorial nature. Instead of a vague 'buzzword', absent of identifiable obligations and enabling the evasion of responsibility in relation to environmental harm and ensuing human rights violations, the case law in relation to the due diligence obligations of states presents evidence that such evasion of accountability is no longer acceptable nor possible. As human rights regimes should not be interpreted in a vacuum, consideration must be given to developments within international environmental law. The Paris Agreement is founded on the highest possible ambition of the member states. It is this due diligence standard against which the actions of the state are evaluated. The known and/or admitted risks of environmental harm, coupled with inconsistent measures against non-state actors’ activities, could establish state responsibility before such risks materialize. Of relevance is the actual ability to regulate or influence over the harmful activities, which may result in a jurisdictional link and individual responsibility.