Abstract
In a region rich in natural resources, where mining and exploration and exploitation of oil and gas have featured prominently, the Inter-American System of International Protection of Human Rights has acted as a forum for the settlement of environmental disputes via the gateway of human rights claims. It has in this manner contributed, already for decades, to the justiciability of environmental issues using an evolutive and systemic interpretation of the rights under the American Convention on Human Rights. This chapter examines the doctrines, contributions, and procedural tools at the disposal of the Inter-American System (with a particular focus on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights), as a forum resolving disputes involving environmental matters and providing protection for the environment. The chapter identifies the weaknesses and strengths of the system in dealing with environmental cases and the impact its case law is having on the development of international environmental law. This includes examining the ground-breaking ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion 23 on Environment and Human Rights, arguably the most significant ruling on environmental issues of any international court to date. It is posited that the Advisory Opinion not only recognises the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to the existence of humanity, but also that it has the potential to unlock real cross-border remedies for victims of environmental degradation, including influencing climate change litigation across the globe. The chapter closes by looking into the emerging jurisprudence after this crucial development, with the first contentious case acknowledging the right to a healthy environment under the American Convention on Human Rights (the Lhaka Honhat case).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Feria-Tinta 2021.
- 2.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Proclaimed by the General Assembly, resolution 217 A (III), A/RES/3/217 A, 10 December 1948.
- 3.
Fitzmaurice et al. 2010, p. 15.
- 4.
American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123, entered into force 18 July 1978.
- 5.
ECtHR, López Ostra v Spain, Judgment, 9 December 1994, App No 16798/90.
- 6.
Feria-Tinta 2021.
- 7.
IACHR, The Environment and Human Rights (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) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-23/18, 15 November 2017, IACtHR Ser. A, No 23 (in Spanish, in the original) (Advisory Opinion 23).
- 8.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al v United States, Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 7 December 2005 (the Inuit case).
- 9.
Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat Association v Argentina, Judgment, 6 February 2020, IACtHR Ser. C, No 400 (the Lhaka Honhat case).
- 10.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal People’s Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, 30 December 2009. OEA/Ser.I/L/V/II. Doc. 56/09. The Commission is composed of seven members elected in their individual capacity by the General Assembly of the OAS. See Inter-American Commission Rules (Approved by the Commission at its 109th special session held from 4 to 8 December 2000 and amended at its 116th regular period of sessions, held from 7 to 25 October 2002), Article 1.3.
- 11.
It does so via an integrated approach to rights traditionally considered civil and political in nature (e.g. right to life and freedom from torture) and under the scope of Article 19 (rights of the child), Article 21 (right to property), Article 26 (progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights).
- 12.
American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, adopted at the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota, Colombia, 2 May 1948. This contains economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights.
- 13.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1/2013, 18 March 2013, Reform of the Rules of Procedure, Policies and Practices, at 4–17, reprinted in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/RulesIACHR2013.pdf Accessed 25 June 2015. Rules of the Inter-American Commission, Article 23.
- 14.
Article 31.1, Rules of the Inter-American Commission, above n 13.
- 15.
Ibid., Article 31.2 a-c.
- 16.
Ibid., Article 31.3.
- 17.
Ibid., Article 32.2.
- 18.
Ibid., Article 32.1.
- 19.
Ibid., Article 33.2 a and b.
- 20.
Ibid., Article 34.
- 21.
Ibid., Article 44.1.
- 22.
Ibid., Article 44.2.
- 23.
The Court adopted such Rules of Procedure in November 2000 and these came into force on 1 June 2001. See Feria-Tinta 2006, pp. 159–203. Those Rules have been further improved in the current Rules of Procedure of 2009.
- 24.
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 24 November 2009, Article 2(25).
- 25.
See Villagrán Morales y Otros vs Guatemala, Reparations, Judgment, 26 May 2001, IACtHR Ser. C, No 77, Separate Opinion by Judge A. Cançado Trindade, para 15.
- 26.
Fernández Ortega and Others v Mexico, Judgment, 30 August 2010, IACtHR Ser. C, No 215, para 100; Rosendo Cantú and Others v Mexico, Judgment, 31 August 2010, IACtHR Ser. C, No 216, para 89.
- 27.
The Right to Information on Consular Assistance. In the Framework of the Guarantees of the due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, 1 October 1999, IACtHR Ser. A, No 16, para 58.
- 28.
The organs adjudicating rights under the Inter-American Instruments have the key role to ensure compliance of the State parties with said instruments. Article 58 of the Court’s Rules establishes that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings obtain, on its own motion, any evidence it considered helpful and necessary. In particular, it may hear any person whose statement, testimony, or opinion it deems to be relevant including alleged victims, witnesses, and expert witnesses. Therefore, the Court may seek certain pieces of evidence from the parties and it has the power to appoint expert witness not offered by the parties. In El Amparo v Venezuela, the Court resorted propio motu to an actuarial expert for the calculation of reparations in the case (El Amparo v Venezuela, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, 14 September 1996, IACtHR Ser. C, No 28, paras 12 and 28).
- 29.
On the procedural intricacies of Declarants’ evidence see Feria-Tinta forthcoming.
- 30.
As wrongly noted by Álvaro Paúl 2018, para 4.
- 31.
Ibid., para 9.
- 32.
- 33.
See Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al v United States, above n 8.
- 34.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 12.010, Mapuche Paynemil and Kaxipayiñ Communities, 5 February 2013.
- 35.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No 40/04 Case 12.053, Merits, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District, Belize, 12 October 2004.
- 36.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No 69/04, Petitions 504/03, Admissibility, Community of San Mateo de Huanchor and its members, Peru, 15 October 2004.
- 37.
Ibid., para 14.
- 38.
Ibid., para 14.
- 39.
Ibid., para 26.
- 40.
Ibid.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
Ibid., paras 15 and 16.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
According to public sources, the Inter-American Commission is ‘still deliberating the merits of the case’. See https://www.ciel.org/project-update/san-mateo-de-huanchor/. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 45.
See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Access to justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights’ OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129 Doc. 4, 7 September 2007. Original: Spanish.
- 46.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mapuche Paynemil and Kaxipayiñ Communities, above n 34.
- 47.
For a copy of the Amparo action, see: http://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=405963. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 48.
Falaschi and Nara 2013, p. 2.
- 49.
Ibid.
- 50.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No 110/00, case 11.800, Cesar Cabrejos Bernuy v Peru, 4 December, 2000, paras 45–47.
- 51.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mapuche Paynemil and Kaxipayiñ Communities, above n 34.
- 52.
Ibid.
- 53.
Maraggi 2017, p. 55.
- 54.
Shelton 2015, p. 9.
- 55.
Article XXIII of the American Declaration provides: ‘Every person has a right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.’
- 56.
See above n 35.
- 57.
Ibid., para 145.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
ACHPR, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria, October 2001, No 155/96.
- 60.
Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District, above n 35, para 150.
- 61.
Ibid., para 152.
- 62.
Ibid., para 153.
- 63.
Ibid., para 154.
- 64.
Ibid., para 155.
- 65.
Ibid.
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Ibid., para 197.
- 68.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, The Kichwa Peoples of the Sarayaku Community and its members, Admissibility, Report No 64/04, 13 October 2004, Case 12.465.
- 69.
Ibid., para 2. The Petition claimed that Ecuador is consequently responsible for violating the right to property (Article 21), judicial protection (Article 25), due process (Article 8), freedom of movement (Article 22), personal integrity (Article 5), personal liberty and security (Article 7), life (Article 4), freedom of association (Article 16), political participation (Article 23), freedom of expression (Article 13), juridical personality (Article 3), freedom of conscience and religion (Article 12), the rights of the child (Article 19), equality (Article 24), health and culture (Article 26, in accordance with Articles XI and XIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) under the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of the Sarayaku community. See Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, ‘Pact of San Jose’, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, (‘American Convention’).
- 70.
Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, Merits and Reparation, Judgment, 27 June 2012, IACtHR Ser. C, No 245, para 58.
- 71.
Ibid.
- 72.
Ibid.
- 73.
Ibid., para 2.
- 74.
Ibid.
- 75.
Ibid., p. 92.
- 76.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Sheila Watt-Cloutier et al v United States, decision, 16 November 2006, Petition 1413/05. See ‘Petition Seeking Relief from Violations resulting from Global Warming caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States’ . See http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/petition-to-the-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights-seeking-relief-from-violations-resulting-from-global-warming-caused-by-acts-and-omissions-of-the-united-states/ Accessed 23 March 2022.
- 77.
Ibid., p. 39.
- 78.
Ibid., p. 1.
- 79.
Ibid., p. 37.
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
Ibid.
- 82.
Ibid., p. 61.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 39.
- 84.
Ibid., p. 65.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
Ibid., p. 51.
- 87.
Ibid.
- 88.
Ibid., p. 45.
- 89.
Ibid., p. 54.
- 90.
Ibid.
- 91.
Ibid., p. 55.
- 92.
Ibid., p. 67.
- 93.
Ibid., p. 55.
- 94.
Ibid., pp. 62–63.
- 95.
Ibid., p. 48.
- 96.
Ibid., p. 58.
- 97.
Ibid., p. 49.
- 98.
Ibid., p. 67.
- 99.
Ibid., p. 68.
- 100.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Letter dated 16 November 2006. https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/16commissionletter.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2020.
- 101.
Hearing on Climate Change before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, September 2019.
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/hearing-on-climate-change-before-the-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights/. Accessed 11 March 2020.
- 102.
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Relatoría Especial sobre Derechos Económicos, Sociales, Culturales y ‘Empresas y Derechos Humanos: Estándares Interamericanos’ https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/EmpresasDDHH.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2020. See in particular paras 233–253.
- 103.
It stated: ‘For the Commission and its REDESCA, it is also a priority that the States guarantee access to justice and reparation for damage in climate matters. This obligation requires States to guarantee the existence of accessible, affordable, timely and effective mechanisms to challenge those actions or omissions that may affect human rights due to climate change and environmental degradation and to obtain reparation for damages arising from the climate risks and the policies adopted in this regard, whether these actions come from the State or through companies.’ Ibid., para 251. (Author’s translation).
- 104.
Shelton 2015, p. 9.
- 105.
See ibid., citing Basch et al 2010.
- 106.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza and Others, Report No 30/04, 11 March 2004, Petition 4617/02.
- 107.
Ibid., para 5 and para 15.
- 108.
Ibid., para 25.
- 109.
The ILO Convention No 169 was ratified by the Chilean Senate in March 2008 and became part of Chilean law in 2009. Survival International, ‘Key International Law on Tribal Peoples Ratified’ 11 March 2008 https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/3122 ; CCTVCOM, ‘ILO Convention becomes law in Chile’ 16 September 2009 http://english.cctv.com/20090916/101996.shtml. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 110.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza and Others, Breach of the Friendly Settlement Agreement, 19 October 2005.
- 111.
See Article 41f of the American Convention on Human Rights, above n 4, and Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, above n 13.
- 112.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez and Others v El Salvador, Report No 209/01, 20 March 2009, Case No 12.249, para 284.
- 113.
By 13 January, 2001, information provided by the State indicated that by that date ‘anti-retroviral medication had been provided to 11 of the 24 persons included in case 12.249’ and the treatment was available for the rest upon appropriate medical evaluation. Ibid., para 23.
- 114.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Community of San Mateo Huanchor, above n 36, para 11.
- 115.
Ibid., para 12.
- 116.
See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous Communities of the Xingu River Basin, Pará v Brazil, 1 April 2011, PM 382/10.
- 117.
AIDA, ‘Belo Monte, The Urgency of Effectively Protecting Human Rights’, 1 April 2015 https://aida-americas.org/en/blog/belo-monte-urgency-effectively-protecting-human-rights. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 118.
Shelton 2015, p. 12.
- 119.
AIDA, ‘Belo Monte, The Urgency of Effectively Protecting Human Rights’, 1 April 2015 https://aida-americas.org/en/blog/belo-monte-urgency-effectively-protecting-human-rights. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 120.
Ibid.
- 121.
OAS, Press Release ‘The Americas: Government should strengthen, not weaken, environmental protection during COVID-19 pandemic’ https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2020/198.asp. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 122.
Ibid.
- 123.
Reference to the right to living a ‘dignified and decent existence’ is found for example in Article 6 (Right to Work), Article 7 (Just, Equitable and Satisfactory Conditions of Work), Article 9 (Right to Social Security) and Article 13 (Right to Education) therein.
- 124.
Article 19 of the American Convention, above n 4.
- 125.
Villagran Morales et al case, Judgment of 19 November, 1999, IACtHR, Series C: No 32.
- 126.
Ibid., para 144. Emphasis added.
- 127.
Ibid.
- 128.
Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, 28 August 2002, IACtHR Ser. A, No 17.
- 129.
The Court referred to Article 13 (right to education), Article 15 (right to the formation and the protection of families), and Article 16 (rights of children) of the Protocol of San Salvador in its interpretation of Article 19.
- 130.
Comunidad Indigena Yakye Axa v Paraguay, Judgment, 17 June 2005, IACtHR Ser. C, No 125.
- 131.
Ibid., para 176.
- 132.
CEJIL, Yayke Axa Community, https://cejil.org/en/yakye-axa-community. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 133.
Mongabay (2020) https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/cattle-put-paraguays-chaco-biome-at-high-risk-but-report-offers-hope/. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 134.
Comunidad Indigena Yakye Axa v Paraguay, above n 130 (emphasis added).
- 135.
Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Judgment, 29 March 2006, IACtHR Ser. C, No 146.
- 136.
Ibid. para 2.
- 137.
Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, above n 135, paras 18 and 21 (emphasis added).
- 138.
Ibid. para 153.
- 139.
Ibid., para 168.
- 140.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7.
- 141.
Request for an Advisory Opinion, presented by the Republic of Colombia, concerning the interpretation of Articles 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 14 March 2016. Available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/solicitudoc/solicitud_14_03_16_ing.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 142.
Feria-Tinta and Milnes 2018a, p. 3.
- 143.
Feria-Tinta and Milnes 2018b.
- 144.
Human Rights Council, Preliminary Report of the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, John H. Knox, 24 December 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/43, para 7.
- 145.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 59.
- 146.
The International Court of Justice had decided a dispute on maritime boundaries between Colombia and Nicaragua adversely to Colombia. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) Judgment, ICJ, Reports 2012, p. 624. Following this, Colombia had withdrawn its optional clause declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute. As a consequence, Colombia would no longer have a right of recourse to the ICJ against Nicaragua, for example in cases of environmental harm.
- 147.
This political ‘edge’ to the Request would doubtless have been apparent to the Inter-American Court, and in any event, the Guatemalan representative at the hearing on Colombia’s Request drew attention to the need to ensure that any Advisory Opinion did not undermine the ICJ’s settlement of that territorial dispute. Feria-Tinta and Milnes 2018a. The Inter-American Court deftly defused that aspect by concentrating on the issues of principle and avoiding expressing any concrete views on particular instances of pollution sources or their victims.
- 148.
Gibbs and Elliott 2017.
- 149.
Feria-Tinta and Milnes 2018c.
- 150.
Petition 912/14 filed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 17 June 2014. See Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 25. For further information on the petition, see FIDH report ‘Concesión del Canal Interoceánico en Nicaragua: Grave impacto en los Derechos Humanos - Comunidades campesinas movilizadas resisten’, September 2016 No 680e. https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/nicaragua680esp2016web-1gg.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2020.
- 151.
Request at para 9.
- 152.
Argentina, Bolivia, Honduras and Panama made written observations and intervened orally before the Court. Guatemala intervened orally at the hearings. Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, paras 6 and 9.
- 153.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, The General Secretariat from the Organisation of American States (OAS) with the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Environmental Law, and the International Maritime Organisation.
- 154.
There were forty-four interventions from civil society.
- 155.
See Feria-Tinta and Milnes 2018a. One State, Panama, expressed more restrictive views but nonetheless emphasised the importance of States adhering to international environmental norms. Guatemala and Honduras favoured Colombia’s position, while Bolivia (which did not submit any written observations) made oral submissions going even further, in line with the Bolivian government’s strongly environmentalist and indigenous peoples-oriented stance. Argentina advocated for a more cautious and context-driven approach, but one that was open to ‘diagonal’ jurisdiction based on concrete facts (similar to the Inter-American Court’s eventual ruling).
- 156.
On the first question, the Inter-American Court adopted a broader approach than Colombia proposed, in that it declined Colombia’s invitation to base either substantive State human rights obligations or the scope of ‘jurisdiction’ under Article 1(1) of the American Convention on the existence or otherwise of any other treaty regime such as the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, 24 March 1983, 1506 UNTS 157, entered into force 11 October 1986 (‘Cartagena Convention’).
- 157.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 47.
- 158.
See for example the approach taken in the European System: Banković and Others v Belgium and Others, Judgment, 12 December 2001, App No 52207/9.
- 159.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 95. (Author’s translation).
- 160.
Ibid., para 97.
- 161.
Ibid., para 102 (emphasis added).
- 162.
Ibid., para 104 (h) (emphasis added).
- 163.
Ibid., para 59. In the original Spanish: ‘La degradación del medio ambiente puede causar daños irreparables en los seres humanos, por lo cual un medio ambiente sano es un derecho fundamental para la existencia de la humanidad.’
- 164.
Ibid., para 59.
- 165.
Ibid., para 47.
- 166.
Ibid., para 59.
- 167.
Ibid., para 55.
- 168.
Ibid., para 54.
- 169.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal People’s Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources, Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.I/L/V/II. Doc 56/09 (30 December 2009), para 192.
- 170.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 108.
- 171.
Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights is in similar terms to Article 6(1) of the ICCPR and provides: ‘Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of this life.’
- 172.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 109.
- 173.
In this regard, see, ECtHR, Acar and Others v Turkey, Judgment, 24 May 2005, App No s 36088/97 and 38417/97, paras 77 and 110, and ECtHR, Makaratzis v Greece, Judgment, 20 December 2004, App No 50385/99, paras 51 and 55.
- 174.
The Yakye Axa case, above n 130, para 162. The Court concluded in the case, that Paraguay had violated the right to life because it had failed to ensure the indigenous community’s right to a life in dignity.
- 175.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 124.
- 176.
Ibid., para 123.
- 177.
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev. 1(1973); 11 ILM 1416 (1972).
- 178.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 13 June 1992.
UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I); 31 ILM 874 (1992).
- 179.
Advisory Opinion 23, above n 7, para 242.
- 180.
Lhaka Honhat, above n 9.
- 181.
The provision reads: ‘Article 26. Progressive Development: The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.’
- 182.
Lhaka Honhat, above n 9, para 187.
- 183.
Ibid.
- 184.
Ibid., para 248.
- 185.
Namely the right to property under Article 21, Article 23 (Right to political participation), Right to judicial guarantees under Article 8(1), and Articles 3, 13, 16 and 22(1) (right to recognition of juridical personality or the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association, and freedom of movement and residence) of the American Convention on Human Rights.
- 186.
Lhaka Honhat, above n 9, para 327.
- 187.
Ibid., para 329.
- 188.
Ibid., above n 9, Resolutive point 12.
- 189.
Ibid., para 338.
- 190.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, 30 October 2018. CCPR/C/GC/36 (‘General Comment No 36’).
- 191.
Ibid., para 65.
- 192.
HRC, Portillo Cáceres and Others v Paraguay, 20 September 2019, CCPR/C/126/D/2751/2016.
- 193.
HRC, Torres Strait Islanders v Australia, pending, Communication 3624/2019 (petition not publicly available at time of publishing).
- 194.
See ECtHR, Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States, pending, App No 39371/20; The Guardian, ‘Portuguese Children Sue 33 Countries’, 3 September 2020, accessed on 2 February 2021. For a discussion of European cases, see Feria-Tinta 2020.
References
AIDA (2015) Belo Monte, The Urgency of Effectively Protecting Human Rights. https://aida-americas.org/en/blog/belo-monte-urgency-effectively-protecting-human-rights. Accessed 25 April 2021.
Basch F et al (2010) The Effectiveness of the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection: A Quantitative Approach to its Functioning and Compliance with its Decisions. Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 7(2):9–35.
Falaschi C, Nara O (2013) CIDH: La causa No 12.010. Comunidades Mapuche Paynemil y Kaxipayiñ-Neuquen, Argentina.
Feria-Tinta M (2006) La víctima ante la Corte Inter-Americana de Derechos Humanos a 25 años de su funcionamiento. Revista IIDH, 43:159–203.
Feria-Tinta M (2007) Justiciability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the Inter-American System of Protection of Human Rights: Beyond Traditional Paradigms and Notions. 29 Human Rights Quarterly 29(2):431–459.
Feria-Tinta M (2009) Litigation in Regional Human Rights Systems on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights against Poverty. In: Van Bueren G (ed) Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right. Unesco Publishing, pp 319–344.
Feria-Tinta M (2020) Climate Change Litigation in the European Court of Human Rights: Causation, Imminence and Other Key Underlying Notions. Europe of Rights & Liberties 2021(1):3:52–71 https://www.europedeslibertes.eu/article/climate-change-litigation-in-the-european-court-of-human-rights-causation-imminence-and-other-key-underlying-notions/ Accessed 23 April 2021.
Feria-Tinta M (2021) Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue: Litigating Climate Change in the Inter-American System of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Climate Change Litigation Global Perspectives. Brill, Leiden.
Feria-Tinta M (forthcoming) Declarants: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICtHR). Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law, OUP.
Feria-Tinta M, Milnes S (2018a) The Rise of Environmental Law in International Dispute Resolution: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issues a landmark Advisory Opinion on Environment and Human Rights. Yearbook of International Environmental Law 27:1–18.
Feria-Tinta M, Milnes S (2018b) The Rise of Environmental Law in International Dispute Resolution: Inter-American Court of Human Rights issues Landmark Advisory Opinion on Environment and Human Rights, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-rise-of-environmental-law-in-international-dispute-resolution-inter-american-court-of-human-rights-issues-landmark-advisory-opinion-on-environment-and-human-rights/ Accessed 23 April 2021.
Feria-Tinta M, Milnes S (2018c) How International law could help victims of environmental degradation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/international-law-cross-border-victims-environment-rulings. Accessed 23 April 2021.
Fitzmaurice M, Ong D, Merkouris P (2010) Research Handbook on International Environmental Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
Gibbs S, Elliott L (2017) China Puts Nicaraguan Canal plan on hold, The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-puts-nicaraguan-canal-plan-on-hold-vnghd00r8 Accessed 23 April 2021.
Maraggi I (2017) Resistir al avance extractivista: Las Comunidades Mapuche Paynemil, Kaxipayiñ y Campo Maripe frente a los conflictos territoriales en Loma La Lata y Loma Campana, Neuquén (Thesis). https://digital.cic.gba.gob.ar/handle/11746/10069 Accessed 23 April 2021.
Paúl Á (2018) Evidence: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law.
Shelton D (2015) The Rules and the Reality of Petition Proceedings in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law, 5(2):1–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feria-Tinta, M. (2022). Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In: Sobenes, E., Mead, S., Samson, B. (eds) The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-506-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-507-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)