On the concept of ‘Anthropocene’ in legal scholarship generally, see L.J. Kotzé, Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene,London, Hart, 2017; E. Viñuales, The Organization of the Anthropocene: In Our Hands?,Leiden, Brill, 2018.

SeeL.J. Kotzé and E. Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, in E. Lees and J.E. Viñuales (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Environmental Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 1044 ff., 1049.

See J. Klabbers and G. Palombella, Introduction: Situating Interlegality, in Iid. (eds.), The Challenge of Inter-legality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 1 ff.; G. Palombella, Theory, Realities and Promises of Interlegality: A Manifesto, in Klabbers and Palombella (eds.), The Challenge of Inter-legality, cit., pp. 363 ff., 367-368.

This link has been most recently affirmed in the Framework principles on human rights and environment, Annex to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment to the Human Rights Council, 24 January 2018, A/HRC/37/59, p. 7. In particular, the opening paragraph states that “human beings are part of nature, and our human rights are intertwined with the environment in which we live. Environmental harm interferes with the enjoyment of human rights, and the exercise of human rights helps to protect the environment and to promote sustainable development” (par. 1).

P.R. Hamilton, Human Rights at the Doubling Point: Human Rights, the Environment and Climate Change in International Law, LLM dissertation, University of Toronto, 2016, p. 82, as cited in L.H. Leib, Human Rights and the Environment: Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal Perspectives, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2011, pp. 88-89. The relationships between human rights and environmental law regimes are discussed in detail in Sections 2.2. and 3.

See Klabbers and Palombella, Introduction: Situating Interlegality, cit., pp. 2-3.

I am grateful to Gianluigi Palombella for alluding me to this issue.

See P. Sand, The Evolution of International Environmental Law, in D. Bodansky, J. Brunnee and E. Hey (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, pp. 29 ff., 34; P. Dupuy and J.E. Viñuales, International Environmental Law,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 20182, p. 8.

For an overview, see Dupuy and Viñuales, International Environmental Law, cit., pp. 8-12; P. Sand, Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 20032, pp. 35-40.

Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF 48/14/Rev.1, preamble.

For an overview, see P. Birnie, A. Boyle and V. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 20093, pp. 65-66.

See Sand, The Evolution of International Environmental Law, cit., p. 34.

See Dupuy and Viñuales, International Environmental Law, cit., pp. 11-12.

See ibidem, p. 17.

See H. van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forestation at the Intersection of Climate and Biodiversity Regimes, in «New York University Journal of International Law and Politics», 44, 2012, pp. 1205 ff., 1209.

D. Bodansky, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2010, p. 35.

See J. Brunnee, Environment, Multilateral Agreements, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law (last accessed on 5 February, 2021), par. 3.

The term “treaty congestion” was famously coined by E. Brown Weiss in Id., International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New World Order, in «Georgetown Law Journal», 81, 1993, pp. 675 ff., 697.

See Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, cit., p. 84.

See Brunnee, Environment, Multilateral Agreements, parr. 24-30.

See ibidem, par. 24

See ibidem, par. 25.

See Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, cit. p. 85. For comprehensive overview of environmental governance as a whole, see ibidem, pp. 58-105.

K.N. Scott, The Dynamic Evolution of International Environmental Law, in «Victoria University of Wellington Law Review», 49, 2018, pp. 607 ff., 622-623.

For a comprehensive discussion, see van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, cit.

See J.C. Morgan III, Fragmentation of International Environmental Law and the Synergy: A Problem and A 21st Century Model Solution, in «Vermont Journal of Environmental Law», 18, 2016, pp. 134 ff., 139.

See ibidem.

See van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, cit., p. 1232.

See ibidem, pp. 1224-1228, especially 1225; Morgan III, Fragmentation of International Environmental Law and the Synergy, cit., p. 139.

See Morgan III, Fragmentation of International Environmental Law and the Synergy, cit., p. 140.

See Brunnee, Environment, Multilateral Agreements, cit., parr. 43-46.

See Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., p. 1049.

See T. Stephens, Multiple International Courts and the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, in «Australian Yearbook of International Law», 25, 2006, pp. 227 ff., 236-242.

See M. Petersmann, Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake: Untold Narratives in Environmental Law Beyond the Anthropocentric Frame, in «Journal of Environmental Law», 30, 2018, pp. 235 ff., 241-249.

See Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., pp. 1049-1051.

See D. Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, in «Stanford Journal of International Law», 28(1), 1991, pp. 103 ff., 104.

Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (16 June 1972), UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev 1 (1973), Principle 1. For discussion, see Petersmann, Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake, cit., pp. 243-244.

See ibidem, p. 243; Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., p. 112.

For an overview, see Petersmann, Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake, cit., pp. 244-249.

F.Z. Ksentini, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Environment, Final Report on Human Rights and Environment, 6 July 1994, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, p. 23, as cited in Petersmann, Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake, cit., p. 248.

See Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., p. 1049.

Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., p. 109.

See ibidem, p. 104.

World Charter for Nature (28 October 1982), UN General Assembly Resolution, A/Res/37/7. On this, see also Petersmann, Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake, p. 244; cit., D. Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., p. 109.

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (19 September 1979), Europ. T.S. No. 104, preamble. See also Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., p. 109.

See ibidem, p. 110.

See ibidem. Indeed, as explained by Shelton, the intrinsic approach is also anthropocentric in nature as it ultimately acknowledges that the protection of ecosystem is necessary for the survival of mankind. This type of anthropocentrism, however, should be distinguished from utilitarianism, which only protects non-human aspects of ecosystem for their economic utility or other short-term benefits to the mankind.

See ibidem, p. 111.

See ibidem.

On different categorizations of the human rights approaches to environmental protection, see A. Boyle, Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment, in «Fordham Environmental Law Review», 18, 2007, n. 3, pp. 471 ff.; Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., pp. 1056-1068; Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 111-133.

V. De Oliveira Mazzuoli and G. De Faria Moreira Teixeira, “Greening” the Inter-American Human Rights System, in «L’Observateur des Nations Unies», 33(2), 2012, pp. 299 ff., 301-302.

Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, Adopted on 17 November, 1988.

Ibidem, article 1.

Ibidem, article 19(6).

See Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., pp. 1064-1068; Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., pp. 71-80.

For an overview of the rights, see ibidem, pp. 71-80.

For an overview of the relevant case law of regional human rights courts, see Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 113-116; Boyle, Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment, cit., pp. 484-504.

See R. Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights: Comparative Insights, in B. Boer (ed.), Environmental Law Dimensions of Human Rights,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 69, 98. Other cases in this category include Maya Indigenous Community of Toledo District v. Belize,IACommHR, Case No. 12.053, Report No. 40/04; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua,IACtHR, Case No. 79 (31 August 2001), Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs),IACtHR, Case No. 146 (29 March 2006);Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, IACtHR, Case No.172(28 November 2007).For an overview of the Court’s jurisprudence on indigenous peoples and environment, see D. Shelton, Environmental Rights and Brazil’s Obligations In the Inter-American Human Rights System, in «George Washington International Law Review», 40, 2009, pp. 733 ff., 756-768; A.D. Fisher and M. Lundberg, Human Rights Legitimacy in the Face of Global Ecological Crisis – Indigenous Peoples, Ecological Rights Claims and the Inter-American Human Rights System, in «Journal of Human Rights and the Environment»,6, 2015, n. 2, pp. 177 ff.

Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador (Merits and Reprarations), IACtHR, Case No. 245 (27 june 2012).

On this point, see S. Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in A. Grear, and L.J. Kotzé (eds.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and the Environment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2015, pp. 309 ff., 321-323.

Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, cit., par. 145. See also Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., p. 323.

On this point, see cases cited supra at note 58; Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., pp. 322-324; Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., pp. 97-98.

Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, cit., par. 146, as cited in Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., p. 324.

See ibidem.

See ibidem.

Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, cit., par. 156. See also Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., p. 324. In addition, prior to allowing the exploitation of natural resources that are essential to indigenous peoples’ existence, the State must consult the affected communities, conduct an environmental impact assessment and subsequently ensure that the latter receive reasonable benefits from these activities, see ibidem, par. 157; Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., pp. 324-325, for discussion.

See Boyle, Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment, cit., p. 472.

See ibidem, p. 505.

See ibidem, p. 506.

See Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., p. 98.

Metropolitan Nature Reserve v. Panama,IACommHR, Case No. 11.533, Report No. 88/03 (22 October 2003).

Ibidem, as cited in Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., p. 94.

For an overview of the rights, see Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., pp. 81-88.

Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (25 June 1998), UNECE, 2161 UNTS 447. See also the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (the Escazú Agreement) (4 March 2018), CEPAL, LC/PUB.2018/8/-*, which entered into force on 22 April 2021.

UN Economic Commission for Europe, The Aarhus Convention – An Implementation Guide (2000), as cited in A. Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, in «European Journal of International Law», 23, 2012, n. 3, pp. 613 ff., 621-622.

See Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., p. 83.

See ibidem, p. 85; Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, cit., p. 625.

Aarhus Convention, cit., artt. 2(5), 4(1).

Ibidem, artt. 6, 9. For discussion, see Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, p. 625; Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, pp. 84-85.

See Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, cit., pp. 623-626.

See ibidem, p.624.

See Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., p. 72. For an overview of the Court’s jurisprudence on procedural environmental rights, see ibidem, pp. 72-76; Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 768-774; Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., pp. 318-321.

Claude Reyes and others v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs),IACtHR, Case No. 161 (19 September 2006). For discussion, see Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., pp. 75-76; Thériault, Environmental Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, cit., pp. 318-320.

Claude Reyes and others v. Chile,cit., par. 57(13).

Ibidem, par. 81.

Ibidem, par. 77, emphasis added, as cited in Pavoni, Environmental Jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, cit., pp. 75-76.

See Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 119-120.

For an overview of the genesis theory, see Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., pp. 88-107. See also Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 121-137; A. Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, cit., p. 626-633.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment to the Human Rights Council, cit., par. 11. For an overview of the right to a healthy environment in national law, see Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., pp. 1050-1051; 1057-1059.

See Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., pp. 88-89.

See ibidem. For challenges raised by the recognition of an autonomous right to healthy environment, see ibidem, pp. 91-98; Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, cit., pp. 133-137.

See Leib, Human Rights and the Environment, cit., p. 94. See also Boyle, Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?, cit., pp. 628-629.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment to the Human Rights Council, cit., par. 14.

Ibidem, par. 11. In addition to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the right to a healthy environment is recognized in many constitutions across the world, see Kotzé and Daly, A Cartography of Environmental Human Rights, cit., pp. 1050-1051; 1057-1059.

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), IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 Series A No. 23 (15 November 2017), parr. 1-2.

Ibidem, par. 3.

Ibidem, par. 35.

Ibidem, par. 23.

Ibidem, par. 44.

Ibidem.

Ibidem, parr. 47-49, 52-54. It also previously affirmed a global consensus on ‘undeniable’ interrelationships between environment and human rights, as evidenced by the positions adopted by the Inter-American Commission, the OAS General Assembly, the European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (see parr. 47-51).

Ibidem, par. 55.

American Convention on Human Rights, adopted on 22 November 1969, article 26, emphasis added.

The Environment and Human Rights Advisory Opinion,cit., par. 57, footnote 86, referring to Lagos del Campo v. Peru (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs),Case No. 340 (31 August 2017), parr. 142-144.

Ibidem, parr. 57, footnote 85.

Indeed, this remained the most controversial aspect of the Advisory Opinion, with Judges Sierra Porto and Vio Grossi dissenting on the direct justiciability of the right to a healthy environment before the Court. The IACtHR additionally noted that the right to a healthy environment is recognized in domestic systems of several American States, as well as the American Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Arab Charter on Human Rights; see ibidem, par. 58.

Ibidem.

Ibidem, par. 62.

Ibidem, parr. 64-66.

Ibidem, par. 101.

Ibidem, par. 123.

Ibidem, par. 125.

Ibidem.

Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Case No. 400 (6 February, 2020).

Ibidem, parr. 272-289.

Ibidem, parr. 331-336.

Ibidem, parr. 337-342.