Chapter 4 unpacks the reasons why international human rights is currently incapable of adequately protecting the environmental rights of future generations. It begins by explaining that future generations are not legally recognised as people who possess human rights and governments are not obliged to protect them. Even if those rights were recognised, there are no clear pathways for enforcing them. As the chapter explains, international human rights violations can be litigated by ‘victims’, who are people directly affected by an actual or imminent violation. The law does not allow for legal claims on behalf of people who do not yet exist or for harms that have not yet occurred or are not imminent, even though they may be foreseeable. Without standing to bring a legal action, the rights of future generations cannot be litigated and enforced within international human rights bodies. Additional challenges exist in relation to proving a breach of the law and establishing a causal connection when the alleged harm has yet to occur. Finally, the chapter explains the difficult task of balancing competing human rights interests and obligations across generations. After outlining these numerous challenges, the following chapter will offer a possible way forward.

Chapter 1 sets the scene for the book by introducing the human rights impacts of long-term environmental harm and the limitations of international human rights law in responding to those problems. It presents the rationale for the book, arguing that human rights law ought to contribute to intergenerational justice through better protection of future generations’ rights. Furthermore, in order for human rights law to be effective in guarding against the human rights impacts caused by serious environmental harm, it must be able to address future threats, not just current harms. A more future-oriented approach to human rights protections would also help align the law more meaningfully with non-Western and Indigenous views of intergenerational rights and responsibilities.

Building on the problems identified in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 presents a new theory and practice of environmental rights which it argues would better protect the rights of future generations. First, it outlines a theory of intergenerational responsibility for international human rights law, drawing on Edith Brown Weiss’s theory of intergenerational equity. The chapter takes the tripartite duties commonly used in international human rights laws (the duties to respect, protect and fulfil human rights) and gives them new meaning through the application of an intergenerational lens. The result is a typology of duties for states which can be used to articulate expectations and standards with respect to the rights of future generations. The chapter also outlines changes which are needed to the rules of standing and causation to enable the litigation of future generations’ environmental rights. The proposed changes are informed by existing principles of environmental law, including due diligence and the precautionary principle, which help to navigate questions regarding risk and uncertainty and enable a more meaningful application of human rights law to threats of future harm.

Chapter 6 presents the first of three case studies which road-test the theory and practice of environmental rights that was presented in Chapter 5. This first case study examines two forms of unconventional natural resource extraction: hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) and deep seabed mining. The chapter outlines the environmental risks associated with each of these practices. In particular, it outlines the many uncertainties surrounding the environmental impacts of deep seabed mining, given that we still have so much to learn about deep sea ecosystems. The chapter translates these environmental impacts into human rights terms, identifying many ways in which human rights may be impacted into the future. It then considers how the approach proposed in Chapter 5 could be used to litigate potential violations of future generations’ rights. It highlights the issue of balancing current generations’ interests in securing economic benefits and natural resources, including those necessary for the transition to renewable energy.

The second case study in Chapter 7 presents a detailed examination of the future environmental rights implications of climate change. It addresses the implications for future generations of climate change itself, as well as our responses to climate change, including adaptation measures, decarbonisation and geoengineering. Each of these is considered in terms of the potential impact they might have on the human rights of future generations. The chapter also provides an overview of recent human rights-based climate litigation, with a particular focus on cases that have been brought on behalf of future generations or by children and young people. These cases show that, while some cases have successfully argued for intergenerational climate justice, international human rights law remains an unfriendly forum for litigating future environmental harms or the rights of future generations. The chapter concludes by considering the ways in which this could be improved through the application of the new theory and practice outlined in Chapter 5.

In concluding the book, Chapter 9 summarises the lessons that were learned through the three case studies and reiterates the reasons why international human rights law needs to be reformed to better protect the environmental rights of future generations. It highlights the perpetual challenge of balancing the interests of current and future generations, but argues these can be mitigated by articulating new standards and expectations for states which incorporate notions intergenerational responsibility and fairness. Reforms are needed to ensure at least a level playing field, where future generations’ rights can be recognised and given the same weight as those of present generations. Chapter 9 concludes by calling for a multifaceted reorganisation of many areas of law, politics, economics and social policy, and offers hope that reforms of international human rights law might play a leading role in that undertaking.

Chapter 2 presents a detailed rationale for expanding international human rights law to protect the environmental rights of future generations. It draws on various theories of intergenerational responsibility, including the work of Edith Brown Weiss and theories of intergenerational equity, planetary trusts and the capabilities approach. The chapter also considers various Indigenous worldviews, such as the Seventh Generation principle of First Nations peoples in North America and the beliefs of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which embody a strong sense of intergenerational responsibility. The deep feeling of connection with ancestors and descendants that is held by many Indigenous peoples translates into notions of custodianship towards the land and obligation to people across time. These worldviews have much to offer as we think about the future direction of human rights law, and provide another justification for making the law more responsive to future environmental threats.

Chapter 8 presents the third and final case study in the book, which considers the potential for international human rights law to address potential future harms caused by nuclear energy. The chapter explains the various ways in which nuclear energy can impact on environmental rights, from the initial mining and processing of uranium, through the operation of power plants and the long-term storage of waste material. It notes that while the most catastrophic forms of harm from nuclear energy are relatively unlikely to occur, the lower-level risks associated with waste disposal will persist for millennia. The time-scale of potential harm raises new questions about the ability of human rights law to address uncertainty and risk and the potential for due diligence and the precautionary principle to guide state decision-making in a way that adequately respects future generations’ rights. The chapter argues that not all risks of future harm should be viewed as violations of future generations’ rights, but that an appropriate framework still needs to be in place to ensure human rights risks are assessed and managed in a way that aligns with intergenerational justice.

Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of the current state of international law. It begins by explaining the extent to which environmental rights are protected in international law. This includes an examination of the recent resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The chapter also looks at a number of specific human rights, such as the right to life and the right to an adequate standard of living, exploring the way these rights have been applied by courts and tribunals in environmental cases. The chapter also explains the role of intergenerational equity as a long-standing principle of international environmental law, albeit it one which often lacks legal force. Finally, the chapter provides some examples from domestic law where the environmental rights of future generations have been protected. Overall, the chapter demonstrates that, while there is now widespread recognition of the environmental dimensions of human rights and growing protections at the domestic level, international human rights law still provides only limited protection of environmental rights and no explicit protection of the rights of future generations.

The relationship between One Health and human rights is both symbiotic and antagonistic. The objectives of One Health align with human rights to the extent that they advance specific rights, particularly the rights to life and health. One Health also promotes human dignity, the foundation of human rights, by improving environmental conditions and addressing threats to health that impact people’s lives. Yet the inherent anthropocentrism of human rights sits uneasily with One Health’s commitment to human, animal, and environmental health. The growing field of environmental human rights may offer some way forward for resolving this tension and advancing the legal framework for One Health, while also highlighting some of the potential pitfalls along the way. Early environmental human rights positioned the environment as a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights. More recently the right to a healthy environment has been recognised more widely, expanding the potential for human rights objectives to include protection of environmental health, and perhaps also animal health. This chapter will explore the lessons that human rights law might offer and the potential for the right to a healthy environment to temper the anthropocentrism of human rights in a way that better promotes the triple objectives of One Health.

Despite the growing recognition of environmental rights as a key means of protecting human rights from environmental harm, the rights of future generations to be protected from environmental harm have so far been neglected. Environmental problems like climate change, landfill, toxic waste, air and water pollution, depletion of aquifers, and deforestation all have effects that will persist for decades. Environmental destruction from natural and manmade disasters can occur rapidly and cause irreparable harm to natural and cultural heritage. Concepts of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, notwithstanding their long standing as pillars of international environmental law, have failed to prevent large-scale, long-term environmental damage and associated impacts on human rights. To protect the interests of future generations effectively, environmental human rights frameworks need justiciable rights that protect against long-term environmental harm accompanied by principles and processes to enable legal enforcement of those rights.