With Climate Crisis Deepening Worldwide, Third Committee Urges States to Ramp Up Environmental Legislation, Provide Funding to Hard-Hit Developing Nations

Committee Also Debates Need for Safe Drinking Water, Impacts of Coercive Measures

As the global environmental crisis inflicts despair on millions of people worldwide, States must implement and enforce stronger climate and environmental laws, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today, as they also engaged in a series of interactive dialogues on equitable order, coercive unilateral measures and the right to safe drinking water.

Addressing the Committee in the afternoon session, David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, said the worsening climate crisis is unleashing extreme weather events worldwide, “inflicting and exacerbating desperate circumstances for millions of people already struggling with poverty and marginalization”.

Emphasizing that the environmental and climate crisis is also a human rights crisis, he urged States to enact and enforce stronger laws and policies, particularly to reign in investor-State dispute settlements.  States trying to tackle the crises are being forced to pay billions of dollars in compensation to corporations that have caused the problems, he said.  “Instead of making polluters pay, States are paying polluters.”

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the United States highlighted extreme concern over the safety of environmental defenders, reporting that one third of those killed are Indigenous. Echoing his concerns, the representative of Costa Rica called for human rights societies and Indigenous communities to play a greater role.

In a similar vein, Mexico’s delegate pressed States to implement more ambitious measures to avoid a planetary catastrophe and meet human rights and environmental commitments.  The representative of the Dominican Republic stressed the importance of protecting the environment and fostering investments to secure policies for a green environment.

Also delivering his report to the Committee, Ian Fry, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, expressed concern that public protests voicing frustration at a lack of action by Governments and corporations are met with suppression, including arrests and extrajudicial killings. Government crackdowns only escalate tensions, he said.  He highlighted the lack of focus on adaptation, capacity-building and education as well as procedures addressing loss and damage.  Moreover, Indigenous Peoples are often absent from domestic legislation, he said.

Taking up the related theme of mitigation in the interactive dialogue, the representative of China called on developed countries to take the lead in emissions reduction and provide funding and technology to developing countries.

On the same note, the representative of Maldives said it would be a terrible injustice for small island developing States to shoulder the burden of climate change without the backing of the international community. 

In the morning session, the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, warned about the rapid rise in the use of unilateral sanctions regimes. The overcompliance with them by States, international organizations, banks, other businesses and donors leads to the violation of nearly all the civil, economic, social and cultural rights of those impacted.

In the interactive dialogue that followed, Venezuela’s delegate highlighted “the criminal nature” of these sanctions and their “cruel impact” on human rights,  calling them “a tool of pressure” imposed by colonialists on the rest of the world.  Cuba’s delegate said the blockade imposed on his country by the United States for more than 60 years violates international law, while the inclusion of Cuba on the list of sponsors of terrorism affects its economy and intimidates third parties.

Syria’s delegate, noting the adverse effect of these illegal measures on the enjoyment of human rights, recalled that, in the wake of the earthquake that struck his country, many firms refused to engage with it commercially or extend any assistance to Syrians due to fear of imposing illegal unilateral coercive measures on third parties. 

The Committee also heard a presentation from Livingstone Sewanyana, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, who noted that global governance spaces must take public participation seriously, and that the voices of marginalized groups must be considered in decision-making processes.  He stressed that multilateralism, dialogue and negotiation remain the sole path for solving conflicts and maintaining peace.

In other business, the Committee finished its general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights.

Interactive Dialogue — Democratic and Equitable Order

In the morning, the Committee took up its work on the promotion and protection of human rights with interactive dialogues featuring presentations by Livingstone Sewanyana, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights; and Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.

Addressing the committee at the end of his mandate, Mr. SEWANYANA introduced his report highlighting the main recommendations from his previous reports to the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council during the past six years (document A/78/262).  Recalling his 2019 reports (documents A/74/245 and A/HRC/42/48) looking at public participation and decision-making in global governance spaces such as BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa) and the Group of 77 and China, he said that while efforts have been made to include more stakeholders, resulting participation can be tokenistic.  It is essential that global governance spaces take public participation seriously, he stressed, noting that the voices of marginalized groups also must be considered in decision-making processes.  Other reports focused on the interplay between economic policies and safeguards of international financial institutions and good governance at the local level (documents A/75/206 and A/HRC/45/28), he said, underscoring that international financial institutions must take all measures to ensure that projects they support do not lead to human rights violations, including those committed by clients.  In fact, they must use their leverage to ensure clients respect human rights and good governance. 

The 2021 and 2022 reports focused on the extent to which the COVID‑19 pandemic constituted a serious test to multilateralism and maintenance (documents A/76/153 and A/HRC/48/58) and strengthening of international peace and security at the global level (documents A/77/180 and A/HRC/51/32), respectively, he said.  The latter report found that multilateralism, dialogue and negotiation is still the sole path for solving conflicts and maintaining peace, he stressed, noting that the gravity of the current situation in Ukraine, and more recently Israel and Palestine, can provide an occasion to solve some long-standing issues threatening international peace and security.  His 2023 report to the Human Rights Council on opportunities and challenges faced by youth in participating and engaging in intergovernmental forums ( document A/HRC/54/28) highlighted the important role of youth participation in advancing democracy. Recommendations in the report include policy reform aimed at shaping the future on a global scale, with the inclusion of youth from the Global South and marginalized communities as a priority.

At a time of significant turmoil, marked primarily by a continuously highly volatile international peace and security situation, post-pandemic recovery and preparation for the next pandemic, this mandate is more relevant than ever, he stressed.  Lamenting the geopolitical divide that saw some Member States disengage from his mandate, he called on all stakeholders to cooperate with his successor.  Further, he underscored the importance of resolving issues around the right to self-determination, as they are serious threats to international peace and security. 

When the floor opened for questions and comments, the representative of Venezuela said an exceptionalist approach only leads to instability and threatens peace, as was seen in a dramatic way during the COVID‑19 pandemic, when many countries were refused vaccines.  He asked Mr. Sewanyana how to prevent this kind of dictatorship, which does not promote multilateralism, and establish a more inclusive environment.

The delegate for Cameroon asked which of Mr. Sewanyana’s recommendations have been taken into consideration by international financial institutions.  Further, if he were to give only one piece of advice to implement his recommendation, what would it be? 

The representative of Azerbaijan noted that strict observance of the principles of international law is of the utmost importance for the maintenance of international peace. 

The delegate for Cuba said coercive measures are contrary to the UN Charter and international law and are an obstacle to sustainable development.  He said the economic blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba for more than 60 years is the most representative example of that.  He asked what impact unilateral coercive measures have on promoting an international order that is democratic and equitable.

The representative of the Russian Federation categorically rejected the unilateral coercive measures which are used under the pretext of human rights protection as a tool to exert pressure on sovereign States that are conducting an independent foreign policy. Global experience clearly shows that the use of unilateral restrictions to achieve short-term political goals is an ineffective way of going about things and could have economic, political and image-harming effects.  He asked Mr. Sewanyana to expand his views on access to vaccines, including in developing countries. 

The representative of Malaysia asked how, faced with multifaceted and overlapping challenges, States can better understand different needs and aspirations of youth and ensure that their perspectives are fully represented in decision-making processes at all levels.

The representative of Iran said unilateral, coercive measures seek political extortion by means of coercion, intimidation and the imposition of socioeconomic pressures.  They are against international human rights and humanitarian law, and these unlawful acts impact the economic well-being of the most vulnerable in targeted countries.  She asked about adverse human rights effects of secondary sanctions and overcompliance on the situations of people in targeted countries. 

The observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta asked how Mr. Sewanyana intends to promote a more stable financial foundation for human rights mechanisms.

In his response, Mr. SEWANYANA noted that there are many questions regarding the need for a democratic and equitable international order.  The answer, however, lies in the UN Charter, which is very clear.  It calls on Member States to cooperate, work in solidarity and ensure concerted action.  If they can cooperate and work closely, then most challenges will be addressed, he said. 

On the issue of sanctions, he said that, if properly targeted, they can have some positive impact.  However, they often tend to injure the civilian population and the marginalized.  Instead of coercive measures, multilateralism is needed.  A multilateral approach is the only answer to many problems that the globe is facing, whether they are issues of finances, questions of peace and security or the larger question of the right to self-determination.

Regarding implementation of his recommendations, he said that in 2022 he called on the General Assembly to reassert itself, because the answer lies within that body.  He highlighted the need to reform many institutions, such as the UN Security Council, on the question of peace and security.  We need to rethink the whole question regarding economic and financial architecture.  The answer, again, lies in working together in solidarity.

Among items which are critical is the right to self-determination.  He gave examples of communities yearning for peace, inclusiveness and equity, among them the Tamils in Sri Lanka and communities in South Cameroon and Western Sahara.  Right now, he said, Palestine, vis-à-vis Israel, is crying out for justice and peace.

He invited Member States to reconsider the whole question of the right to self-determination, because without that, many communities will continue to be excluded from decision-making processes, access to resources and political rights. 

Unilateral Coercive Measures and Human Rights

Ms. DOUHAN delivered her report (document A/78/196), noting a rapid expansion of the use and enforcement of various types of unilateral sanctions regimes as well as penalties for their alleged circumvention or assistance in circumvention.  Underlying conditions giving rise to overcompliance may include the multiple, complex, unclear, fast-evolving, fluid and overlapping character of sanctions regimes; the frequent use of secondary sanctions; and criminal and civil penalties for circumvention of sanctions’ regimes, including the strengthening of national and international frameworks for criminalization of violations and circumvention of sanctions. Overcompliance with unilateral sanctions by States, international organizations, banks, other businesses, donors and civil society, including humanitarian organizations, results in the violation of nearly all civil, economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development of peoples.  Zero-risk policies and overcompliance may be qualified as discriminatory practices against nationals and residents of countries under sanctions on the grounds of their nationality, origin and residence and violate the human rights principles enshrined in all international human rights treaties. 

Fear of secondary sanctions, civil and criminal penalties, complex, confusing and unclear sanctions regulations and interpretations, high costs of legal aid in sanctions cases and risks of additional charges against legal professionals violate targeted individuals’ right to access justice, presumption of innocence and the right to due process and fair trial guarantees, she said.  Unilateral sanctions and overcompliance prevent the delivery of humanitarian assistance even in emergency situations, as has been the case.  Due to their illegality, the overwhelming majority of unilateral sanctions constitute unilateral coercive measures condemned in numerous Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly resolutions.  It follows that the use and enforcement of secondary sanctions and civil and criminal penalties for alleged circumvention of unilateral sanctions’ regimes, and through them the extraterritorial application of jurisdiction, constitute undeniable violations of international law. States can only exercise their authority on the grounds of universal, territorial or personal jurisdiction. 

Among the report’s recommendations are that States and regional organizations should review measures taken without or beyond authorization of the UN Security Council and lift those which do not fit criteria of retortions or countermeasures in full conformity with standards and limitations of the law of international responsibility.  They should avoid imposing secondary sanctions and civil and criminal measures to enforce unilateral primary sanctions and lift those they have already applied.  Among guiding principles on business and human rights is the obligation to take measures to prevent any violation of human rights, at least those set forth in the International Bill of Rights.  States also are to take all necessary measures to ensure that the activity of businesses under their jurisdiction and control is exercised in full conformity with human rights standards as a part of due diligence obligations.  With respect to violations of the Covenant, States should cease the practice of issuing sanctions-related non-binding interpretative documents, which become treated as law and thus further exacerbate uncertainty and confusion resulting in overcompliance.  They should also ensure that unilateral sanctions and overcompliance with unilateral sanctions do not impact critical infrastructure and services relevant to health care, food, agriculture and electricity, inter alia.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, delegates raised concerns over the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the full realization of human rights.

Venezuela’s delegate highlighted “the criminal nature” of these sanctions and their “cruel impact” on human rights. Citing them as “a tool of pressure” imposed by colonialists on the rest of the world, he asked the Special Rapporteur about progress made under her mandate to raise awareness of those in power in the Global North on this issue, and about a mechanism that can monitor the impact of such measures.

Echoing his concerns, Nicaragua’s delegate, associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said unilateral coercive measures impact all areas of development by daily affecting countries in the Global South. Accordingly, he condemned Washington’s “meddling and interventionist politics” against his country.

Adding to that, Cuba’s delegate said the blockade imposed on his country by the United States for more than 60 years violates international law. Also, the inclusion of Cuba on the list of sponsors of terrorism affects its economy and intimidates third parties.

The representative of Belarus, associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, echoed the call of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for an analysis of the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.  He voiced particular concern over the increasing use of international organizations to ensure compliance with those measures, noting the “dubious legality” of such a practice under international law.  Citing it as “a criminal practice”, he called for its full and irreversible end.

Syria’s delegate, noting the adverse effect of these illegal measures on the enjoyment of human rights, recalled that, in the wake of the earthquake that struck his country, many firms refused to engage with it commercially or extend any assistance to Syrians due to fear of imposing illegal unilateral coercive measures on third parties. Criticizing “the continued silence of Western States”, he called for unconditional lifting of such measures on Syria.

Along similar lines, Iran’s delegate, categorically rejecting unilateral coercive measures imposed on her country by the United States and European Union, stressed the need to ensure the delivery of specialized life-saving medicine and medical equipment to or from countries under sanctions to mitigate the negative impacts of natural disasters.

The representative of Zimbabwe sounded alarm over the extraterritorial nature of these sanctions, which infringes on human rights of targeted States, affecting the rights of vulnerable populations, including women and refugees.

In the same vein, the representative of the Russian Federation opposed the extraterritorial use of national sanctions legislation, noting their impact on the humanitarian situation in developing countries.  He opposed sanctions against Russian athletes with disabilities who are unable to participate in international competitions, citing this practice as “discrimination based on nationality and political convictions”.

China’s delegate underscored that the United States and Western countries have engaged with unilateral coercive measures globally, seriously violating the right to life and health of people in the countries concerned.  An example of this is the denial of humanitarian assistance to Syrians. Moreover, Washington-imposed unilateral coercive measures led to the death of 13,000 people in Iran due to the lack of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. DOUHAN said dialogue and awareness-raising efforts are the only way to find solutions, not the imposition of unilateral sanctions. The media present sanctions as “a nice tool addressing bad guys” with no humanitarian consequences.  “That is not the truth,” she stressed, adding that it is impossible to ignore the facts and figures presented.  Highlighting issues resulting from the imposition of such measures, she said people and companies designated by such measures face challenges in access to justice for multiple reasons, such as fear of lawyers to represent them.  Moreover, people who are not directly designated have absolutely zero possibility to appeal to any court around the world and they stand unprotected in the face of human rights violations.  Stressing the need to guarantee that humanitarian assistance is delivered, she voiced concern over the impact of sanctions on the right to health.  Also, overcompliance turns sanctions, even targeted sanctions, into comprehensive ones.

Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

Mr. ARROJO-AGUDO presented his report (document A/78/253), underscoring that the right to safe drinking water and sanitation is a shared responsibility for Governments of countries with transboundary basins.  Highlighting the link between climate–change-induced frequency of flood and drought, he underscored the threat they pose to the right to safe drinking water, and also to life.  Traditional approaches to water management as a national resource foster competition and conflict, making adaptation to climate change more difficult.  Worse, in times of conflict, “the logic of hatred” can include using water as a weapon against the civilian population, which constitutes a war crime.  “The international community cannot allow this to happen,” he said.  Instead, a rights-based approach must be implemented, he stressed, noting that moving from a competition-for-resources to a shared-responsibility model is necessary to tackle climate change, promote security and ensure the survival of millions of people.  An approach based on human rights must promote the transboundary public participation of all as rights holders, with particular attention given to vulnerable groups, he added.

While such an approach does not end wars by itself, it will prevent conflicts where water is an impetus for them, he said.  He called on States with transboundary basins to sign the Water Convention, noting that the Security Council must also pay attention to transboundary water management in the maintenance of peace and security.  Highlighting regions with cross-border charters and institutions recognizing or promoting the right to drinking water, such as Lake Chad, the Niger River Basin, the Mekong River Commission and the European Union Water Framework Directive, he stressed that the international community already has a body of norms addressing challenges of transboundary water management.  He called for legally binding obligations in that regard, with effective implementation by States.  In closing, he highlighted recommendations contained in his report to address the issue, including ensuring that climate change adaptation be based on the good state of ecosystems and the rights of populations at the basin level as well as the right to sanitation in transboundary agreements, with special attention to toxic pollution.

When the floor opened for questions and comments, the representative of Iraq, referring to construction of dams and other actions to redistribute water resources that lead to increased salinity, asked about the Special Rapporteur’s position from the viewpoint of international law on making water a “good” rather than something that is essential for life.

The youth delegate of Croatia, aligning himself with the European Union, asked what specific actions can be taken by youth to implement the report’s recommendations. 

The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, said that water is not just a commodity but a source of life and dignity.  She expressed hope that the findings of this year’s annual report will feed into preparations of the United Nations system-wide strategy on water and sanitation, which was recently mandated by the General Assembly to improve coordination among agencies.  She asked how the European Union and other regional organizations can best support transboundary water management and cooperation, particularly in regions where water resources are scarce or under pressure from climate change.

Also aligning himself with the European Union, the representative of Spain said his country has recognized the natural entity of the Mar Menor, the largest saltwater lagoon in Europe, as seriously affected by pollution.  As the report mentions examples of cross-border regional cooperation, he asked what the most important aspects favouring such successful cooperation are.

The representative of Bangladesh, highlighting that 99 per cent of his country’s population has access to safe drinking water, asked about the good practices that can be shared with regards to women’s and girls’ participation and the Rapporteur’ suggestions to bolster cooperation between the Global North and Global South to ensure the right to safe water and sanitation.

The representative of Türkiye rejected all allegations and unfair criticism against his country in the report and called on the Rapporteur to be extremely vigilant about realities on the ground.

The representative of Germany, aligning himself with the European Union, underscoring the importance of an ecosystem approach to effectively address climate change risks, asked about main challenges in enabling a human rights-based approach to water and in promoting the health of aquatic ecosystems.

The representative of China said the Government of Japan, without consulting neighbouring countries, has started discharging nuclear contaminated water.  He urged Japan to dispose of this water in a responsible manner and called for continued attention form the Special Rapporteur and relevant international bodies.

The representative of the Russian Federation, referring to Ukraine’s often-cited claims regarding the human rights situation in Crimea, asked why the Kyiv authorities established a water blockade of Crimea in 2014.  “Who then is defending human rights in that way?”  That would be our question to Ukraine, he said. 

The representative of the United States, underscoring the importance of anticipating, preventing and reducing conflicts related to water resources, asked about successful examples of water diplomacy.

Echoing that, the representative of Egypt called for effective negotiations to avoid conflicts and guarantee regional stability, asking the Rapporteur what measures can be taken to improve cooperation between countries when it comes to guaranteeing the right to fresh water. 

The representative of Morocco asked about the Rapporteur’s assessment of the international cooperation framework and ways to further improve it. 

The representative of Japan, replying to claims about the discharge of nuclear polluted water, said that detailed explanations have already been provided to the international community, as his Government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are conducting monitoring and no anomalies have been detected. 

The observer of the Sovereign Order of Malta spotlighted the Order’s cross-regional water programmes in India, Nepal and Uganda, calling on the international community to ensure the right to clean water and sanitation to everyone, including women and girls. 

Responding to questions, Mr. ARROJO-AGUDO thanked representatives who took the floor, praising or criticizing his report, and said:  “What I can do and what I must do is to try to help you in the responsibilities you have, and you can accept that help or not.”  Calling for future discussions on finding solutions, he said that over recent days he had been contacted by many people asking about his recommendations on what is happening in Gaza with regards to human rights to drinking water and sanitation. He fully supported the positions expressed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General. “Put yourself in the shoes of the Jews in Israel but also put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians in Gaza,” he said, also asking for forgiveness for expelling Jews and Muslims from his country of Spain as a descendant of those who committed that crime against humanity.  “I propose to make drinking water the soul, the basis of all life, and we must make it a flag for peace, as is the blue flag of the United Nations,” he stressed, calling to put an end to the stupid war in Gaza and appealing for an immediate ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

General Debate

FELIPE MACHADO MOURIÑO (Uruguay), aligning with Ireland on behalf of a group of countries and Luxembourg on behalf of the Core Group on LGBTI, said that international regulatory frameworks are insufficient if they are not complemented by concrete national actions that promote the well-being of populations without distinction.  “We must continue appealing to the international community to promote a moratorium on the death penalty,” he stressed, adding that his country abolished the death penalty in 1907.  He also underscored the need to fight against extrajudicial executions, which must be based on prevention, investigation and accountability.  “Those countries of origin and destination of migrants have a fundamental responsibility in protecting the rights of migrants through implementing laws, programmes and policies that meet their needs,” he said. 

GODFREY KWOBA (Uganda) said that current escalating challenges to peace have become a persistent threat to human rights in various corners of the world.  He spotlighted that his country is committed to upholding the promotion and protection of human rights as a central pillar in its national policies and development programmes.  “The Government of Uganda established the Uganda Human Rights Commission in 1997,” he said, adding that this body possesses judicial powers, including the authority to order the release of detainees.  “Our approach to human rights is to respect other people’s values and we expect others to respect our values, which are deeply rooted in our culture,” he stated, adding that his Government is committed to ensuring affirmative action in favour of marginalized groups.  “As a country, it is our paramount responsibility to protect children against any abuse,” he stressed. 

ESTHER NCHAMA BICO MBASOGO (Equatorial Guinea), aligning herself with the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries and the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, said her country, in accordance with its national policy for social development and inclusion for all, supports and works for gender equality and the empowerment of women.  “Equatorial Guinea ensures the rights of boys and girls, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups,” she said, spotlighting the creation of its national reception centres for elderly people and the presence of disabled people in parliament.  “Human rights are like a hill whose summit is located in infinity, the point to which we are all moving; to the extent that each Government develops its work, we are moving towards that eternity,” she said, adding that her country is willing to maintain close cooperation with the United Nations system regarding human rights.

ZEBIB GEBREKIDAN (Eritrea) highlighted crises affecting the world today, including occupation and extreme poverty.  Calling on the international community to address inequalities, she noted that the richest 1 per cent of the world have claimed around half of newly generated wealth over the past decade, while 10 per cent of the world face hunger.  Many nations are teetering towards financial collapse, with the poorest nations allocating more resources to debt repayment than to their own development.  She called for an end to unilateral coercive measures.  She underscored the importance of dialogue, voicing concern over increasing politicization in debates, hindering progress.  It is time to abandon self-righteousness, she said. Further, the treaty bodies and Human Rights Council must address historical injustices.  Eritrea remains dedicated to implementing equitable and sustainable development, including health care and education, with a particular focus on addressing the needs of the most vulnerable. 

Ms. LELISA (Lesotho) said Lesotho has made strides in addressing equality and non-discrimination by promulgating laws that safeguard equality between men and women in various settings.  These laws include the Legal Capacity of Married Persons Act of 2022 and the 2022 Counter Domestic Violence Act as well as the law on Harmonization of the Rights of Customary Widows.  She underscored the importance given to special mechanisms of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, adding that the State party reporting system is an important tool for a State to assess what it has achieved and what more it needs to do to promote and protect human rights.  It is through the concerted efforts of every stakeholder around the globe that States can remain committed to the cause of human rights, as human rights are a collective responsibility.

ALI MABKHOT SALEM BALOBAID (Yemen), associating with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab Group (OIC), called on the international community to increase pressure on the Houthi militia to cease all violations, such as targeting vital installations, oppressing religious minorities, arresting academics and activists and impeding the work of women.  Citing truce as “a humanitarian priority”, he stressed the need to achieve a sustainable solution to enhance the human rights situation in Yemen.  Turning to the situation in Gaza, he highlighted the “barbaric aggression” of the Israeli occupation army, denying the Palestinians basic services, food and electricity.  The most recent example of this “unprecedented calamity” of full-fledged war crimes and crimes against humanity is the deliberate targeting of the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, which resulted in hundreds of casualties. Against this backdrop, he urged the international community “to rescue the humanity of the Palestinian people” and called for the provision of delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

MATEUS PEDRO LUEMBA (Angola) said promotion and protection of human rights are part of the country’s journey since independence from colonial domination, noting that human rights belong to everyone globally, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion or any other status.  Nationally, his country has made progress in the areas of health, education and access to land and housing, particularly in rural areas.  Further, the Government has established the Reconciliation Plan in Memory of the Victims of Political Conflicts to honor victims of political conflicts in his country between 1975 and 2022.  A memorial to all victims will be built in Luanda.  Moreover, Angola has established the fourth April Human Rights Award, given to organizations or civil society actors who champion the rights agenda nationally.  Defending the principle of universality and self-determination, he called on Member States to support human rights and ratify all relevant legal instruments. 

ZACHARY N. MUÑOZ, observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta, said the provision of peace, security, development and accountability to the vulnerable is a crucial contribution to the common good.  Aligned with these principles, the Sovereign Order of Malta has upheld human dignity and aid to those in need worldwide for over 900 years, regardless of background or belief.  With reference to the High Commissioner on Human Rights’ report, he asked for elaboration on the potential framework of strategies, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for strengthened and revitalized global partnerships.  These will encourage enhanced collaboration among nations, international organizations, civil societies and private sector entities to optimize resource mobilization, and the sharing of expertise for the benefit of effective communities. 

KALLIE ANN AULTMAN, representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said her organization is appalled at the escalation of violence and human misery that has unfolded in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, including the attack on the Al-Ahli Hospital. Civilians are paying the highest price and must be protected.  On migration, she said the Americas recorded their deadliest year for migrants, with nearly 1,500 lives lost, while at least 28,000 migrants have died in the past decade crossing the Mediterranean.  Governments have obligations to save lives, prevent death and serious harm and protect the human rights and dignity of migrants, although many are not doing so. She urged all States to work together to save lives by prioritizing and cooperating in search and rescue operations for migrants on land and at sea.  They should also ensure that all migrants, regardless of status, have access to essential services at all stages of their journey.  Finally, they should stop actions that obstruct or criminalize humanitarian efforts aimed at providing protection and assistance and assess the impact of relevant laws, policies and practices, revising them to ensure they are in line with international legal obligations.

DANIEL DEL VALLE BLANCO of the International Youth Organization of South America said that his organization’s New Agenda for Youth has set up objectives and strategies, including human rights and citizenship, aimed at promoting a regional youth agenda based on the rights of young people and sustainable development. “The main focus is the promotion of the rights of young people, with an emphasis on their participation, protection, prevention and monitoring of issues related to peacebuilding,” he said, underscoring the fundamental role of young people as peacebuilders and their inclusion in decision-making processes for the prevention and resolution of conflicts. “The international treaty on the rights of young people is an important instrument to recognize the rights of young people in the legislative frameworks of Ibero-American countries,” he stressed.

Interactive Dialogue — Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment

In the afternoon, the Committee further elaborated on the theme of the promotion and protection of human rights, with interactive dialogues featuring presentations by David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Ian Fry, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change; and Marco Orellana, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes.

Addressing the Committee, Mr. BOYD presented his report “Paying polluters: the catastrophic consequences of investor-State dispute settlement for climate and environment action and human rights” (document A/78/168).  He said the worsening climate crisis is unleashing droughts, wildfires, floods and extreme weather events in all regions of the world, inflicting and exacerbating desperate circumstances for millions of people already struggling with poverty and marginalization.  This is part of a broader planetary environmental crisis involving desertification and land degradation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, the increasing spillover of zoonotic diseases and pervasive toxic pollution.  He stressed that the global environmental crisis is also a human rights crisis and called on States to enact, implement and enforce stronger climate and environmental laws and policies to address the planetary crisis.  Yet, because of the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism created by international trade and investment treaties that provides foreign investors with immense power, these essential State actions to protect the environment and tackle the climate crisis may be blocked.  Foreign investors will seek millions, billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation because State actions reduced the value of their assets or their future profits.  He cited the case of Pakistan, which was ordered to pay $5.8 billion in compensation after an investor used the investor dispute mechanism to sue after a mine was cancelled.  Worldwide, the number of known investor dispute cases targeting actions taken by States to protect the environment has skyrocketed, from 12 cases initiated prior to 2000 to 37 cases in the period 2000 to 2010 and 126 cases in the period 2011 to 2021.  Investor-State cases are not decided by courts with independent judges applying domestic law.  Instead, they are decided by international arbitrators, lawyers who often represent foreign investors in other cases.  In another example, he said three Australian mining companies sued the Republic of Congo for a total of more than $35 billion.  The Republic of Congo’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) is $13 billion.

 Arbitrators have broadly interpreted vague phrases such as “indirect expropriation” and “legitimate expectations” to penalize States for taking legitimate climate and environmental actions, including closing coal-fired power plants, banning offshore oil exploration, prohibiting fracking and rejecting massive mining proposals.  Northern States have figured this out.  International arbitration claims between the 27 European Union Member States have been eliminated.  Numerous European States have withdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty because the investor-State mechanism is making climate action unbearably expensive.  Canada and the United States agreed to delete the investor-State mechanism in the North American Free Trade Agreement from its successor, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.  Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister said the mechanism has cost Canadian taxpayers more than $300 million and elevated the rights of foreign investors above those of sovereign Governments.  She further stated that, in eliminating the investor-State mechanism, Canada has strengthened its right to regulate in the public interest to protect public health and the environment. India, Indonesia and South Africa have also taken steps to avoid investor-State mechanism cases.

He emphasized that the climate and environmental crisis is also a human rights crisis.  The secretive and exclusive investor-State process violates rights to information and public participation: impacted communities are often precluded from participating.  Arbitrators usually ignore or dismiss human rights arguments. Also noted is regulatory chill:  the threat of investor-State cases is stopping States from taking ambitious climate and environmental action.  For example, Denmark, France and New Zealand all backed away from plans to prohibit offshore fossil-fuel exploration.  Further, the large awards paid by States limit their ability to fulfil their human rights obligations.  Highlighting good news, he said States have options for removing the threat of future investor-State lawsuits.  One option is to renegotiate trade and investment treaties and delete investor-State provisions from future agreements.  He called on all to recognize how crazy the situation is.  States trying to tackle the climate and environmental crisis and safeguard human rights are being forced to pay billions of dollars in compensation to the very corporations that have caused these problems.  Instead of making polluters pay, States are paying polluters.

In the ensuring interactive dialogue, delegates stressed the need to advance environmental justice and ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights. 

The representative of the Dominican Republic stressed the importance of protecting the environment, an adequate standard of living and fostering investments to secure policies for a green environment.

In the same vein, Mexico’s delegate said it is vital for States to implement more ambitious measures to avoid a planetary catastrophe and meet human rights and environmental commitments. 

Adding to that, Colombia’s delegate recalled that the right to a healthy environment is part of her country’s Constitution.  To avoid the point of “no return” for biodiversity, she asked about inclusive ways to tackle the issue.

The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, asked about the most critical action the Union should take in coming months to deal with the urgent matter discussed today. 

The representative of the United States voiced extreme concern over the safety of environmental defenders, reporting that one third of those killed are Indigenous. 

Echoing his concerns, the representative of Costa Rica, associating with the Core Group on Human Rights and the Environment, called for the increased participation of human rights societies and Indigenous communities in response to this issue.

The representative of the Russian Federation, meanwhile, underlined the importance of strengthening the effectiveness of existing international legal mechanisms in the environmental sphere.  He opposed the practice of linking the human rights agenda with environmental issues, noting that environmental rights are not regulated by international human rights law.  Existing environmental agreements do not speak about the right to a healthy and safe environment.  Against this backdrop, this category of rights should not be imposed on States.

China’s delegate, noting that humanity is at a critical juncture, underscored his Government’s commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 and continue to build an ecological civilization.  However, he expressed grave concern that some States are determined to transfer environmental risks to the rest of the world, noting that Japan is ignoring strong international opposition and disregarding the right to a health and safe environment of its own and other peoples.  Japan has forcibly started to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water of Fukushima into the ocean, he said, calling on the country to stop the arbitrary discharge.

Japan’s delegate said his Government will continue to explain its efforts to the international community in a transparent manner and is willing to discuss details at appropriate fora.

Mr. BOYD responded that ongoing international processes that are attempting to remedy the problems vis-à-vis investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms reflect that “the system is broken”. For example, there was a dispute between Colombia and a Canadian mining company regarding the proposal to build a large gold mine.  However, the arbitration tribunal that heard this case rejected the argument made by both Canada and Colombia as to the appropriate interpretation of their bilateral investment treaty.  This case demonstrates that even the attempts to remedy the problems are not being recognized by the arbitrators.

Since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/300 (2022) on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, substantive progress has been made on both the global and national level, he observed, adding that it has been implemented into the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to in Montreal in 2022.  It is also part of general comment no. 26 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which notes that every child has the right to a healthy and safe environment.  At the national level, he called on States to recognize the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.  He further underscored the need to improve air quality, ensure access to safe water, conserve biodiversity, end deforestation and switch to renewable energy. 

Human Rights and Climate Change

Introducing his report on human rights and climate change (document A/78/255), Mr. FRY highlighted that many countries have yet to link the two issues, noting with concern that public protests voicing frustration at a lack of action by Governments and corporations are met with suppression, including arrests and extrajudicial killings.  Government crackdowns only escalate tensions, he added, underscoring that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.  The report addresses human rights in climate change legislation, climate change litigation and intergenerational justice, he said. Detailing findings, he highlighted the lack of focus on adaptation, capacity-building and education as well as procedures addressing loss and damage.  Moreover, Indigenous Peoples and other rights holders mentioned in the preamble of the Paris Agreement are often absent from domestic legislation, and few countries, save Fiji, have even considered climate change displacement. A growing trend, climate change litigation can drive policy changes and positively influence future responses to climate change, he said, adding that most cases focus on Government actions — or lack thereof — as well as corporations and that more attention is being given to financial institutions and their role in the fossil-fuel industry. 

While barriers, including procedural delays, high costs and language barriers hamper access to courts, advisory opinions have been sought to clarify legal obligations of States from various bodies, including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice.  States have a distinct legal and moral responsibility to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions produced in one State do not harm another State.  While there is a growing body of jurisprudence on intergenerational equity and justice, a clear focus on the rights of future generations is lacking internationally, he stressed.  To address this gap, a group of legal experts produced the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, which is commendable, he said. Highlighting recommendations in his report, he said that States should develop climate change legislation that integrates human rights, but also develop a training manual for judges, he said, calling on the General Assembly to prepare a resolution reflecting key elements of the Maastricht Principles at its seventy-eighth session.

When the floor opened for questions and comments, the representatives of the Dominican Republic, Morocco and Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on his intergenerational justice initiative to tackle climate change, while the representative of Colombia asked how best to integrate a human rights approach with an environmental one.

The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, asked how Member States can identify and address possible gaps in their national legislation, also incorporating the gender perspective.

Aligning themselves with the European Union, delegates of Malta, Greece and Germany asked how to reflect a whole-of-Government coordinated approach, based on human rights and climate change legislation, to address or prevent the effects of the climate crisis, as well as how Member States can best ensure that persons in marginalized or vulnerable situations are given priority with respect to adaptation plans.  In the same vein, the youth delegates of Croatia and Italy asked what more can be done by young people and how to use the best practices of successful incorporation of the principles of intergenerational justice. 

The representative of Australia asked how the capacities of national judicial systems can be strengthened in hearing human rights-based climate change litigation, while the representative of Switzerland expressed interest in better protection of environmental rights defenders.  The representative of Costa Rica asked how advisory opinions mentioned in the report can consolidate a focus on human rights in combatting climate change and how to elevate the influence of science in climate litigation, mitigation and adaptation policy.

Liechtenstein’s delegate asked about the gender impact of climate change, while the representative of Chile invited other countries to update their sectoral legislation to comply with the Rapporteur's recommendations and comply with their international obligations.  The representative of the Russian Federation expressed concern with the change of mandates of the United Nations environmental programmes and climate agreements.

The representative of Malaysia asked how much States will be able to prioritize the recommendations, given other competing priorities and resource constraints.  The representative of the United States asked what can be done on a global level to ensure that climate resilience and adaptation plans better account for the needs of the most vulnerable.

Speaking about responsibility, the representative of Bangladesh asked how to engage with countries which are most responsible for climate change, encouraging them to take constitutional and legal measures to protect human rights.  The representative of China called on developed countries to take the lead in emissions reduction and provide funding and technology to developing countries. On the same note, the representative of Maldives said it would be a terrible injustice for small island developing States to shoulder the burden of climate change without the backing of the international community.

Responding to questions, Mr. FRY underscored that climate change is an intersectional issue that affects people in different ways, particularly people of various races, classes and genders.  He also said that the whole-of-Government approach mentioned by Greece is a good way of thinking and should be incorporated through constitutional change. As for gender, he said that this is a critical issue.  “We often hear that women are the victims of climate change, but they are also the innovators of climate change action,” he stressed, urging States to ensure that women are properly engaged in all aspects of decision-making.

Speaking about the judiciary, he said that he had participated in a workshop for judges in the Pacific on climate change and human rights, stating that such programmes are critical.  Regarding advisory opinions mentioned in his report, he said their goal is to give some useful guidance on processes and rights that should be allocated to future generations.  “I think it is critical that we do enshrine those principles within a resolution that encourages Governments to act in this respect,” he emphasized.  Turning to youth engagement, he recalled his cooperation with the Climate Youth Negotiators group, who bring young people onto delegations, urging States to include children in such delegations as well. 

Sound Management and Disposal of Hazardous Substances

Mr. ORELLANA, presenting his report (document A/78/169), said human rights have always been relevant to shipping, considering the impacts of the shipping industry on human beings and the environment. For example, oil spills harm coastal communities; air pollution from vessels impair air quality in port cities; greenhouse gas emissions from vessels contribute to climate change; and ship-breaking releases persistent hazardous pollutants to the environment. The magnitude of these impacts is apparent in the fact that 90 per cent of globally traded goods are carried by sea.  Shipping provides the most cost-effective method of transportation for goods worldwide. Toxic pollution by the shipping industry results from various sources, he said, adding that, while improvements in maritime safety and environmental protection have reduced the number of accidents and oil spills at sea in past decades, there are still many areas where improvement is urgently needed.

Noting that certain groups are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of shipping, he said coastal communities can be devastated by spills of oil or highly noxious substances. Indigenous Peoples, such as those living in the Arctic, are especially affected by marine pollution and the bioaccumulation of persistent pollutants.  Seafarers are often exposed to hazardous substances and working conditions. Forced labour is still alarmingly present in the maritime sector; many live in slavery-like conditions.  During the COVID‑19 pandemic, seafarers experienced an unprecedented crisis that made some “prisoners at sea” and blocked others from joining their workplaces.  Women represent only 2 per cent of the world’s 1.2 million seafarers and often experience ill-treatment and sexual violence. 

Detailing the magnitude of toxic impacts posed by shipping, he said it is estimated that the total volume of chemicals entering the ocean rose by 12 per cent between 2003 and 2012. Toxic chemicals accumulate in marine organisms throughout the entire food chain and also affect non-aquatic species. At the top of the food chain, humans are the final recipients of these toxins.  Even low concentrations of heavy metals and other hazardous substances can directly transfer to the human body and cause toxic effects.  Oil and toxic spills remain among the most significant and environmentally damaging disasters worldwide, arising from deliberate discharges, negligence or accidental leaks.  Air pollution associated with marine shipping accounts for 33 per cent of global trade-related emissions, he said, adding that low air quality due to international maritime transport contributes to approximately 60,000 deaths annually.  Ship-breaking often releases substances such as oil, lubricants and other hazardous chemicals, contaminating air, soil and water. 

While several conventions indirectly support human rights by seeking to improve safety and security at sea and the protection of the environment, there is an urgent need to implement and enforce conventions of the International Maritime Organization in the light of the human rights obligations of States, he stressed.  The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that flag, port and coastal States have some varying duty of enforcement. Regarding toxic risks and harms posed by shipping to human rights, States have the primary responsibility for enacting appropriate laws and regulations and for monitoring, investigating and prosecuting their breaches, including breaches by the private sector. At the same time, private ship-owners or operators and others in the shipping industry are also bound by international and human rights responsibilities, he added.

When the floor opened for questions and comments, the representative of Chile said her country is committed to the protection of marine ecosystems, noting it has a broad coastline.  The country recently ratified the Treaty of the High Seas or the “BBNJ Agreement” and summitted a proposal to headquarter the secretariat for the Treaty, she said. Underlining the importance of corporate responsibility in the protection of environmental rights, she noted that due diligence must be conducted for all enterprises. 

The youth delegate of Morocco said that waste is a global public health issue, noting that air pollution alone kills almost 7 million people per year.  Exposure to and mismanagement of waste can have an impact on human rights, he said, yet such information on the issue is often unavailable. He emphasized the importance of implementing mechanisms for the protection of the environment as well as the reduction of air pollution, noting that storage and elimination of hazardous waste requires active participation of all stakeholders.  He asked for the Rapporteur’s views on the precautionary principle as well as incorporating independent science into combatting climate change to avoid conflicts of interests.

In response, Mr. ORELLANA said that the Science Policy Interface is a key element to realize the right to science.  The setting up of the platform must be done with great care, he said, noting that it might not deliver on its goals to address toxification of the planet. Further, the issue of precaution can be built into the platform.  Indeed, precaution is also relevant to his report, he said, recalling the damage caused by a ship carrying nurdles (tiny granules of plastic used in manufacturing) sinking off the coast of Sri Lanka.  There is a gap in protection for the international and certainly coastal cities affected by plastic contamination, he stressed. Further, while the International Maritime Organization revised its climate strategy to bring it in line with the Paris Agreement, looking into alternative fuels for vessels, environmental impacts of proposed replacements for heavy fuels such as ammonia must be addressed.  Returning to the subject of the damages of shipbreaking, he welcomed the Hong Kong Convention on ship recycling but highlighted that it does not adequately address beaching a ship at low tide for dismantling, calling for its strengthening. Further, criteria for genuine links between ships and flag states are non-existent in international law, creating opacity and lack of accountability.  Instruments must address opacity in terms of beneficial owners as well as protect whistle blowers to inject a human rights approach into the shipping industry, he said.