Environmental human rights: concept, current state and some issues of business responsibility for their violation

Moiseev Konstantin Viktorovich ORCID: 0009-0006-6315-8042 Postgraduate student; Department of International Law; Ural State Law University named after V. F. Yakovlev. 620137, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Komsomolskaya str., 21 k.moiseev98@gmail.com

Introduction.

Due to the new challenges facing the world community related to environmental pollution, declining biodiversity and rapid global climate change, the relevance of developing the international legal status of the individual and protecting human rights related to the environment is only increasing. Today, there is no doubt that a favorable environment is of key importance for the enjoyment of human rights, and vice versa - the exercise of human rights (including the rights to information, public participation, and the right to access legal remedies) is crucial for environmental protection ^{[17, p.1]}. For timely and effective There is a need for an appropriate legal framework to adequately respond to the problems that arise in this area – new international human rights standards, new rights and freedoms are needed. These rights and freedoms should reflect a person's legitimate interests related to their environment. Unfortunately, at the moment it cannot be said that the environmental component in the system of existing human rights is an adequate answer to the issues that they are designed to solve. All over the world, individuals and entire communities face inaccessibility or difficulty in accessing the protection of rights and freedoms related to the environment. As Linos – Alexandre Sicilianos and Maria–Louise Defto have clearly noted, the harmful effects of climate change are becoming more pronounced in all spheres of human activity, burdening the peaceful exercise of human rights [Breaking New Ground: Climate Change before the Strasbourg Court. Blog of the European Journal of International Law. // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/breaking-new-ground-climate-change-before-the-strasbourg-court / (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The main part.

The environmental component in the system of existing human rights. John Knox, in his preliminary report dated December 24, 2012, pointed out that environmental degradation can harm all human rights, regardless of any categories, however, individual human rights are more vulnerable to environmental damage than others [UNGA, Human Rights Council, Independent Expert Report on the issue of human rights obligations related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment by John H. Knox, A/HRC/22/43, December 24, 2012]. This idea is increasingly being confirmed in judicial practice: for example, the European Court of Human Rights in the case KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland noted that environmental degradation can and does lead to serious and potentially irreversible negative consequences for the enjoyment of human rights [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg. April 9, 2024, §431. // URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206 (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also noted the link between human rights and the environment: "This court recognized the existence of an indisputable relationship between environmental protection and the realization of other human rights, since environmental degradation and the negative effects of climate change affect the real enjoyment of human rights" [Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017. Requested by the Republic of Colombia].

In 1973, in the afterword of the Stockholm Conference, Louis Bruno Sohn wrote: "There are no direct references to the very ... right to a safe, healthy and favorable environment ... It would be an important step forward if the right to an adequate environment were brought to the fore in the statement of principles, thereby eliminating the remaining doubts about its existence" ^{[22, p. 455]}. Since then, the right to a favorable environment in particular and environmental human rights in general have come a long way, and at the moment, the allocation of environmental human rights into a separate category is no longer controversial, which is confirmed by the wide division of such views on the part of the academic community ^{[8, pp. 765-794; 11, pp. 20-45; 21, pp. 509-544]}, and from international organizations and NGOs [See UNEP, What are environmental rights? // URL: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/advancing-environmental-rights/what , OHCHR, About human rights and the environment // URL: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-environment/about-human-rights-and-environment , Geneva Environment Network, Human Rights and the Environment // URL: https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/human-rights-and-the-environment / (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. The UN General Assembly, recognizing the right to a favorable environment (a key environmental human right), noted that the vast majority of states have recognized in one form or another the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in international treaties and national legislation [UNGA Resolution 76/300 "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment Wednesday, July 28, 2022. // URL: https://undocs.org/ru/A/RES/76/300 (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The concept of environmental human rights: prerequisites for formation, concept, varieties. The 1972 Stockholm United Nations Conference on the Environment is notable for the fact that it was the first to highlight the link between human rights and the environment ^{[13, p.12]}. The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration) and the Action Plan for the Human Environment were the first documents to establish human right related to the environment [Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm, 1972 // URL: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/declarathenv.shtml (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. As one of the creators of the declaration, Luis Bruno Sohn, noted, the reference to "the fundamental right to... favorable living conditions in an environment whose quality allows for a decent and prosperous life" was intended to convey the existence of the right to a favorable environment ^{[22, p. 455]}.

The World Charter of Nature, which was adopted by UNGA Resolution 37/7 on October 28, 1982, also had a great influence on this process. It proclaimed 24 principles of nature conservation, according to which any human activity affecting nature should be guided and evaluated [The 1982 World Charter of Nature // Public International Law. Collection of documents. Vol. 2.- M.: BEK, 1996. pp. 132-135]. The Charter was the first international document that outlined human responsibilities in relation to the environment. All mankind bears these responsibilities jointly – joint responsibility for the state of the environment of individuals, corporations and states is one of the key ideas of the Charter ^{[26, pp. 990-991]}.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 resulted in the adoption of such recommendatory documents as the Declaration on the Human Environment and Development and the Agenda for the 21st Century. The Declaration formulated basic environmental rights (such as the right to access information, the right to public participation, and the right to access justice), which have been normalized at the national level in most countries of the world ^{[13, p.15]} (for example, in the Norwegian Constitution (art. 112, the right to be aware of the state of the environment Colombia (Article 79, the right to public participation), Costa Rica (Article 46, the right to access relevant and reliable information), Montenegro (Article 23, the right to access timely and complete information about the state of the environment, as well as the right to participate in solving issues related to her) [The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. // URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17 (accessed: 09/01/2024); Colombia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2015. Oxford University Press, Inc. // URL: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015 (accessed: 09/01/2024); Constitution of Costa Rica Republic. // URL: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2020 (accessed: 09/01/2024); Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro. // URL: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Montenegro_2013 (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

To date, several basic solutions to the problem of environmental human rights have emerged within the framework of international law. The first approach assumes that the existing set of international agreements and the norms contained in them that enshrine human rights and the corresponding duties of States already protect the environmental interests of individuals at an adequate level. It is believed that it is necessary to pay more attention to the actual implementation of human rights in national legislation and the ratification of existing international instruments, which will allow for the unconditional protection of the environment ^{[20, p. 90],[23, p. 138]}. Critics of this approach believe that the anthropocentric bias in recognizing environmental human rights is exaggerated, since the law takes into account the intrinsic value of nature; and concerns about the devaluation of human rights should not prevent the consideration of new rights if they comply with international standards ^{[23, p. 155]}.

It is difficult to disagree with critics: international law is a "living organism" that is constantly changing and the resulting stagnation can only harm the protection of environmental human rights if not taken drastic measures.

The second method involves reviewing existing human rights standards in the context of individual environmental interests. Indeed, a lot of time has passed since the adoption of many human rights treaties. International law does not stand still and existing treaties may not fully reflect the current situation. The adoption of new convention rules for the interpretation and application of relevant rights may allow for more effective use of existing mechanisms to protect the environmental interests of individuals ^{[23, p. 794],[17, pp. 122-135, pp. 136-154]}.

However, this approach also has its limitations: for example, it is noted that when using this approach, the term "environment" gets too broad a meaning and connection with many human rights, which complicates their protection ^{[17, p. 153]}. It seems necessary to understand the limits of using this solution. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, environmental degradation threatens the enjoyment of all human rights, however, bringing it to the point of absurdity makes no sense.: which court will accept a reference to the environment as an important factor for protecting, for example, the right to access the Internet?

With regard to the third approach, it is believed that for the real and effective protection of the environment and humans, it is necessary to adopt new international instruments that would consolidate human environmental rights as a separate type of human rights through legally binding acts of international law. Support for this approach and work on the active development of environmental human rights can be found in the works of John Knox and David Boyd, former holders of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment ^[17],[11], as well as Luis E. Rodriguez –Rivier, former Minister of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico ^{[23, pp. 154-162]}. It is also worth noting the work of the special Rapporteur Dire Tladi on the report on jus cogens norms in the International Law Commission, who noted that environmental human rights are among the norms that have been cited as jus cogens norms and whose jus cogens status enjoys some support [Fourth Report on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), prepared by Special Rapporteur Dire Tladi, International Law Commission, January 31, 2019, A/CN.4/727, paras. 123, 136]. It is believed that the disadvantages of this approach are redundancy in relation to existing environmental legal regimes, difficulties with justice and law enforcement, an anthropocentric bias, as well as the potential devaluation of other human rights ^{[23, p. 154]}.

Each of these methods has a right to exist. It is necessary to proceed from the need to protect environmental human rights "here and now", for which various techniques should be used that will make it possible to do this in the most effective way in each specific case. It seems logical to move forward from the first approach to the third – after all, it takes time (most often considerable time) to adopt international acts, but this does not mean that the solution of existing problems can also be postponed for the future. The use of available tools makes it possible not only to protect human rights in a timely manner, but also to prepare materials for the further development of human rights practice and the regulatory framework.

The roots of the differences in views regarding environmental human rights can be found in reflections on the nature of human rights in general. The discussion about the nature of human rights (including environmental rights) boils down to two main positions. The first considers human rights as inalienable moral (natural) rights inherent in people simply by virtue of their human nature, existing independently of their recognition by States and serving as a benchmark for assessing the fairness of existing norms. The second position asserts that human rights are the product of real social practices and institutions, and exist only to the extent that they are enshrined in existing treaties and implemented in specific jurisdictions. This dispute reflects a fundamental difference in views on the source and nature of human rights: whether they are universal moral truths or the result of the historical development of human societies and their institutions ^{[16, p. 37]}.

Human environmental rights are fundamental, inalienable human rights stemming from his natural status and dependence on the environment. These rights are recognized as inherent in every human being from the moment of his birth, they do not depend on the state and its legislative acts. M.M. Brinchuk considers environmental rights as a special category in the human rights system related to the laws of nature and conditioned by the nature of man as a biological being. He emphasizes that the right to a favorable environment is a basic environmental right and follows from the biological need of a person in favorable natural conditions. A person cannot exist without access to clean water, air and other vital resources. If natural conditions are disrupted, this inevitably affects human health and well–being. Human environmental rights are conditioned by the fact that man is not only a social being, but also a natural being. The State should create legal mechanisms that will ensure the realization of these rights and their protection. This implies the development of laws regulating environmental safety and measures to prevent pollution and destruction of nature. For example, the legislative consolidation of standards governing the maximum permissible emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere, as well as procedures for assessing the impact of economic activity on the environment. They (rights) limit state power and serve as a criterion for evaluating its effectiveness and the validity of decisions. Developed countries and the international community consider human rights as a universal ideal and the basis of progress. Human rights do not depend on a change of government, they are supranational and are not exclusively an internal matter of individual states ^{[1, pp. 64-69]}.

Subjective law as the right to a favorable environment and legitimate interest (interest in preventing environmental pollution) must be distinguished from each other, which was noted by pre–revolutionary Russian legal researchers. So, N.M. Korkunov wrote that "... by granting a subjective right, ... a legal norm gives a person new strength, increases his power in the exercise of his interests. Such a direct and positive impact of legal norms … This is what we call subjective law or competence. Or, in short, competence is the possibility of exercising an interest due to an appropriate legal obligation" ^{[5, p. 93]}.

As an example of the internal structure of human environmental rights, the right to a favorable environment can be cited: as M.N. Kopylov writes, the right to a favorable environment is a subjective right that includes three components: the possibility of a certain behavior of the right holder, the opportunity to demand appropriate behavior from others, and the possibility of contacting the state to ensure this right. The absence of any of these components makes the right incomplete. In the context of environmental protection, it is important to ensure a balance between human rights and duties in national legislation, since activity in the performance of duties depends on the system of relevant rights and the degree of their security ^{[4, pp. 51-52]}.

However, there is a problem with the internal classification of human environmental rights: should they be procedural or substantive, i.e. the right to act in any way, for example, to contact public authorities with a request for information about the state of the environment, or should the provision and appropriate guarantee of the implementation of any specific rights be ensured, for example, the right to on the water.

Material environmental human rights are rights that are related to ensuring access to a clean and healthy environment, natural resources, and protection from environmental threats. They assume that everyone has the right to living conditions that do not threaten their health and well-being. These usually include the right to a healthy environment, the right to water and sanitation, and the right to clean air. Substantive environmental rights are related to the physical aspects of protecting humans and nature, in contrast to procedural environmental rights, which are more focused on legal mechanisms for ensuring substantive rights ^[11],[21].

Procedural environmental human rights are rights that provide an opportunity to participate in the process of making environmentally significant decisions and access to information and justice in matters related to environmental protection. These rights play a key role in ensuring the openness, transparency and participation of citizens in environmental policy and the protection of their material environmental rights ^[8],[21].

There is another point of view in which the right to a favorable environment includes the right to clean air, a safe climate, safe water in sufficient quantity, adequate sanitary and hygienic conditions, healthy and environmentally friendly food, a non-toxic environment, healthy biodiversity and ecosystems as material elements and access to information, public participation and access to justice as procedural [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, "Entrepreneurship, the ultimate opportunities of the planet and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", January 2, 2024, paragraph 24].

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 is one of the main documents related to procedural environmental rights. Principle 10 of the Declaration stipulates that effective resolution of environmental issues requires the participation of citizens, access to information and the ability to influence decision-making. It is important to ensure the right to use judicial and administrative procedures to protect environmental interests.

According to A.M. Solntsev, this principle contains three essential elements that form the basis of procedural environmental human rights.: a) access to information; b) public participation; and c) access to justice. Since the adoption of the Declaration, these provisions have been incorporated into the legislation of many States ^{[7, p. 31]}. For example, article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Madagascar No. 2015-003 of January 20, 2015 on the updated Malagasy Environmental Charter stipulates that every natural or legal person has the right to access information that may have an impact on the environment [Loi n°2015-003 du 20 janvier 2015 portant Charte de l'Environnement Malagasy actualisée. // URL: https://www.resourcedata.org/dataset/rgi-loi-2015-003-malagasy-environment-charter (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. The legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, among other things, establishes the right to participate in decision-making affecting environmental protection and sustainable development [Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 2, 2021 No. 400-VI "Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (with amendments and additions as of 09.09.2024), art. 9]. Let's look at each procedural environmental human right in more detail.:

The principle of the right of access to information reappears at the regional level in the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of June 5, 1998. The Aarhus Convention [Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, dated June 5, 1998 // URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/orhus.shtml (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. Thanks to this legally binding international treaty, the right to public participation, the right to access information, and the right to access justice have been legally consolidated not only at the level of "soft" law ^{[6, p. 131]}. The Aarhus Convention was perceived as a tool providing unique opportunities for improving procedures related to the protection of the environment and environmental human rights ^{[15, p. 339]}, but after a quarter of a century it became clear that there were more and more obstacles to this, from ideological pressure and lack of expertise ^{[9, p. 77]} until the legislators ignored the provisions of the convention ^{[18, p. 784]}. It is also not possible to avoid common problems for many international initiatives – the lack of adequate funding for the activities of bodies and mechanisms [Environmental Procedural Rights at Risk? Inadequate Financial Contributions Threaten to Undermine the Aarhus Convention. Blog of the European Journal of International Law. // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/environmental-procedural-rights-at-risk-inadequate-financial-contributions-threaten-to-undermine-the-aarhus-convention / (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The right to public participation in decision-making on environmental issues was first enshrined in the 1982 World Charter of Nature. Thus, paragraph 23 establishes: "Everyone ... should be able to participate individually or collectively in the decision-making process that directly affects their natural environment."

In 2004, France adopted the Environmental Charter, Article 7 of which stipulates that everyone has the right, in accordance with the law, to participate in decision-making on environmental issues, which is an excellent example of the consolidation of this right in national legislation, since in accordance with the fact that this charter has a constitutional status. – this right has also acquired constitutional status and appropriate legal protection [Environmental Charter, 2004. // URL: https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/charter_environnement.pdf (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

Article 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes not only the right to a favorable environment, but also to reliable information about its condition and to compensation for damage caused by an environmental offense. This constitutional provision embodies three environmental human rights and their corresponding responsibilities: the right to a favorable environment, the right to access information related to the environment, and the right to access justice in environmental matters. As a follow–up to these ideas, the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law) was adopted in 2002, the preamble of which notes the relevant constitutional environmental human rights. Article 3 of the Federal Law establishes the basic principles: for example, it establishes the obligation of the state and other entities, including business, to respect human rights to a favorable environment, to obtain reliable information about the state of the environment, as well as the right of citizens to participate in decision-making regarding their rights to a favorable environment, in accordance with with the legislation. These principles provide the content of the right to a favorable environment, to access information related to the environment, and to public participation in decision-making affecting the environment, which is not specifically enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The right to access justice in environmental matters is one of the most widespread human rights related to the environment. There are 2,115 specialized environmental courts and tribunals in the world as of 2021 [United Nations Environment Program (2022). Environmental Courts and Tribunals: A Guide for Policymakers. Nairobi. // URL: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/40309 (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. These bodies are distinguished by the fact that their activities are supported by in-depth legal and scientific expertise, and their broad jurisdiction and the ability to use dispute resolution tools such as arbitration and mediation, combined with flexible and well-established processes, contribute to improving the effectiveness of legal remedies. Examples include the State Environmental Tribunal in India, the Environmental and Land Courts in Kenya and Sweden [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment "The right to a healthy environment: best practices". A/HRC/43/53. // URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3864899 (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. There is no doubt that victims of human rights violations, including those related to climate change, should have access to remedies that ensure a fair trial and, ultimately, financial compensation ^{[25, p. 227]}.

The most striking example of the proper enforcement of the right to access justice is Costa Rica, which has a three–tier system that includes an Independent Ombudsman, an Environmental and Administrative Tribunal, and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The Independent Ombudsman protects the rights of citizens by ensuring that the activities of government agencies comply with the standards established by environmental legislation. The Ombudsman investigates alleged violations of environmental human rights by government agencies, initiates judicial or administrative proceedings, participates in parliamentary debates, and reviews legislative proposals. The dynamics of appeals to the Ombudsman shows that activities to protect environmental human rights in Costa Rica do not go in vain, and in 2023, appeals regarding the right to a favorable environment accounted for 1.66% of all appeals, a more than 2-fold decrease in the number compared to 2020 (4.3%) [See. Defensoría De Los Habitantes De La República De Costa Rica, Informe Anual De Labores 2023-2024, p. 16. // URL: https://www.dhr.go.cr/images/informes-anuales/informe_23_24.pdf (accessed: 09/01/2024); Defensoría De Los Habitantes De La República De Costa Rica, Informe Anual De Labores 2020-2021, p. 44. // URL: https://www.dhr.go.cr/images/informes-anuales/if_2020_2021.pdf (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The Environmental and Administrative Affairs Tribunal is authorized to consider complaints of violations of environmental laws. To do this, he has the right to visit local facilities to determine the nature of environmental damage, require temporary protective measures, impose fines and administrative sanctions in order to eliminate or reduce environmental damage. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court applied the provisions on the right to a favorable environment in its work when considering a number of cases related to environmental protection [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment "The right to a healthy environment: best practices", December 30 2019, p– 34-35].

The means of protecting environmental human rights must meet the requirements of adequacy and effectiveness, fairness and impartiality, and economic Accessibility [Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of June 5, 1998 // URL: www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/orhus.shtml (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

Non-judicial remedies, in turn, include administrative complaints, contacting law enforcement agencies, and contacting a human rights defender.

The States Parties to the Aarhus Convention commit to improving access to justice in two ways: first, by providing information to the public about relevant administrative and judicial procedures, and second, by considering the possibility of establishing support mechanisms to overcome or reduce barriers to access to justice. These measures are aimed at improving the effectiveness of citizens' right to access justice.

One of the ways to ensure the realization of the right to judicial protection is the creation of specialized environmental courts. Proponents of specialized courts argue that a narrow focus allows judges to develop deeper knowledge in their field, which contributes to the qualitative consideration of complex cases related to environmental protection ^{[14, p. 175]}. The establishment of specialized environmental courts also serves as a tool for implementing the norms of international environmental law ^{[24, p. 32]}. In turn, the need to create specialized instances for resolving environmental disputes can be denied, arguing that there is no need for special treatment of environmental law in comparison with other branches of law, the need for financing, training and general logistical support for such courts, as well as a small number of environmental cases and even fewer successful cases. solutions ^{[12, p. 75],[7, pp. 56-58]}.

According to the Climate and Human Rights Litigation database, supported by researchers from the University of Zurich, from 2020 to 2023, at least 11 cases related to business responsibility for violations of environmental human rights and related [Climate and Human Rights Litigation Database. // URL: https://climaterightsdatabase.com / (date of request: 09/01/2024)]. Most often (5 cases), the basis was the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, slightly less often – the right to life and a favorable environment (4 cases), as well as the right to respect for private and family life (3 cases). Isolated cases concerned the rights of indigenous peoples, the right to water and the right to adequate food. To date, only 3 cases have been resolved in favor of the applicants, while the rest are still being tried in various instances. Based on the analysis of the submitted cases, it can be concluded that the main problem faced by applicants in accessing justice in such cases is the existence of judicial jurisdiction (courts often refuse to consider cases on formal grounds, citing the lack of jurisdiction of national judicial authorities in such cases, such as in the Greenpeace case Italy, ReCommon, et. al. v. ENI, Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance, et. al.) and the right to go to court (it is difficult for plaintiffs to prove that their rights have been violated due to high standards of proof).

In addition, it should be noted the adoption on March 4, 2018 of the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escaus Agreement, entered into force in 2021) [Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. Escazú, Costa Rica, 2018. URL: https://www.cepal.org/en/escazuagreement (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. This marked the next stage in the recognition of the legal obligation of procedural environmental human rights at the regional level, already in Latin America and the Caribbean. It established the rights to access environmental information, public participation, and access to justice in environmental matters, and set out the goal of building and strengthening capacities and cooperation to protect the right to a healthy environment. Provisions aimed at supporting environmentalists were highlighted separately, however, at the moment there are doubts about their effectiveness: for example, 79 activists were killed in Colombia in 2023 (the largest number for the entire period of observation by the NGO Global Witness; Colombia signed an agreement in 2019, but will become a participant only with 24 December 2024), in Brazil – 25 people (signed in 2018, not ratified), and in Mexico – 18 (party to the agreement since 2021) [Global Witness, "More than 2,100 land and environmental defenders killed globally between 2012 and 2023", September 10, 2024 URL: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/more-2100-land-and-environmental-defenders-killed-globally-between-2012-and-2023/ (date of access: 01.10.2024)]. Insufficient participation, lack of funding, and the inability of public authorities to ensure an adequate level of law enforcement – all these factors continue to have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the implementation of regional agreements aimed at protecting procedural environmental human rights.

The right to a favorable environment is the basis on which legislation on environmental protection is based, and emphasizes the importance and need to improve legal regulation in order to solve environmental problems. The special importance of this right is emphasized by the fact that 91% of UN member states recognize it in one form or another [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd "Expert Seminar on the responsibility of Commercial Enterprises for compliance human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", January 2, 2024, p. 69].

This right implies that the environment (air, water, etc.) must meet certain criteria (for example, cleanliness). For example, in the 2007 Malaise Declaration on the Human Dimension in Global Climate Change. It is enshrined as the right to "an environment capable of supporting human society and the full enjoyment of human rights" [Male' Declaration on the Human Dimension of Global Climate Change. Male’, Republic of Maldives, 14 November 2007].

The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 stipulates: "A person has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and favorable living conditions in an environment the quality of which allows him to lead a decent and prosperous life" (principle 1).

The following principles of the Stockholm Declaration can be called guarantees of the realization of this fundamental environmental right of the individual. The right to a favorable environment forms the basis of citizens' environmental rights and is, according to modern standards, one of the fundamental, natural human rights, as it ensures their right to life (art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ^{[3, p. 23]}.

In October 2021, the UN Human Rights Council recognized the right to a healthy environment as a human right for the first time. This event marked the transition of the discussion on environmental human rights to a qualitatively new level. In its resolution, the UN Human Rights Council noted the human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right that is necessary for the full enjoyment of all human rights [UNHRC res. 48/13 “The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” October 8, 2021. // URL: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/48/13 (date of request: 09/01/2024)].

On July 28, 2022, there was a further development of international regulation of the right to a favorable environment – the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as one of human rights. The UN General Assembly called on stakeholders (among whom business is particularly highlighted) to adopt proactive policies, strengthen international cooperation, expand capacity-building efforts and continue sharing best practices in order to step up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which once again underlines the importance of business participation in ensuring human rights in general and environmental rights in particular [UNGA Resolution 76/300 "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", July 28, 2022. // URL: https://undocs.org/ru/A/RES/76/300 (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. At the moment, recommendations continue to be made on further strengthening this right through its inclusion in legally binding international treaties, including the draft legally binding treaty on business and human rights being developed by the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Enterprises from the human rights Perspective [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, by David R. Boyd, "Entrepreneurship, the ultimate opportunities of the planet and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", January 2, 2024, p. 71; Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of safe, clean, healthy and the Sustainable Environment, by David R. Boyd, "Expert Seminar on the Responsibility of Commercial Enterprises to respect the Human right to a Clean, healthy and sustainable environment", January 2, 2024, p. 24].

M.M. Brinchuk notes that the right to a favorable environment is the most important natural human right and its observance has a direct impact on national security ^{[2, p. 75]}.

Not everyone supports the existence of this right, and even an expert like Gunther Handl, a professor at Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, opposes it. He writes that international recognition of human rights combines elements of positive and natural law, evolving gradually through constant promotion by various actors. International recognition requires evidence of practice and opinio juris, including treaties, judicial practice, and conclusions of UN bodies. Applying these criteria, it becomes difficult to assert the existence of a human right to a favorable environment, in his opinion, since none of the global legal instruments explicitly supports this idea ^{[23, pp. 138-144]}.

The responsibility of business for the violation of environmental human rights. The issue of holding accountable not only States, but also private business entities, namely multinational corporations (hereinafter referred to as TNCs), for violations of environmental human rights remains problematic [It seems logical to use the definition given in the Norms concerning the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Enterprises in the field of Human Rights: TNCs are economic entities operating in two or more countries, regardless of what legal form they take, in which country they are located, and regardless of which as they carry out their activities], who are responsible for their compliance to the same extent as Governments. As stated in the subpoena issued on April 5, 2019 by the Hague District Court against Shell Corporation in the case of Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc, Shell has the same degree of control over the fate of people due to its significant share in global emissions and its role in finding solutions to climate change as the state. The need to protect against Shell's dominant position is similar to the need to protect against state power [Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc, File No. 90046903, Summons (5 April 2019), para 724. // URL: https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2019/20190405_8918_summons.pdf (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights, in its report dated May 6, 2022, noted that companies that contribute the most to environmental pollution (the so-called "carbon majors") are required to combat the effects of climate change because of their role in spreading misinformation. They have a corporate responsibility to conduct due diligence in respect of human rights and are required to provide compensation for damages. Enterprises may be forced to carry out due diligence procedures regarding respect for human rights and may be held accountable for failure to eliminate human rights violations resulting from their business activities ^{[10, p. 57]}. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change noted that businesses should provide a range of different information related to their impact on climate and climate policy, as well as refrain from spreading misinformation and public opposition in the context of the right to access information [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of protection of human rights in the context of climate change by Eliza Morgera "Access to information on climate change and human rights", July 18, 2024, pp. 64-71].

An example of positive innovations in this area at the regional level is an act adopted in the European Union aimed at establishing a duty for businesses to conduct due diligence in relation to environmental human rights. Thus, on June 13, 2024, the EU Directive 2024/1760 was adopted, which sets new standards for corporate responsibility in relation to environmental human rights for large companies with more than 1,000 employees and a turnover of over 450 million euros. It covers the negative impact on human rights and the environment not only of the companies themselves, but also of their subsidiaries and business partners along the business chain. When violations are detected, companies are required to take measures to prevent, mitigate, stop or minimize the negative impact. The Directive also provides for the liability of companies for damage caused and obliges them to provide full compensation, which significantly expands the scope of corporate responsibility in the EU, especially with regard to human rights and environmental issues [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859. // URL: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj (date of access: 09/01/2024)]. According to Pierre-Yves Dermagne, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economy and Labor of Belgium, "Large companies must take responsibility for the transition to a greener economy and increased social justice. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive will give us the opportunity to punish those who violate their obligations. This is a clear and significant step towards a better place for everyone to live." [Corporate sustainability due diligence: Council gives its final approval. // URL: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/24/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-council-gives-its-final-approval / (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also stated that businesses "must be responsible for climate impacts and responsibly participate in efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change while fully respecting human rights" [OHCHR, Key Messages on Human Rights and Climate Change. // URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/KeyMessages_on_HR_CC.pdf (date of access: 09/01/2024)].

The Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment noted that large enterprises are primarily responsible for exacerbating the global environmental crisis, generating record profits through economic paradigms based on the exploitation of people and nature, which has led to exceeding the 6 limits of our planet's capabilities [Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, "Entrepreneurship, the ultimate opportunities of the planet and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", January 2, 2024, paragraphs 1-3]. A separate problem is the institution of investor-State dispute settlement, in which States in the Global South are often forced to pay significant compensation to TNCs for actions to protect the environment and environmental human rights [Report by David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights obligations related to the use of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment "Paying pollutants: The disastrous consequences of Investor–State dispute settlement for actions to combat climate change and human rights", July 13, 2023, paragraphs 7-8].

Conclusion.

At the moment, it has already become extremely clear that the actors who, by their actions, cause the greatest damage to environmental human rights must bear appropriate responsibility, including financial responsibility. The price that must be paid to restore the situation should not disproportionately fall on the shoulders of the least developed countries and the most vulnerable communities. Respect for human rights is a moral imperative for everyone, including representatives of the global business community. We must not forget that there is also an economic interest for business in respecting environmental human rights – it contributes to the long-term sustainability of business and the conservation of resources for future generations.

Environmental human rights have come a long way from being enshrined in declarations of international conferences to legally binding international treaties. However, at the moment it cannot be said that this topic is closed – not all rights of this kind have gained legal force, and subjectively the most important of them – the right to a favorable environment – still remains in a delicate position, when the entire world community already agrees that such a right should exist, but still has not been adopted. There is not a single international treaty that would solve this problem once and for all.

The conducted research confirms that environmental human rights have one of the key roles in modern international law. Despite the successes associated with their limited recognition at the international level, they face significant implementation challenges, including insufficient implementation in national legal systems and lack of clear business obligations in this area.

An analysis of various approaches to the protection of environmental rights shows that the most promising is the integration of procedural and substantive aspects of environmental rights into international standards. This involves the adoption of legally binding acts and the further development of existing legal mechanisms, such as access to information and justice, as well as the development of new international standards capable of ensuring effective regulation of business liability for violations of environmental rights.

The results of the study emphasize the need to review modern approaches to the protection of human rights, taking into account the growing threat to environmental rights in the context of climate change and environmental degradation. Only an integrated and coordinated approach combining international cooperation, improvement of national legal systems and increased regulation of business activities can ensure effective protection of environmental human rights.