Legal responsibility for environmental damage - Introduction to International Environmental Law - page 175

quasi-legal bodies, such as the committee monitoring the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Environmental damage cases have been
taken to the European Court of Human Rights whereby the claimant cites a
violation of the right to home and privacy, or of the right to life. The increasing
use of human rights mechanisms has improved the possibilities for individuals to
obtain compensation for environmental injuries.
Legal liability for environmental damage has recently been the topic of
much discussion in relation to climate change. This is understandable, as
climate change has already resulted in tangible effects - especially in the Arctic
where snow and ice react to the rapidly warming and changing climate system.
In 2005, the Arctic indigenous peoples, the Inuit (Eskimo) fi led a petition against
the United States - then the greatest greenhouse gas emitter - with the Inter-
American Human Rights Commission. Their objective was to prove that the
irresponsible climate politics of the US had violated many of the human rights of
the Inuit, including their right to property, life and culture. Climate change is a
tangible real threat for the Inuit: will they continue to be a distinct People if they
are deprived of their culture which is based on snow and ice?
The petition also refers to the Alaskan village of Shishmaref which has to be
relocated because the ice that sheltered the coast from the waves has receded
further from the coast and erosion caused by the waves has broken down the
soil under the village.
The Inuit human rights petition was based on the fact that all indicators in
2005 showed that the United States, above any other state actor, was responsible
for climate change - hence it was also guilty of violating Inuit human rights. 11
The petition was rejected by the Commission but it sparked discussion of who
could be held legally responsible for climate change.
11 On 22 September 2011, the island nation of Palau announced to the UN
General Assembly that together with the Marshall Islands, it will call upon the
General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of
Justice concerning legal responsibility related to climate change. When
announcing its intention, Palau referred to the principle of no-harm, for
example, which would place liability on those who are most responsible
for climate change. The opinion would be non-binding but it would, of
course, be highly signifi cant as representing the legal opinion of the
International Court of Justice.
All the small Pacifi c island states, whose territories will sooner or later
succumb to rising sea levels, appended a declaration to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change and in the Kyoto Protocol. Their declaration
was that although they were prepared to be party to these treaties, this would
not prejudice their right to sue those states that are held to be mostly respon-
sible for causing climate change.