CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

ASSIGNED TOPIC : HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENT

SUBMITTED BY
FARHAT YUNUS
ROLL NUMBER: 541
SUBMITTED TO
Mr. Hrishikesh Manu
LECTURER (LAW)

i|P ag e

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of Research
The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the available resources at library of the Chanakya National Law University and
also the internet sources.
Aims and Objectives
The aim of the project is to present an overview of various aspects relating to Human Rights and
Environment through cases, decisions and suggestions and different writings and articles
Scope and Limitations
Though the study of the this topic is an immense project and pages can be written over the topic
but due to certain restrictions and limitations the researcher has not been able to deal with the
topic in great detail.
Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project: Cases, Books, Journals,
Articles, etc.
Method of Writing:
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.
Mode of Citation
The researcher has followed the bluebook method of citation throughout the course of this
research paper.

2|P ag e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I convey my deepest gratitude to my respected faculty of Environmental Law, Mr. Hrishikesh

Manu, who has been a constant source of inspiration and guided me throughout the interval to
complete this project on Human Rights and Environment successfully.
I wish to record my gratitude to the librarian and other staffs of CNLU library as no academic
venture of mine can be complete without their assistance and co-operation. I owe sincere regards
to them for providing me valuable information through, journals, textbooks and other necessary
data.

Farhat Yunus
ROLL NO. 541
7th SEMESTER.

3|P ag e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5

2.

IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO SPHERES .............6

2.1.

3.

APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS ...................7

REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL BODIES ON THE ISSUE ......................................9

3.1.

REGIONAL- INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS............................. 11

4.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .................................... 14

5.

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ............................................................ 17

5.1.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE............................................................................... 17

5.1.1. History of the Precautionary Principle ...................................................................... 17

5.1.2. Formulations of the precautionary principle .............................................................. 17
5.1.3. Why the Precautionary Principle? ............................................................................. 18
5.2.

POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE................................................................................. 19

5.2.1.What Is the Polluter Pays Principle? .......................................................................... 20

5.2.2. Background and History of the Polluter Pays Principle ............................................. 21
5.2.3. Theory and Variations of the Polluter Pays Principle ................................................ 22
5.3.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 25

5.3.1.
6.

The Importance of Democratic and Individual Participation .................................... 27

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 29

4|P ag e

1. INTRODUCTION
Human rights and the environment have become increasingly interconnected. Human rights and
environmental are two separate corpuses of law, dealt by different organizations and based on
different principles. Yet, the two fields have a lot in common, and international cooperation can
only gain from a more integrated approach to these fields. Healthy ecosystems are the foundation
for human life and for the fulfillment of the rights that are inherent to human life. Further, the
existence and exercise of human rights can be an incentive to making the right decisions for the
environment.
If we look at society from a historical perspective, we realize that protection and
preservation of the environment has been integral to the cultural and religious ethos of most
human communities. Nature has been venerated by ancient Hindus, Greeks, Native Americans
and other religions around the world. They worshipped all forms of nature believing that it
emanated the spirit of God. Hinduism declared in its dictum that the Earth is our mother and we
are all her children.1 The ancient Greeks worshipped Gaea or the Earth Goddess. Islamic law
regards man as having inherited "all the resources of life and nature" and having certain religious
duties to God in using them. 2 In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God gave the earth to his people
and their offspring as an everlasting possession, to be cared for and passed on to each
generation.3
It is apparent that environmental and human rights are inextricably linked. As we
increasingly recognize the serious impact of a degraded environment on human health and well
being, we are better placed to adjust our policies and cultural practices to reflect our enhanced
understanding. As a result, we should be able to protect human rights and human dignity within
its broader social, economic and cultural context by drawing from and contributing to those who
are actively engaged in the environmental and public health arenas. This should also facilitate
those who are working in the environmental and conservation fields to develop a better working
relationship with those in the human rights arena.

Bhumi Sukta, Atharva Veda.

Islamic Principles for the Conservation of the Natural Environment, 13-14 (IUCN and Saudi Arabia, 1983).
Genesis 1:1-31, 17:7-8.

5|P ag e

2. IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO SPHERES

Over the years, the international community has increased its awareness on the relationship
between environmental degradation and human rights abuses. It is clear that, poverty situations
and human rights abuses are worsened by environmental degradation. This is for several obvious
reasons;

Firstly, the exhaustion of natural resources leads to unemployment and emigration to cities.

Secondly, this affects the enjoyment and exercise of basic human rights. Environmental

conditions contribute to a large extent, to the spread of infectious diseases.

From the 4,400

million of people who live in developing countries, almost 60% lack basic health care services,
almost a third of these people have no access to safe water supply.

Thirdly, degradation poses new problems such as environmental refugees. Environmental

refugees suffer from significant economic, socio-cultural, and political consequences.

And

fourthly, environmental degradation worsens existing problems suffered by developing and

developed countries. Air pollution, for example, accounts for 2.7 million to 3.0 million of deaths
annually and of these, 90% are from developing countries.
Environmental and human rights law have essential points in common that enable the creation of
a field of cooperation between the two:

Firstly, both disciplines have deep social roots; even though human rights law is more rooted

within the collective consciousness, the accelerated process of environmental degradation is

generating a new environmental consciousness.

Secondly, both disciplines have become internationalized. The international community has

assumed the commitment to observe the realization of human rights and respect for the
environment. From the Second World War4 onwards, the relationship State-individual is of
pertinence to the international community. On the other hand, the phenomena brought on by
environmental degradation trascends political boundaries and is of critical importance to the
preservation of world peace and security. The protection of the environment is internationalized,
while the State-Planet Earth relationship has become a concern of the international community.

Michael J. Kane, Promoting Political Rights to protect the Environment, The Yale Journal of International Law,
Volume 18, Number 1, pgs.389-390

6|P ag e

Thirdly, both areas of law tend to universalize their object of protection. Human Rights are

presented as universal and the protection of the environment appears as everyones

responsibility.
2.1. APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights and environmental law have traditionally been envisaged as two distinct,
independent spheres of rights. Towards the last quarter of the 20th century, however, the
perception arose that the cause of protection of the environment could be promoted by setting it
in the framework of human rights, which had by then been firmly established as a matter of
international law and practice. Because of the many complex issues that arise when these two
seemingly distinct spheres interact, it is to be expected that there are different views on how to
approach human rights and the environment.

The first approach is one where environmental protection is described as a possible means of

fulfilling human rights standards. Here, environmental law is conceptualized as giving a

protection that would help ensure the well-being of future generations as well as the survival of
those who depend immediately upon natural resources for their livelihood. Here, the end is
fulfilling human rights, and the route is through environmental law.

The second approach places the two spheres in inverted positions it states that the legal

protection of human rights is an effective means to achieving the ends of conservation and
environmental protection. The second approach therefore highlights the presently existing
human rights as a route to environmental protection. The focus is on the existing human right. In
this context, there exists a raging debate on whether one should recognize an actual and
independent right to a satisfactory environment as a legally enforceable right. This would
obviously shift the emphasis onto the environment and away from the human rights. These are
the subtle distinctions between the two ways in which this approach can be taken. 5

A third approach to the question of human rights and the environment is to deny the

existence of any formal connection between the two at all. According to this approach, there is
no requirement for an environmental human right. The argument goes that, since the
Stockholm Conference in 1972, international environmental law has developed to such extents
5

Supra note 2

7|P ag e

that even the domestic environments of states has been internationalized. In light of the breadth
of environmental law and policy, and the manner in which it intrudes into every aspect of
environmental protection in an international sense and notwithstanding the concept of state
sovereignty, it is argued that it is unnecessary to have a separate human right to a decent
environment. This view militates against the confusion of the two distinct spheres of human
rights law and environmental law. However, there are many who oppose this view. They argue
that there is in fact a benefit to bringing environmental law under the ambit of human rights.
Environmental law has in many parts of the world, be it at the international or domestic level,
suffered from the problem of standing. Because of this barrier, it is often difficult for individuals
or groups to challenge infringements of environmental law, treaties or directives, as the case may
be.
There has been a great deal of debate on the theoretical soundness of the idea of a human
right or rights to a satisfactory environment. 6 For one thing, there can occasionally be a conflict,
or tension, between the established human rights and the protection of the environment per se.
There are circumstances where the full enjoyment of the rights to life, to healthy living and to
ones culture can lead to the depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation.
Nevertheless, clearly there is a prima facie rhetorical and moral advantage in making the
environment a human rights issue. 7 There has been a simultaneous increase in legal claims for
both human rights and environmental goods, which is a clear reflection of the link between
human and the environment and the dependence of human life on the environment.

A. BOYLE AND M. ANDERSON (EDS.), HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (OXFORD,
1996).
7
Margaret DeMerieux, Deriving Environmental Rights from the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 21 (3) OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 521 (2001).

8|P ag e

3. REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL BODIES ON THE ISSUE

The right to a healthy environment is now to be found in a number of regional human rights
instruments around the world. Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the Inter-American
Convention on Human Rights (1994) popularly known as the San Salvador Protocol, states that
(1) everyone shall have the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic
public services; (2) the state parties shall promote the protection, preservation and improvement
of the environment. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) at article 24(2) (c)
requires State parties in the mater of combating disease and malnutrition to take into
consideration, the damage and risks of environmental pollution. The African Charter on Human
and Peoples Rights 1981 proclaims in Art. 24(1) a right to a general satisfactory environment
favourable to their development. In fact, the Final Report of the Special Rapporteur on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities 8 listed over 15 rights relative to
environmental quality. Some of these include:
a) the right to freedom from pollution, environmental degradation and activities which
threaten life, health or livelihood;
b) protection and preservation of the air, soil, water, flora and fauna;
c) healthy food and water; a safe and healthy working environment.
The first principle of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration declares that: Man has the
fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a
quality that permits a life of dignity and well being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. Almost twenty years
later, in resolution 45/94 the UN General Assembly recalled the language of Stockholm, stating
that all individuals are entitled to live in an environment adequate for their health and wellbeing. The resolution called for enhanced efforts towards ensuring a better and healthier
environment.
In the mid 1990s, recognizing the urgent need and importance of deepening the link
between human rights and the environment, and of exploring ways to achieve a better
collaboration, harmony, and complement the agendas of different United Nations institutions
working on both subjects, the UN created the position of Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
8

U.N. Doc. E/CN4/Sub.2/1994/9 (1994).

9|P ag e

and Environment. The Rapporteur prepared an important report, the Ksentini Report, 9 which
offered a theoretical, thematic, and practical framework to address the linkages between human
rights and the environment.
In the absence of petition procedures pursuant to environmental treaties, cases concerning
the impact of environmental harm on individuals and groups have often been brought to
international human rights bodies. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women linked environment to the right to health in its Concluding
Observations on the State report of Romania, expressing its concern about the situation of the
environment, including industrial accidents, and their impact on womens health. 10
The same can be seen in reports submitted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In
its Concluding Observations on the State report submitted by Jordan, the CRC recommended that
Jordan take all appropriate measures, including through international cooperation, to prevent
and combat the damaging effects of environmental pollution and contamination of water supplies
on children and to strengthen procedures for inspection. 11 The CRCs Concluding Observations
on South Africa also expressed the Committees concern at the increase in environmental
degradation, especially as regards air pollution and recommend[ed] that the State party
increase its efforts to facilitate the implementation of sustainable development programmes to
prevent environmental degradation, especially as regards air pollution. 12
Links between the environment and human rights have also been recognized by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. The case of Awas Tingni Mayagna (Sumo) Indigenous
Community v. Nicaragua, involved the protection of Nicaraguan forests in lands traditionally
owned by the Awas Tingni. Government-sponsored logging on this native land was found to be a
violation of the human rights of these tribals. Similarly, the Commission established a link
between environmental quality and the right to life in response to a petition brought on behalf of

Fatma Zohra Ksentini, Human Rights and Environment, Special Rapporteurs Final Report, UN. Doc.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, July 6, 1994.
10
U.N. CEDAW, Concluding Observations on Romania, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/2000/II/Add.7 at para. 38 (2000).
11
U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on Jordan, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.125
at para. 50 (2000).
12
U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on South Africa, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.122 (200) at para. 30. See also Concluding Observations on Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.
127 (2000); Concluding Observations on Grenada, U.N. Doc. CRC/15/Add.121 (2000).

10 | P a g e

the Yanomani Indians of Brazil. 13 The construction of a highway was found to have violated the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
The European Convention on Human Rights has also been invoked in environmental
matters. In Europe, most of the victims invoke either the right to information or the right to
privacy guaranteed under the Convention. Under the said Convention and Protocol, it has been
recognized that pollution or other environmental harm can result in a breach of ones right to
privacy and family life. While this harm may be excused if it results from an authorized activity
of economic benefit to the community in general, as long as there is no disproportionate burden
on any particular individual; i.e. the measures must have a legitimate aim, be lawfully enacted,
and be proportional. Of course, the State enjoys some margin in determining the legitimacy of
the aim being pursued, but the Court has been playing an active role in ensuring fairness and
balancing the scales. One important point to be noted in the context of the European Convention
is the fact that it has successfully invoked most of all in the context of environmental pollution.
Resource management, nature conservation and the protection of biological diversity have not
been easily brought under the rubric of the European Convention. This is because of the absence
of a specific right to a safe and ecologically-balanced environment.
Nearly all global and regional human rights bodies have accepted the link between
environmental degradation and internationally-guaranteed human rights. In nearly every
instance, the complaints brought have not been based upon a specific right to a safe and
environmentally-sound environment, but rather upon rights to life, property, health, information,
family and home life. Underlying the complaints, however, are instances of pollution,
deforestation, water pollution, and other types of environmental harm.
3.1. REGIONAL- INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS
If we look at the developments that are taking place through the intervention of national
Courts in various parts of the world, we come to note several things: first, the courts are moving
the right to a healthy environment up the hierarchy of human rights by recognising it as a
fundamental right; second, the courts are defining the content and nature of the right to a healthy
environment through landmark decisions.

13

Yanomami v. Brazil.

11 | P a g e

In Argentina, the National Constitution recognizes since 1994 the right to a healthy and

suitable environment. However, even before the law provided for such explicit recognition,
courts had acknowledged the existence of the right to live in a healthy environment.

In Columbia, the right to the environment was incorporated in 1991. In the case of Antonio

Mauricio Monroy Cespedes, in 1993, the Court observed that side by side with fundamental
rights such as liberty, equality and necessary conditions for peoples life, there is the right to the
environment. The right to a healthy environment cannot be separated from the right to life and
health of human beings. In fact, factors that are deleterious to the environment cause irreparable
harm to human beings. If this is so we can state that the right to the environment is a right
fundamental to the existence of humanity.

In the same year, the Supreme Court of Costa Rica affirmed the right to a healthy

environment in a case concerning the use of a cliff as a waste dump. In the case of Carlos
Roberto Garca Chacn, the Supreme Court stated that life is only possible when it exists in
solidarity with nature, which nourishes and sustains us not only with regard to food, but also
with physical well-being. It constitutes a right that all citizens possess to live in an environment
free from contamination.

Guatemala too has seen the environmental ombudsman note in a 1999 case 14 that lack of

interest and irresponsibility on the part of authorities in charge of National Environmental Policy
amounts to a violation of human rights, considering that it impairs the enjoyment of a healthy
environment, the dignity of the person, the preservation of the cultural and natural heritage and
socio-economic development.
The question of human rights and the environment has also come up for consideration in
our neighbouring countries.
The Constitution of Bangladesh does not explicitly provide for the right to healthy
environment either in the directive principles or as a fundamental right. Article 31 states that
every citizen has the right to protection from action detrimental to the life liberty, body,
reputation, or property, unless these are taken in accordance with law. It added that the citizens
and the residents of Bangladesh have the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law. If
14

In the case of Concesiones otorgadas por el Ministerio de Energa y minas a Empresas Petroleras (1999).

12 | P a g e

these rights are taken away, compensation must be paid. In 1994, a public interest litigation 15
was initiated before the Supreme Court dealing with air and noise pollution. The Supreme Court
agreed with the argument presented by the petitioner that the constitutional right to life does
extend to include right to a safe and healthy environment. A few years later, the Appellate
Division and the High Court Division of the Supreme Court dealt with this question in a positive
manner, in the case of Dr. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh,16 reiterating Bangladesh's commitment in
the context of engaging concern for the conservation of environment, irrespective of the locality
where it is threatened.
Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan states that no person shall be deprived of life or
liberty save in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA 17 decided
that Article 9 includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is
entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally. The petitioner questioned whether,
under article 9 of the Constitution, citizens were entitled to protection of law from being exposed
to hazards of electro-magnetic field or any other such hazards which may be due to installation
and construction of any grid station, any factory, power station or such like installations. The
Court noted that under [the Pakistan] Constitution, Article 14 provides that the dignity of man
and subject to law, the privacy of home shall be inviolable. The fundamental right to preserve
and protect the dignity of man and right to life are guaranteed under Article 9. If both are read
together, question will arise whether a person can be said to have dignity of man if his right to
life is below bare necessity line without proper food, clothing, shelter, education, health care,
clean atmosphere and unpolluted environment.

15

Dr. M. Farooque v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
and 12 Others (Unreported). The case involved a petition against various ministries and other authorities for not
fulfilling their statutory duties to mitigate air and noise pollution caused by motor vehicles in the city of Dhaka.
16
(1997) 49 Dhaka Law Reports (AD), p.1.
17
PLD 1994 SC 693.

13 | P a g e

4. THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act 1976 explicitly incorporated environmental
protection and improvement as part of State policy through the insertion of Article 48A. Article
51A (g) imposed a similar responsibility on every citizen to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for all living
creatures.
One of the main objections to an independent right or rights to the environment lies in the
difficulty of definition. It is in this regard that the Indian Supreme Court has made a significant
contribution. When a claim is brought under a particular article of the Constitution, this allows
an adjudicating body such as the Supreme Court to find a breach of this article, without the need
for a definition of an environmental right as such. All that the Court needs to do is what it must
in any event do; namely, define the Constitutional right before it. Accordingly, a Court prepared
to find a risk to life, or damage to health, on the facts before it, would set a standard of
environmental quality in defining the right litigated. This is well illustrated by the cases that have
come before the Supreme Court, in particular in relation to the broad meaning given to the Right
to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life has been used in a diversified
manner in India. It includes, inter alia, the right to survive as a species, quality of life, the right
to live with dignity and the right to livelihood. However, it is a negative right, and not a positive,
self-executory right, such as is available, for example, under the Constitution of the Phillipines.
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Phillipine Constitution states: The State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature. This right along with Right to Health (section 15) ascertains a balanced
and healthful ecology.18 In contrast, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law.
The Supreme Court expanded this negative right in two ways. Firstly, any law affecting personal
liberty should be reasonable, fair and just. Secondly, the Court recognised several unarticulated
liberties that were implied by Article 21. It is by this second method that the Supreme Court
interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to include the right to the environment.

18

Minors Oposa v. Sec. of the Department of Environment, 33 ILM 173 (1994).

14 | P a g e

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.19 was one of the earliest cases
where the Supreme Court dealt with issues relating to environment and ecological balance. The
expanded concept of the right to life under the Indian Constitution was further elaborated on in
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi20 where the Supreme Court set out a list of
positive obligations on the State, as part of its duty correlative to the right to life. The importance
of this case lies in the willingness on the part of the Court to be assertive in adopting an
expanded understanding of human rights. It is only through such an understanding that claims
involving the environment can be accommodated within the broad rubric of human rights. The
link between environmental quality and the right to life was further addressed by a constitution
bench of the Supreme Court in the Charan Lal Sahu.21 Similarly, in Subash Kumar,22 the Court
observed that right to life guaranteed by article 21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollutionfree water and air for full enjoyment of life. Through this case, the Court recognised the right to
a wholesome environment as part of the fundamental right to life. This case also indicated that
the municipalities and a large number of other concerned governmental agencies could no longer
rest content with unimplemented measures for the abatement and prevention of pollution. They
may be compelled to take positive measures to improve the environment.
The Supreme Court has used the right to life as a basis for emphasizing the need to take
drastic steps to combat air and water pollution. 23 It has directed the closure or relocation of
industries and ordered that evacuated land be used for the needs of the community. 24 The courts
have taken a serious view of unscientific and uncontrolled quarrying and mining, 25 issued orders
for the maintenance of ecology around coastal areas, 26 shifting of hazardous and heavy
industries27 and in restraining tanneries from discharging effluents. 28
Another expansion of the right to life is the right to livelihood (article 41), which is a
directive principle of state policy. This extension can check government actions in relation to an
19

AIR 1985 SC 652.

AIR 1981 SC 746.
21
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480.
22
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
23
V. Mathur v. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 119.
24
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 351.
25
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P, AIR 1991 SC 2216.
26
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Coastal Protection Case), (1996) 5 SCC 281.
27
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 750.
28
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Water Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1037.
20

15 | P a g e

environmental impact that has threatened to dislocate the poor and disrupt their lifestyles. A
strong connection between the right to livelihood and the right to life in the context of
environmental rights has thus been established over the years. Especially in the context of the
rights of indigenous people being evicted by development projects, the Court has been guided by
the positive obligations contained in article 48A and 51A(g), and has ordered adequate
compensation and rehabilitation of the evictees.
Matters involving the degradation of the environment have often come to the Court in the
form of petitions filed in the public interest. This mode of litigation has gained momentum due to
the lenient view adopted by the Court towards concepts such as locus standi and the proof of
injury approach of common law. This has facilitated espousal of the claims of those who would
have otherwise gone unrepresented. It is interesting to note that, unlike Indian courts, the
Bangladeshi and Pakistani courts apply an aggrieved person test, which means a right or
recognised interest that is direct and personal to the complainant.

16 | P a g e

5. PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

There are certain principle basing on which we attempt to protect the environment. A few are
included in this project and dealt below:
5.1. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The precautionary principle is a guide to public policy decision making. It responds to the
realization that humans often cause serious and widespread harm to people, wildlife, and the
general environment. According to the precautionary principle, precautionary action should be
undertaken when there are credible threats of harm, despite residual scientific uncertainty about
cause and effect relationships.
A 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle this way: when an
activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures
should be taken even if some cause and effect relationship are not fully established scientifically.
The precautionary principle encourages policies that protect human health and the environment
in the face of uncertain risk. In this broad sense it is not a new concept, and some may object to
giving it a new name, when similar ideas go by different names in other disciplines. For
example, public health practices use the term primary prevention to mean much the same thing.
The physicians obligation to first do no harm is a precautionary approach to treat a sick person.
5.1.1. History of the Precautionary Principle
The term "precautionary principle" comes from the German "Vorsorgeprinzip"-- literally,
"forecaring principle." Its origins can be traced to German clean air environmental policies of the
1970's that called for Vorsorge, or prior care, foresight, and forward planning to prevent harmful
effects of pollution (Boehmer-Christiansen S. 1994). The precautionary principle has since been
invoked in numerous international declarations, treaties, and conventions, and has been
incorporated into the national environmental policies of several countries. It has been applied to
specific decisions on food safety, protection of freshwater systems, land development proposals,
fisheries management, and the release of genetically modified organisms, among others.
5.1.2. Formulations of the precautionary principle
17 | P a g e

One formulation of the precautionary principle is found in the 1992 Rio Declaration of nations
participating in the United Nations Environment Program treaty negotiations:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation
(Rio Declaration 1992) (Shabecoff 1996).
In 1998 a group of scientists, environmentalists, government researchers, and labor
representatives from the United States, Canada, and Europe convened at the Wingspread
Conference in Wisconsin to discuss ways to formalize and implement the precautionary
principle. They formulated the precautionary principle as:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically." (Wingspread Statement, 1998)
The precautionary principle says we should attempt to anticipate and avoid damages before they
occur or detect them early. However formulated, each version of the precautionary principle is
based on underlying values and three core elements:
potential harmpredicting and avoiding harm, or identifying it early, should be a primary
concern when contemplating an action;
scientific uncertaintythe kind and degree of scientific uncertainty surrounding a proposed
activity should be explicitly addressed; and
precautionary action
5.1.3. Why the Precautionary Principle?
Humans have transformed land, sea, and air, dominating the earths ecosystems in unprecedented
ways (McCally 2002). Although many of these impacts were or could have been predicted, often
they were surprises. Degradation of life support services, loss of biodiversity, and direct impacts
on human health are a result (Lubchenco 1998, Johnson et al. 2001). Patterns of human disease
are changing throughout the world. To remain focused on life expectancy and decreases in
childhood mortality is to miss these changing patterns.
18 | P a g e

Newly emerging infectious diseases and new geographical distribution of older infectious
diseases illustrate the capacity of microorganisms to evolve and adapt to changing
circumstances. Antibiotic resistance is increasingly common. Chronic diseases like hypertension,
heart disease, diabetes, and asthma are increasing throughout much of the world. Depression and
other mental health disorders are becoming new public health threats in many parts of the world
with profound consequences for individuals, families, and communities. Developmental
disabilities, including learning disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism are
increasingly common (Schettler et al. 2000). The age-adjusted incidence of a number of different
kinds of cancer in the US has increased over the past 25 years (SEER). The incidence of some
birth defects is increasing (Paulozzi 1999, Pew 2001). Sperm density is declining in some parts
of the world (Swan et al. 1997). Asthma prevalence and severity is sharply increasing throughout
the world and is often of epidemic proportions (Pew 2001).
Recognizing the limits of science, the precautionary principle is intended to enable and
encourage precautionary actions that serve underlying values, based on what we know as well as
what we do not know. It encourages close scrutiny of all aspects of science, from the research
agenda to the funding, design, interpretation, and limits of studies, for potential impacts on the
earth and its inhabitants.
A precautionary approach is based on the ethical notions of taking care and preventing harm. It
arises from recognition of the extent to which scientific uncertainty and inadequate evaluation of
the full impacts of human activities have contributed to ecological degradation and harm to
human health. It can be used to help address these circumstances, bringing together ethics and
science, illuminating their strengths, weaknesses, values, or biases. The precautionary principle
encourages research, innovation, and cross-disciplinary problem solving. It serves as a guide for
considering the impacts of human activities and provides a framework for protecting children,
adults, other species, and life-sustaining ecological systems now and for future generations.
5.2. POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
The polluter-pays principle stipulates that the person who damages the environment must bear
the cost of such damage. A number of developing countries have recently extended this principle
to create an obligation on the state to compensate the victims of environmental harm. This
variation of the polluter-pays principle is aimed at ensuring victims' compensation when
19 | P a g e

polluters cannot be identified or are insolvent. These regimes hold state and local governments
primarily or jointly-and-severally liable for environmental damage and allow the government to
act in subrogation against the polluters.
"The polluter pays principle states that whoever is responsible for damage to the environment
should bear the costs associated with it."
5.2.1.What Is the Polluter Pays Principle?
The polluter pays principle is a broad concept with different meanings depending on the specific
context.29 In domestic law, the polluter pays principle states that polluting entities are legally and
financially responsible for the harmful consequences of their pollution. 30 In contrast, in
international law, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
prescribes a quasi-regulatory regime of environmental taxation for the application of the polluter
pays principle.31 According to the OECD, companies are taxed according to the level of pollution
they produce.32
In theoretical terms, the polluter pays principle is a model for allocating and abating
environmental harm and requires the responsible individual, firm, or nation to bear the cost of
pollution.33 Absent this mechanism, the costs of environmental damage fall on the general
community, either through taxation to fund governmental cleanup or by reduced environmental
quality. In the legal sense, the polluter pays principle embodies the general equitable notion that
polluting entities should bear the costs of their pollution. 34 Therefore, the polluter pays principle
has entered mainstream economics and environmental economics in this amorphous form. 35 Not

29

Eric Larson, Why Environmental Liability Regimes in the United States, the European
Community, and Japan Have Grown Synonymous with the Polluter Pays Principle, 38 VAND.
J. TRANSNATL L. 541, 545-50 (2005) (discussing how the polluter pays principle has been
implemented in such places as the United States, the European Community and in Japan.).
30
Stefanie Sommers, The Brownfield Problem: Liability For Lenders, Owners, and Developers in Canada and the
United States, 19 COLO. J. INTL ENVTL. L. & POLY 259, 266-67, 277-91 (2008)
31
supra note 6
32
World Bank, An Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development: A Progress Report (Sept. 1, 2006) at
3, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUT
33
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 16, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.151/26 (Aug. 12, 1992);
34
supra note 5
35
SHIFTS IN COMPENSATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE 65-68 (Michael Faure & AlbertVerheij
eds., 2007) (discussing the vagueness of the polluter pays principle especially as it isapplied to measuring the actual
amount of pollution).

20 | P a g e

surprisingly, there is heated debate regarding the scope of the broad principle and the wisdom of
its economic justifications.
5.2.2. Background and History of the Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle dates back to the early 1970s. Although the OECD adopted it in
1972, it was not extensively debated in broader international circles until the early 1990s,
culminating with its inclusion in the Rio Declaration.36
Prior to the polluter pays principle, there was no perceived need to internalize the costs of
environmental harm because natural resources were considered free goods; pollution emissions
were thought to have negligible negative effects, and the environment was not valued at all.37
No legal or economic bases developed to allocate the costs of cleanup because the oceans and
atmosphere were seen as inexhaustible sponges for humanitys waste. 38 Little or no thought went
into the need to protect the environment until people started economically valuing the
environment. Once people started quantifying environmental value, they realized the need to
efficiently exploit environmental resources. 39 However, the values that people were trying to
optimize in the environmental context went undefined, leaving lots of ambiguities in the process
of internalizing costs.
The problem of externalities was recognized long before the 1970s, at least as early as Pigous
1932 work, The Economics of Welfare.40

The social costs of pollution41 and the need to

internalize the costs and benefits of pollution were extensively debated throughout this time. 42
Duncan Kennedys internalization solution for the problem of social costs is a variation of the
polluter pays principle, although his nomenclature differs from traditional literature. Mainstream
law and economics literature and the history of international conventional law state that the
polluter pays principle sprang from the need to find an efficient solution to the seemingly
36

Rio Declaration, supra note 33, at 16.

ATAPATTU, supra note 12, at 438.
38
Ibid at 438-39.
39
Id. at 439.
40
ARTHUR C. PIGOU, THE ECONOMICS OF WELFARE 183 (4th ed. 1932); see Duncan
Kennedy, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Entitlement Problems: A Critique, 33 STANFORD L. REV.
387, 394 (1981).
41
Ronald H. Coase, The Problems of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & Econ. 1, 1-2 (1960).
42
ATAPATTU, supra note 12, at 438.
37

21 | P a g e

straightforward problem of environmental harm between two entities of relatively equal

bargaining strength.43 Conventional environmental economics concluded that the polluter pays
principle was the only efficient model for dealing with pollution, whether in the context of
liability for private harm or as a broader preventative measure. 44
5.2.3. Theory and Variations of the Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle deals with cost allocation, cost internalization, and legal liability. 45
Scholars disagree as to whether the polluter pays principle addresses cost allocation in addition
to decidingliability. 46 Scholars also disagree on whether is possible to apply the polluter pays
principle without resorting to liability. 47
The polluter pays principle can be a general liability allocation model in which an actor is held
liable for harm because a wrongdoer must compensate the aggrieved victims of the harm. 48
Likewise, the polluter pays principle may be envisioned as an ex ante allocation of the costs of
pollution prevention and control measures designed to encourage rational use of scarce
environmental resources.31 The polluter pays principle also spreads the cost of environmental
harm to intermediary users and end-consumers, thereby generating incentives for efficient
resource use at all levels. 49
The polluter pays principle rests on the theory of cost internalization. 50 In many domestic
situations, it is politically difficult for governments to allocate pollution costs between multiple
actors or require polluters to implement precautionary abatement measures because the parties
involved have varying views and values.51 These political obstacles are resolved by appealing to
the presumptively efficient nature of the cost internalization accomplished by the polluter pays

43

Id. at 438-39.
Robert V. Percival, The Globalization of Environmental Law, 26 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 451, 461-62 (2009).
45
Jonathan Remy Nash, Too Much Market? The Conflict between Tradeable Pollution Allowances and the
Polluter Pays Principle, 24 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 465, 472-78 (2000).
46
John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for NationalGovernance, 49 CASE W. RES. L.
REV. 1 (1998).
47
ibid
48
OECD, Polluter-Pays Principle, supra note 6, at 239; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 901 (1979).
49
Candice Stevens, Interpreting the Polluter Pays Principle in the Trade and Environment Context, 27 CORNELL
INTL L.J. 577, 577-78 (1994).
50
Ibid.
51
ibid
44

22 | P a g e

principle.52 According to the internalization theory, producers who pollute internalize the costs
of cleaning up the contaminated resources, and in turn pass those costs to the consumers of the
goods.53 This theory internalizes the externalities in market decisions because the producers who
cause the harm pay the external social costs of environmental harm. 54 Ultimately, consumers
pay the real costs of the goods, and innocent third parties are not made to bear the costs of the
pollution.55
There are other justifications for the polluter pays principle. 56 For example, environmental taxes
can be a form of cost allocation or hybrid cost-liability allocation. 57 Industry-wide and polluterspecific taxes theoretically meet the goal of allocating liability according to the source of harm. 58
There are myriad environmental tax regimes, but generally a tax regime allocates prospective
liability for potential environmental harm, thus spreading the cost and risk of accidents over a
wide period of time. 59 Environmental taxes efficiently meet the needs of governments to raise
additional revenues, reallocate resources and redistribute incomes. 60

Additionally,

environmental taxes manifest a governments desire to correct a negative externality (by

regulating and reducing environmental pollution) through the use of economic instruments rather
than solely a regulatory scheme. 61
Similarly, in the OECD context, the [p]olluter [p]ays [p]rinciple is a cost allocation or nonsubsidization principle intended to guide governments in addressing domestic pollution. 62 In the
broader international context, [E]nvironmental taxes (and also government levies and other types
of charges) are assessed against the use of natural resources or the consequent waste, resulting in
more efficient resource use and decreased pollution. Additionally, environmental taxes raise

52

Ibid. at 578.
Ibid. at 585.
54
Ibid
55
Ibid
56
Id. at 578-81.
57
Supra note 22
58
Supra note 49
59
Andrew J. White, III, Decentralised Environmental Taxation in Indonesia: A Proposed Double Dividend for
Revenue Allocation and Environmental Regulation, 19 J. ENVTL. L. 43,44 (2007).
60
Ibid
61
Ibid
62
Stevens, supra note 33, at 578.
53

23 | P a g e

money to pay for remediation of pollution and other environmental damagesas well as even
unrelated government expenditures. 63
Other variations of the polluter pays principle include the notion of [a]ssessing liability in
proportion to the probability of each companys contribution to actual injury. 64 Likewise, the
polluter pays principle can be imagined as a regulatory scheme, which allocates regulatory fines
or criminal sanctions in proportion to the respective entitys degree of culpability in a given
case.65 Alternative implementation models include tradable pollution permits, bright line
pollution or penalty models, and pollution abatement subsidy schemes. 66
5.2.4. The Polluter Pays Principle in Crisis
The polluter pays principle emerged on the international legal scene as a seemingly viable
mechanism for cost allocation with many variations, and it was rooted in sound economic
theory.67 Although the scope of this principle and its effects are still debated, a majority of
scholars accept its economic rationale. 68 These scholars conclude everyone is better off as long
as the polluter picks up the tab for remediation, except possibly the polluter. 69 The solution is
Pareto efficient,70 and the only remaining task is implementation of the polluter pays principle. 71
Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple. Beneath the surface, the traditional polluter pays
mechanism contains a principle that negates workability in the international context. The polluter
pays principle makes sense in the domestic or local context, where environmental harm can be
roughly quantified and an adverse party can recover remedies or prevent future pollution. But the
polluter pays principle makes less sense in a complex global context. 72 In a world of everdiminishing resources and accelerating extinction, 73 economic theories involving simplified cost63

White, supra note 43, at 44

Albert C. Lin, Beyond Tort: Compensating Victims of Environmental Toxic Injury, 78 S.
CAL. L. REV. 1439, 1499 n.355 (2005).
65
Stevens, supra note 33, at 578-81.
66
ATAPATTU, supra note 12, at 458.
67
Michael Ewing-Chow & Darryl Soh, Pain, Gain, Or Shame: The Evolution of Environmental Law and the Role of
the Multinational Corporations, 16 IND. J. GLOBAL
68
Cf. Helen Endre-Stacy, Sustaining ESD in Australia, 69 CHI.-KENT. L. REV. 935, 958 (1994)
69
RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 12-13 (7th ed. 2007).
70
Ibid.
71
Endre-Stacy, supra note 51, at 935-36.
72
George P. Smith, Re-Validating the Doctrine of Anticipatory Nuisance, 29 VT. L. REV. 687, 717 (2005).
73
PAUL M.WOOD, BIODIVERSITY AND DEMOCRACY: RETHINKING SOCIETY AND NATURE ixx (2000).
64

24 | P a g e

benefit analysis, calculation of marginal utilities, cost-internalization and static two-agent models
simply do not work because they rely on simple and narrow anthropogenic value sets.
5.3. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Awareness of the major challenges emerging both as regards development and with
reference to the environment has made possible a consensus on the concept of "sustainable and
environmentally sound development" which the "Earth Summit", meeting in Rio in 1992,
endeavoured to focus by defining an ambitious programme of action, Agenda 21, clarified by a
Declaration of 27 principles solemnly adopted on that occasion. We can also refer to the content
of the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation adopted by the General Assembly in
May 1990, which clearly recognizes that "Economic development must be environmentally
sound and sustainable."
The concept of sustainable development contains three basic components or principles.
First among these is the precautionary principle, whereby the state must anticipate, prevent and
attack the cause of environmental degradation. 74 The Rio Declaration affirms the principle by
stating that where ever there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.75 Most of the cases of the 1990s deal with the definition of the
principle. In 1996, the Supreme Court76 stated that environmental measures, adopted by the State
Government and the statutory authorities, must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation. Following the definition provided in the Rio Declaration, the Court
stated that where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The Supreme Court has accepted the principle and applied it on several occasions. In the Taj
Trapezium Case, applying the precautionary approach the Supreme Court ordered a number of
industries in the area surrounding the Taj Mahal to relocate or introduce pollution abatement
measures in order to protect the Taj from deterioration and damage.

74

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 658

Principle 15, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992).
76
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996) 5 SCC 647.
75

25 | P a g e

An interesting comment on the precautionary principle by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is

worthy of mention here. The Court in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA 77 commented: The precautionary
policy is to first consider the welfare and the safety of the human beings and the environment
and then to pick up a policy and execute the plan which is more suited to obviate the possible
dangers or make such alternate precautionary measures which may ensure safety. To stick to a
particular plan on the basis of old studies or inconclusive research cannot be said to be a policy
of prudence or precaution.
The second component of the doctrine of sustainable development is the principle of
polluter pays. The principle states that the polluter not only has an obligation to make good the
loss but shall bear the cost of rehabilitating the environment to its original state.78 In operation,
this principle is usually visible alongside the precautionary principle.
A Native American proverb states that we do not inherit the planet from our ancestors but
borrow it from our children, this is the next significant component of sustainable development
the principle of intergenerational equity. The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable
development as development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. The principle envisages that each
generation should be required to conserve the diversity of the natural and cultural resource base,
so that it does not unduly restrict the options available to future generations in solving their
problems and satisfying their own values, and should also be entitled to diversity comparable to
that enjoyed by previous generations. This principle is called "conservation of options."
Secondly, each generation should be required to maintain the quality of the planet so that it is
passed on in no worse condition than that in which it was received, and should also be entitled to
planetary quality comparable to that enjoyed by previous generations. This is the principle of
"conservation of quality." Thirdly, each generation should provide its members with equitable
rights of access to the legacy of past generations and should conserve this access for future
generations. This is the principle of "conservation of access." 79

77

PLD 1994 SC 693.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (H-Acid Case), (1996) 3 SCC 212.
79
Edith B. Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational
Equity (United Nations University, 1989)
78

26 | P a g e

Another important aspect of the right to life is the application of public trust doctrine to
protect and preserve public land. This doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates affirmative state
action for effective management of resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective
management of natural resources. Public trust is being increasingly related to sustainable
development, the precautionary principle and bio-diversity protection. Moreover, not only can it
be used to protect the public from poor application of planning law or environmental impact
assessment, it also has an intergenerational dimension. When the Supreme Court has applied the
public trust doctrine, it has considered it not only as an international law concept, but also as one
which is well established in our domestic legal system. Its successful application in India shows
that this doctrine can be used to remove difficulties in resolving tribal land disputes and cases
concerning development projects planned by the government. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and
Others, 80 the court added that [it] would be equally appropriate in controversies involving air
pollution, the dissemination of pesticides, the location of rights of ways for utilities, and strip
mining of wetland filling on private lands in a state where governmental permits are required. In
both M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd81 and Th. Majra Singh,82 the court reconfirmed that the public trust
doctrine has grown from article 21 of the constitution and has become part of the Indian legal
thought process for quite a long time.
5.3.1. The Importance of Democratic and Individual Participation
A development strategy which does not take into account the human, social and cultural
dimension could have only adverse repercussions on the environment. A national development
strategy is viable from the economic, social and ecological standpoint only if it gains the active
adherence of the various social strata of the population. The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development was of the view that that one of the fundamental prerequisites for
the achievement of sustainable development was broad public participation in decision-making.
Furthermore, the Conference recognized, in the specific context of environment, "the need for
new forms of participation" and "the need of individuals, groups and organizations to participate
in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in (pertinent)

80

(1997) 1 SCC 388.

M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Radhey Shyam Sahu AIR 1999 SC 2468.
82
Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation AIR 1999 J&K 81.
81

27 | P a g e

decisions."83 The Conference implicitly linked the notion of real participation in the right of
access to information by noting that "Individuals, groups and organizations should have access to
information relevant to environment and development held by national authorities, including
information on products and activities that have or are likely to have a significant impact on the
environment, and information on environmental protection measures". The link between
participation and information can also be found in Principle 10 of the Declaration of Rio.

83

A/CONF.151/4(Part III), chap. 23, paras. 23.1 and 23.2.

28 | P a g e

6.

CONCLUSIONS

The advancement of the relationship between human rights and the environment would
enable the incorporation of human rights priciples within an environmental scope, such as antidiscrimination standards, the need for social participation and the protection of vulnerable
groups. At the same time, the human rights system would be stregthened by the incorporation of
environmental concerns, enabling the expansion of the scope of human rights protection and
generation of concrete solutions for cases of abuses. Of course, one of the most important
consequences, is to provide victims of environmental degradation the possibility to access to
justice. Given the occasional helplessness suffered by victims of environmental degradation,
linking human rights and the environment brings such victims closer to the mechanisms of
protection that are provided for by human rights law.
It is apparent that environmental and human rights are inextricably linked. As we
increasingly recognize the serious impact of a degraded environment on human health and well
being, we are better placed to adjust our policies and cultural practices to reflect our enhanced
understanding. As a result, we should be able to protect human rights and human dignity within
its broader social, economic and cultural context by drawing from and contributing to those who
are actively engaged in the environmental and public health arenas. This should also facilitate
those who are working in the elvironmental and conservation fields to develop a better working
relationship with those in the human rights arena. This will eventually lead to the articulation of
a more integrated approach to dealing with socio-economic and environmental problems,
encouraging the development of a sustainable model for the preservation of biological resources
and natural ecosystems, for the use and enjoyment of both present and future generations.
I would like to end with a thougt by Elwyn Brooks White, in his book, Essay of E.B.
White.
I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving
that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority.

29 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:

Leelakrishnan, P., Environmental Law Case Book, Lexis Nexis 2nd edition, 2011.

Leelakrishnan, P., Environmental Law in India, Lexis Nexis., New Delhi, 3rd edition, 2004.

Padma, Dr. T., The Principles of Environmental Law, Alt Publications, Hyderabad, 5th ed.,
2010 .

Shanthakumar, S., Introduction to Environmental Law, Lexis Nexis, Noida, 2nd edition, 2005.

Boyle and M. Anderson, Human Rights approaches to Environmental Protection,

Oxford, 1996.

Articles:

Edith B. Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common

Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity (United Nations University, 1989).

Eric Larson, Why Environmental Liability Regimes in the United States, the European
Community, and Japan Have Grown Synonymous with the Polluter Pays Principle, 38
VAND.

Stefanie Sommers, The Brownfield Problem: Liability For Lenders, Owners, and
Developers in Canada and the United States, 19 COLO. J. INTL ENVTL. L. & POLY
(2008).

Declarations, Journals & Reports:

Fatma Zohra Ksentini, Human Rights and Environment, Special Rapporteurs Final
Report, UN. Doc., 1994.

Michael J. Kane, Promoting Political Rights to protect the Environment, The Yale
Journal of International Law, Volume 18, Number 1.

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. (1992).

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms 21 (3) OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES (2001).

U.N. Doc.

30 | P a g e

U.N. CEDAW, Concluding Observations on Romania, U.N. Doc. (2000).

U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on Jordan, U.N.
Doc. (2000).

U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on South Africa,
U.N. Doc. (2000).

World Bank, An Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development: A Progress
Report (2006)

(1997) 49 Dhaka Law Reports (AD),

31 | P a g e