A legal mechanism in some judicial systems that allows for the challenge and review of laws, regulations, or governmental actions that are alleged to violate the constitution.
Amicus curiae status, or ‘friend of the court’ status, affords actors who are not directly involved in a case as original parties the opportunity to nonetheless submit arguments or information (‘amicus brief’) to a court in order to aid the court in its informed decision-making. Common amici in environmental and R2HE cases include human rights organizations, environmental NGOs and scientific experts and/or organizations.
Anthropocentrism, broadly speaking, refers to the common philosophical perspective assigning humans a special status and/or value above all other organisms, entities and the environment itself. Discourse, arguments and systems that identify humans – implicitly or explicitly – as the center of all moral consideration are anthropocentric. This perspective often entails the belief that human interests, needs and welfare should be prioritized over those of other species or the environment.
This philosophy and approach places intrinsic value on all living organisms and the natural world. It contrasts with anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests above all other forms of life. In biocentrism / ecocentrism, all living beings are considered valuable and deserving of moral consideration, irrespective of their utility to humans.
Burden of Proof describes the stringency and allocation of the obligation imposed on a given party in a legal dispute to prove (or disprove) an assertion, claim or defense that has been made. Differing burdens of proof can demand more or less detail, evidence and plausibility of a party, and vary across both claim types and jurisdictions. Whomever carries the burden of proof in a dispute must meet that standard for a court to consider the party’s assertion valid, cognizable and/or sufficient. In contrast, the assertions of a party that does not carry the ‘burden of proof’ are presumed to be correct and/or valid. Burdens of proof are usually pre-determined by law, but courts and other adjudicatory bodies sometimes have discretion to shift or modify the burden. Burdens of proof can bear decisively on the substance and outcome of any given legal dispute.
Carbon Neutrality describes the achievement or pursuit by a government or company of an emissions balance – often through offsets, increased energy efficiency and/or other emissions reductions – such that the sum total of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the atmosphere remains stable and does not increase. Compare with ‘net zero emissions,’ which also describes the achievement of no net increase in GHG emissions, but which contemplates a more limited set of activities which can justifiably be set to ‘offset’ or reduce emissions.
Causation refers broadly to the relationship between an action or inaction and an effect or harm that follows, where the former at least in part caused the latter to arise. Relatedly, ‘causal link’ describes the identification and demonstration of the path from a cause to an effect.
A Cause of Action describes the legal basis on which a plaintiff or petitioner brings a claim in court. A cause of action requires something more than a mere purported wrongdoing, and often entails additional requirements such as the legislative or regulatory creation of a private (or individual) right to bring a certain action. The phrase ‘reasonable cause of action’ arises frequently in legal disputes because defendants will often respond to a plaintiff’s allegation by arguing the plaintiff has failed to articulate either the substance of their claim or the appropriate grounds furnishing an opportunity to sue on the basis of that claim (i.e., has failed to state a ‘reasonable cause of action’).
The achievement of a balance between the rate of emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) and their removal from the atmosphere. This stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations would limit global warming and prevent further adverse impacts on the climate system.
Rights that are granted or recognized to groups of people rather than to individuals. These rights are based on the idea that certain groups, such as minorities, indigenous communities, or cultural or linguistic groups, have specific needs, interests, and identities that deserve protection and promotion.
This principle of environmental law provides that state governments are all obligated to take actions to address environmental damage, but that states are not all equally responsible for doing so. In other words, all states have a shared duty to take climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, but their specific responsibilities following from that duty will not look identical nor demand equal efforts and resources from each country. This principle recognizes that all countries are not equally well-positioned in terms of economic development, nor equally responsible in causal terms, for the challenges they collectively seek to address.
This environmental law principle refers to aligning decisions, policies, or actions with the most reliable and up-to-date scientific knowledge and evidence. It involves making choices or formulating strategies based on scientifically validated information that represents the current state of understanding in a particular field or issue.
A body of legal principles and norms that derive from consistent practices and beliefs of states over time. It is one of the primary sources of international law, alongside treaties and general principles of law. Unlike treaties, which are formal agreements between states, customary international law develops from the consistent behavior of states based on a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris) and a general understanding that a particular practice is legally required (state practice).
A legal remedy in which a court makes a formal statement or declaration regarding the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute, without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. This type of relief provides clarity and resolves legal uncertainty, helping parties understand their legal positions and guiding their future conduct.
Rule of Law refers broadly to the principle that states are bound to act in substantive accordance with their own laws and acquired obligations, and are likewise obliged to pursue and protect the full realization of their citizens under those laws. This critical principle implies the fidelity of a government to those duties, which includes consideration of the processes, structures and institutions mandated with upholding the law in various ways. Rule of law is closely linked to principles of democracy, which it advances and with which it is intertwined. ‘Democratic rule of law’ can therefore be understood as the abidance of a government and all its citizens to norms and laws governing limits on authority, public participation in decision-making, civil and political rights and many other facets of a well-functioning democracy.
The level of care, attention, and investigation that individuals, organizations, or entities must exercise to prevent harm to the environment or to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and standards. It involves taking reasonable steps to identify, understand, and mitigate potential environmental risks associated with particular activities or operations.
Due Process refers to certain procedural safeguards designed to protect fundamental rights and freedoms. In the judicial context, it describes critical guarantees such as the right of access to justice and to fair and equal treatment under – and through – the law.
Sometimes called ‘biocentrism,’ this philosophy, model and/or approach recognizes the intrinsic value of all living organisms and the natural world. In contrast to anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests above all other forms of life, the ecocentric view values all living beings as equal and meriting moral consideration, regardless of their utility to humans. This framework places special emphasis on the interconnectedness of all living beings, ecosystems and naturally occurring cycles.
A process used in environmental management and sustainable development to evaluate the potential environmental consequences or impacts of proposed projects, policies, plans, or developments before they are carried out. The primary goal of an EIA is to identify, predict, and mitigate any adverse effects that these activities might have on the environment. It often involves modeling potential harms and exploring alternatives, if any, to avoid them.
This international law principle is particularly applied in the context of indigenous rights and environmental governance. It asserts the rights of indigenous communities to be involved in decisions that affect their lands, resources, cultures, and livelihoods. It asserts that before any project, policy, or action is implemented that might affect indigenous communities or their territories, these communities have the right to be informed about the proposed actions, to participate in decision-making, and to provide their consent freely and with adequate information. FPIC aims to ensure that affected communities have the autonomy and agency to make informed choices about activities that may impact their lands, resources, culture, or traditional practices.
This human rights law principle encompasses the fair and impartial treatment of individuals, regardless of their gender, aiming to ensure fairness and justice in opportunities, resources, and rights for all genders. It focuses on creating parity and equal access to opportunities, benefits, and responsibilities within society, without bias or discrimination based on gender. In the R2HE context, provides that the fulfillment of R2HE should also be guided by measures that promote gender equity or, at the very least, do not contribute to gender inequity.
This environmental law principle translates to "in doubt, in favor of nature." Suggests that in cases of uncertainty or doubt regarding the interpretation of laws or regulations related to environmental protection, the decision should lean towards safeguarding or protecting nature. It emphasizes a precautionary approach, prioritizing the conservation and preservation of the environment when legal interpretations are ambiguous or uncertain.
This principle recognizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all human rights. It asserts that civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are all equally important and interconnected, forming an indivisible and interrelated system of human rights. This principle emphasizes that no right should take precedence over another and that they are all essential for the dignity, well-being and full development of individuals and societies.
A legal remedy issued by a court that orders a party to cease a particular action or activity or mandates them to perform a specific act. It's a court order that restrains someone from performing an act that threatens or violates the rights of another.
A comprehensive approach to development that encompasses economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions. In the context of the right to a healthy environment, adopting Integral Development means acknowledging how those various dimensions interrelate to produce or hinder the achievement of a healthy environment. This means, for instance, that states must adopt policies and practices that balance economic growth with environmental conservation, rather than sacrifice one for the other.
This international and environmental law principle provides that States and other entities must regard the impact of their public policies on the environment on present and future generations equally. In other words, actions that allow present generations to meet their needs and wants but sacrifice the ability of future generations to meet their basic needs and live lives of dignity contravene Intergenerational Equity.
An Intervenor, sometimes referred to as a ‘third party intervenor,’ is an actor who is not one of the original parties to a case but who nonetheless has been granted leave to intervene based on the actor’s personal stake or interest in the dispute’s outcome. Intervention may enable third parties to submit evidence or arguments, argue in court before a judge and/or later appeal a judgment. Intervenor status therefore affords interested third parties a more substantial degree of involvement in a case than would ‘amicus curiae’ (or ‘friend of the court’) status. Human rights and environmental NGOs are common intervenors in R2HE and environmental damage cases, but intervenors may support the plaintiff(s) to an action, the defendant(s) or neither.
Legislative Intent describes the consensus purpose of a legislative body in enacting a certain legal provision or framework. Legislative intent bears on the applicability of laws to any set of facts, the treatment of those facts and the remedies which may follow from a legal violation. If a court finds that a legislature intended a certain end or application, the court is usually bound to effectuate that intent. Legislative intent can be articulated and identified in a number of ways, including via the interpretation of legislative history and/or a law’s plain language.
In the context of international law, monism refers to the perspective that international law and domestic law form a single, unified legal system. Under monism, international law is automatically incorporated into a country's legal framework upon ratification or acceptance without requiring any transformation or specific legislative action.
Natural Law describes a legal and/or ethical system recognizing certain universal rights, obligations, laws of justice and moral norms as intrinsic and arising from a state of nature or ‘the natural order.’ Natural law is typically understood as a “higher” and preeminent set of moral norms, and as such may impact or impose limits on the law. Note that different systems and jurisdictions vary in their recognition of natural law as legitimate and/or binding. Contrast with ‘positive law’ or ‘legal positivism,’ which posits no cognizable connection between ethics and law and recognizes only laws and norms arrived at and agreed upon through human-designed mechanisms.
This human rights law principle prohibits unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on certain protected characteristics. It mandates equal treatment and protection under the law for all individuals, irrespective of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability, or other status. In the realm of R2HE, this principle comes into play by acknowledging that environmental damage can stem from and perpetuate discrimination. States must therefore prohibit and protect against discrimination to guarantee R2HE.
This principle of environmental and human rights law provides that governments cannot reduce existing levels of environmental protection unless doing so is strictly necessary to protect another fundamental right. Where such regressions are necessary, they must be proportional to the stipulated goal. Therefore, this principle protects against backsliding in the environmental governance, conservation and protection contexts.
In the context of law, “police power” refers to the inherent authority of a government to enact laws and regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
This environmental law principle provides that it is the entities that pollute – whether it be land, air, water or food – who bear the costs associated with the prevention, control and cleanup of pollution, rather than passing those costs on to society, the environment or future generations.
The legal requirement or duty imposed by law that compels individuals, organizations, or entities to take specific actions or engage in certain behaviors. These obligations are proactive in nature, requiring affirmative steps to be taken rather than refraining from certain actions.
Also known as provisional or interim measures, these measures are temporary actions mandated by a judicial body to prevent harm or preserve the status quo pending the final resolution of a legal dispute. These measures are intended to protect the rights and interests of parties during the course of legal proceedings.
This environmental law principle provides that, where there exists a risk of serious and/or irreversible harm, scientific uncertainty about the extent of the harm or about the exact consequences of a particular action or process does not justify failing to implement measures to combat associated risks of environmental degradation or destruction. In other words, in the face of scientific uncertainty, authorities should still take measures to address environmental threats.
A temporary court order issued while a legal action is pending, which is normally in effect only until the hearing of the action takes place or for some lesser period of time. Its objectives may include: (i) to ensure that parties refrain from doing some specified act(s); (ii) to preserve the status quo; or (iii) to prevent irreparable harm before the case can be fully heard.
This environmental law principle provides that states and other actors must take meaningful steps to avoid environmental harms before they occur. In other words, if there is a tangible risk of environmental harm that is imminent and demands an emergency response, authorities are obliged to implement the necessary measures before damage is caused to the environment.
A Latin term used in law that means "at first sight" or "on its face." It refers to evidence or a case that is sufficient to establish a fact or a legal claim unless disproved or rebutted by contrary evidence.
The obligation of states to collaborate and coordinate their actions to address common challenges, promote peace, security, human rights, and development, and uphold international legal norms. This duty is grounded in various sources of international law, including treaties, customary international law, and principles recognized by international organizations such as the United Nations.
A breach or infringement of the established procedures, processes, or methods outlined by law, rules, regulations, or agreements rather than a direct breach of substantive rights or obligations.
This human rights law principle provides that States must progressively achieve the full realization of the social, economic, and cultural human rights (e.g., the rights to drinkable water, adequate housing, etc.). While States maintain some discretion in deciding which means are appropriate in light of available resources, they have an obligation to take deliberate, concrete and targeted actions towards that goal.
Commonly identified as one of the numerous procedural guarantees included in R2HE, public participation refers broadly to adequate participation by local and affected communities in environmental decision-making matters that impact or are likely to impact individuals’ and/or communities’ rights, livelihoods and/or wellbeing. Public participation should take place prior to the commencement of potentially harmful activities, include measures aimed at transparency of information and afford all participants a meaningful opportunity to have their voices heard. Special public participation guarantees apply to Indigenous, ethnic and/or traditional communities.
A legal principle that asserts certain natural resources – such as navigable waters, shorelines and other select resources of ecological and cultural importance – are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public. This means that such resources are considered so crucial for society, that governmental institutions should provide them special protections, for the benefit of the public.
This approach emphasizes acknowledging and valuing the traditional knowledge, practices, and customs of indigenous communities. While not a distinct legal principle, it is often considered as an integral part of various legal frameworks, especially in environmental and human rights law contexts. In the R2HE context, such viewpoints should be actively incorporated into environmental governance, including through local and indigenous participation in environmental decision-making.
Involves the process of actively and deliberately rehabilitating or repairing ecosystems, habitats, or natural areas that have been degraded, damaged, or altered by human activities or natural disasters. The primary aim of environmental restoration is to bring back the ecological functions, biodiversity, and overall health of an ecosystem to a condition as close as possible to its original or natural state.
The broader concept of making amends or compensating for environmental harm caused by human actions. It involves acknowledging responsibility for the damage and taking actions to repair, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse impacts. The primary goal of environmental restitution is to address the environmental damage by compensating affected ecosystems, communities, or resources for the harm done.
The concept of "rights of nature" is centered on the idea that natural entities, such as ecosystems, rivers, forests, or other natural elements, should possess legal rights just like humans do. This perspective suggests that nature itself should have intrinsic rights to exist, thrive, and evolve, independent of its usefulness to humans.
A ‘sacrifice zone,’ hundreds of which can be found across the Earth, is an area systemically impaired by high levels of pollution and contamination, often due to industrial activity. Such ‘sacrifice zones’ can be understood as sites of layered exploitation – both of the environment, and of the marginalized and vulnerable populations that often dwell within.
Separation of Powers describes the division of a state’s government into separate and independent branches – for instance, legislative, executive and judicial branches – each of which bears its own distinct powers and responsibilities. Often, the separation of powers is designed with an eye toward decentralizing total authority and ensuring checks and balances upon each branch of government, with no single branch exercising power over another.
A principle in international law that recognizes that while all states are responsible for addressing global issues such as environmental protection, climate change, and sustainable development, they do not share the same level of responsibility due to differences in their contributions to the problem and their capabilities to address it. This principle aims to balance equity and fairness in international agreements and actions.
Standing, sometimes referred to as ‘legal personality,’ denotes the capacity of a given party to bring their claims in a court of law. Often, to achieve standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a remediable and ‘individualized harm’ linked to the actions or inaction of the defendant(s). If a party does not have standing, a court will not review its claims. Assuming no other barriers, a court will review the claim of a party that does have standing.
A breach or infringement of the substantive aspects or core elements of a law, regulation, contract, or legal principle rather than a procedural error or technicality. In essence, it involves a breach of the essential or substantial aspects of a rule, law, or right.
This concept and guiding principle provides that states should pursue measures that allow present generations to meet their essential needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Moreover, it recognizes the need for states to work towards their economic development while also ensuring the realization and protection of fundamental human rights. Consequently, a state seeking to achieve Sustainable Development goals is not excused from compliance with its human rights obligations, such as the duty to guarantee the R2HE.
A legal mechanism found primarily in Latin American countries, designed to protect fundamental constitutional rights. It allows individuals to seek immediate judicial protection when they believe their rights have been violated or are under imminent threat.
A writ of amparo, sometimes referred to as an ‘amparo action,’ is a judicial remedy sought for the protection of an individual’s or a group’s constitutional and/or human rights. It provides a mechanism by which to challenge governmental actions or omissions that threaten to violate those fundamental rights.
A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official, lower court or other state entity ordering them to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. These orders are usually only used in extraordinary circumstances.