Search

A healthy environment is an important precondition for the enjoyment of human rights. When framed in this way, environmental protection serves human interests rather than being an end in itself. Recognition of this relationship is evident in the European Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the jurisprudence of their associated judicial bodies. However, we question whether the European or African human rights frameworks might be capable of delivering a demonstrable benefit for environmental protection. Through an examination of two cases (Dubetska v Ukraine and SERAC v Nigeria), we argue that both frameworks benefit the environment to the extent they seek to secure optimal living conditions for humans. However, the regimes are designed for the promotion of human, not environmental, well-being and consequently are largely ill-equipped to address broader environmental challenges like climate change, pollution or biodiversity loss in a way that leads to lasting environmental protection, despite these complex environmental problems continuing to threaten human rights. Accordingly, our analysis highlights the need for other appropriate legal mechanisms for individuals and communities to advocate for their environmental rights and obtain a suitable remedy when their human rights are impacted by environmental degradation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]