CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Second, although international human rights law generally requires the “progressive realization” of economic, social, and cultural rights, there are some obligations which require immediate implementation. For example, states must guarantee non-discrimination in access to economic, social and cultural rights, irrespective of resource constraints.119 States also have an immediate obligation to ensure, at the very least, “minimum essential levels” of each right that is enshrined in the ICESCR.120 In addition, states have an immediate obligation to refrain from undertaking actions that cause a violation of any human rights. Third, states have an obligation to protect all rights against third party abuses. As interpreted by the HR Committee, this means that states must “take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress” any human rights violations caused by third parties.121 (i) Adaptation Obligations: Protecting Human Rights From Climate-Related Harms Article 6 of the ICCPR recognizes that “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life” and that no person “shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” The HR Committee has noted that the right to life “should not be interpreted narrowly” and that “the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures” to protect life.122 The ICESCR contains a number of additional rights—such as the rights to health and an adequate standard of living—which also require positive action from the state for their implementation.123 As discussed in Part 1, the effects of climate change will threaten the lives, health, well-being, and livelihoods of hundreds of millions if not billions of people in the coming decades. States have an obligation to enact legal and institutional frameworks to protect human rights against these effects. This is true regardless of whether the state is responsible for those effects because, as noted above, the ICCPR and ICESCR both include obligations to protect human rights from harms caused by third parties. Presumably, this would encompass a more pressing obligation to protect citizens from imminent, life-threatening harms (such as more severe storms and flooding), as well as an ongoing obligation to implement adaptation measures to alleviate the projected impacts of climate change on people and their livelihoods. 124 The ECtHR has issued several decisions which, although not binding under the ICCPR or ICESCR, do provide insight on the nature of a state’s positive obligation to protect the human right to life in this context.125 For example, in Budayeva and Others v. Russia, the ECtHR determined that Russian authorities had violated the right to life when: (i) the authorities knew that there was a risk of a mud-slide, (ii) they did not implement land planning and emergency relief policies, (iii) they did not adequately inform the public about the risk; and (iv) eight citizens died as a result of the mud-slide.126 The Lahore High Court in Pakistan also recently issued a decision in which it held that the national government had violated the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the right to life, by failing to implement adaptation measures recommended in the 2012 National Climate Policy and Framework.127 The UNFCCC does not recognize a right to adaptation, but it does call upon all parties to “[c]ooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans for coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture, and for the protection and rehabilitation of areas, 119 CESCR General Comment No. 3, pp. 1-2, UN Doc. E/1991/23 (Dec. 14, 1990). 120 OHCHR Report (2009), supra note 71, at p. 76 (citing CESCR general comment No. 3). 121 HRC General Comment No. 31, p.8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004). See also CESCR, General Comment No. 12, p. 15, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (May 12, 1999); Knox (2014), supra note 76, at 7; Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (2006); John H. Knox, Horizontal Human Rights Law (2008); Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (July 29, 1988); Z and Others v. United Kingdom, 34 Eur. Ct. H.R. 3 (2002). 122 HR Committee General Comment No. 6, ¶¶ 1, 5, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994). 123 ICESCR Arts. 11, 12. 124 OHCHR acknowledges that, “in some cases, states may have an obligation to protect individuals against foreseeable threats to human rights related to climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding or storms in certain areas.” OHCHR (2009), supra note 71, at p. 74. In another statement on disaster risk reduction and human rights obligations, OHCHR has also asserted that a failure “to take reasonable preventive action to reduce exposure and vulnerability and to enhance resilience, as well as to provide effective mitigation [to disasters]” is a “human rights issue.” OHCHR, Organization Profile: Policies and Programmes in DRR, http://www.preventionweb.net/organizations/1370/view (last visited Oct. 6, 2015). In addition, HRC Resolutions 10/4 and 18/22 more assert that: “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence” as a result of climate change impacts.” 125 Öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra note 95; Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra note 120; Tătar v. Romania, supra note 118. 126 Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra note 120. 127 Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, Lahore High Court Green Bench (W.P. No. 25501/2015) (Sept. 15, 2015). Similarly, a district court in The Hague recently referred to the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the right to life and corresponding obligation of governments to protect citizens from environmental harm in order to determine the “standard of care” that the Dutch national government must exercise to protect its citizens from climate-related harms. District Court of the Hague, Judgment: Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands Regarding the failure of the Dutch State to take sufficient actions to prevent dangerous climate change, p. 4.74 (Urgenda Foundation 2015). 20 T H E O B L I G AT I O N S O F G O V E R N M E N T S A N D P R I VAT E A C T O R S T O R E S P O N D T O T H E H U M A N R I G H T S I M P L I C AT I O N S O F C L I M AT E C H A N G E