Submission in Support of Petitioners Case No. CHR-NI-2016-0001 vulnerability and to enhance resilience, as well as to provide effective mitigation [for natural disasters]” to protect the right to life and other related rights.59 OHCHR has recognized that climate change “clearly poses a threat to human life” due to the higher incidence of morality associated with extreme weather events, increased heat, drought, and expanding disease vectors, among other things, and that states “must take effective measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change and prevent foreseeable loss of life.”60 Such measures must include actions to protect the right to life and other human rights against climate-related harms caused by businesses.61 Businesses are also duty bearers in this context: “[t]hey must be accountable for their climate impacts and participate responsibly in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts with full respect for human rights.”62 Domestic tribunals have similarly found that the obligation to protect life entails a corresponding obligation to protect people from the harmful impacts of climate change, both through GHG mitigation and adaptation. For example, a tribunal in the Netherlands held that the Dutch government must take reasonable measures to mitigate GHG emissions in order to protect the lives and health of Dutch citizens.63 Similarly, a tribunal in Pakistan held that the national government had violated the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the right to life, by failing to carry out the 2012 National Climate Policy and Framework.64 A group of youth plaintiffs in the United States (U.S.) have also brought suit alleging that the federal government’s failure to regulate the production and use of fossil fuels in 59 OHCHR, Organization profile: Policies and Programmes in DRR, www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/profile.php?id=1370. See also UNHRC, Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Disaster Risk Reduction, Prevention and Preparedness Initiatives, Study by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ¶ 10, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/66 (Aug. 7, 2014) (same); Budayeva and Others v. Russia, App. Nos. 15339/02, 21155/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 1543/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. (March 20, 2008) (interpreting the right to life as requiring states to take reasonable measures to protect citizens against the reasonably foreseeable effects of natural disasters); Öneryildiz v. Turkey, 2004-XII European Court of Human Rights 1 (same)). 60 OHCHR (2015), supra note 52, at 13-14. 61 Id. at 4. 62 Id. 63 The key question in this case was whether the Dutch government had violated its duty of care to its citizens (a duty embedded in domestic law rather than international human rights law), but, the court referred to jurisprudence on the human right to life in order to determine what “standard of care” was appropriate with regards to climate-related injuries. 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, ¶ 4.74 (Urgenda Foundation 2015). 64 Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, Lahore High Court Green Bench (W.P. No. 25501/2015) (Sept. 15, 2015). Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 14