CHR-NI-2016-0001 Statement of Resource Person, Dr Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh
2
adopted a total of eight resolutions on human rights and climate change 3 and held
several seminars and panel discussions on the topic. The Human Rights Council has
also encouraged its Special Procedures mandate-holders to consider climate change
as part of their respective mandates.4 Several of them have since published reports
on issues relating to climate change, and a group of mandate-holders issued a joint
letter, statements and a report to highlight the importance of integrating human rights
into climate action.5
The increasing engagement of human rights bodies in climate action underscores the
importance of States’ human rights obligations in the face of climate change. From
a doctrinal perspective, these obligations follow from an interpretation of human
rights treaties in light of their object and purpose.6 Taking the object and purpose of
human rights treaties into account in the interpretation of their provisions allows a
dynamic reading of human rights instruments, so that human rights law retains its
relevance in a changing world—and indeed a changing climate.7
The technique of purposive interpretation specifically requires that human rights
treaties be interpreted and applied in a way that makes its safeguards practical and
effective.8 This is often referred to as the principle of effectiveness (or, in the words
of the European Court of Human Rights, ‘effet utile’).9 In general international law
it is known as the principle ut res magus valet quam pereat. 10 As noted by
commentators, the principle of effectiveness is ‘nothing very exotic in international
law’ 11 and exists as a cross-cutting principle across different fields of law. In
international human rights law, however, the principle acquires a specific meaning.
Its effect on treaty interpretation is generally that in cases of doubt as to the meaning
of a treaty provision, its interpretation should favour the protection of the substantive
para 7 (quoting from UN HRC Res. 10/4) and ch I, para 8 (stating that ‘States should, in all climate change-related
actions, fully respect human rights’).
3
Human Rights Council Resolutions 7/23, (UN Doc A/HRC/7/78, 14 July 2008); 10/4 (UN Doc A/HRC/10/L.11,
12 May 2009); 18/22 (UN Doc A/HRC/18/22, 28 September 2011); 26/27 (UN Doc A/HRC/26/27, 23 June 2014);
29/15 (UN Doc A/HRC/29/15, 30 June 2015); 32/33 (UN Doc HRC/32/33, 28 June 2016); 35/20 (UN Doc
A/HRC/35/20, 19 June 2017) and 38/4 (UN Doc A/HRC/38/4, 2 July 2018), all titled ‘Human Rights and Climate
Change’.
4
See resolutions 10/4, para 3; 26/27 para 8; 29/15 para 7.
5
These
reports,
letters
and
statements
are
available
at
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Pages/ClimateChange.aspx.
6
M Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (1st edn, NP Engel Publisher 1993),
XXIV.
7
See ibid, 65; D Feldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2002) 53.
8
N Jayawickrama, The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International
Jurisprudence (Cambridge University Press 2002 ). See also: D Nguyen, P Daillier and A Pellet, Droit International
Public, 7th edn (Paris, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 2002) 264; D Rietiker, ‘The Principle of
"Effectiveness" in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and
Its Consistency with Public International Law – No Need for the Concept of Treaty Sui Generis’ (2010) 79 Nordic
Journal of International Law 245.
9
See, eg: Airey v Republic of Ireland Series A no 32 (1979) 2 EHRR, 305; Artico v Italy Series A no 37 (1980) 3
EHRR 1, para 33; Soering v UK (1989) Series A no 161, 11 EHRR 439; Ireland v United Kingdom, para 239.
10
JP Grant and CJ Barker (eds), Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, 3rd edn (New York, Oxford
University Press, 2009). See also: Interpretation of the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania,
Advisory Opinion (Second Phase) [1950] ICJ Reports 65, 229; and Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v
Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Reports 4, 24–26.
11
D Rietiker, ‘The Principle of “Effectiveness” in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights:
Its Different Dimensions and Its Consistency with Public International Law – No Need for the Concept of Treaty
Sui Generis’ (2010) 79 Nordic Journal of International Law 245, 276.