CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS General Assembly Resolution 67/210 (2013) recognizes the “need to engage a broad range of stakeholders at the global, regional, national and local levels, including national, subnational and local governments, private businesses and civil society, and including youth and persons with disabilities, and that gender equality and the effective participation of women and indigenous peoples are important for effective action on all aspects of climate change.” The precise standard of what constitutes “adequate” or “effective” public participation is not always clear. Terms such as “full and informed participation” and “meaningful consultation” are often used to describe this requirement. At a minimum, this requires: (1) assessment and disclosure of environmental impacts, as discussed above; (2) effective communication of those impacts—e.g., in a language and venue that is accessible to the persons who will be affected; and (3) an opportunity for affected persons to “voice their concerns.”103 It is particularly important to invite and facilitate public participation in decisions that affect vulnerable groups,104 and for decisions concerning the displacement or resettlement of certain groups. OHCHR emphasizes that “adequate and meaningful consultation with affected persons should precede decisions to relocate people away from hazardous zones.”105 The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, has also contributed to this discussion by recommending certain obligations and good practices for States to address the impacts of climate change on migrants.106 (iii) Access to Administrative, Judicial, and Other Remedies The UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR all recognize that states should provide an “effective remedy” for human rights violations. The respective human rights bodies for these treaties have clarified that such remedies extend to human rights violations caused by environmental harms. The obligation to provide access to justice and/or an effective remedy is also enshrined in the Rio Declaration, the Aarhus Convention, and a variety of other multilateral environmental and human rights agreements.107 There is both a procedural and a substantive dimension to this obligation. First, states must provide access to administrative and judicial proceedings to adjudicate claims of human rights violation (the procedural element). But various expert bodies have asserted that states must also ensure that compensation or other forms of redress are available when violations do occur (the substantive dimension). The CESCR, for example, has noted that states should ensure that adequate compensation, alternative accommodation, and resettlement opportunities are provided to indigenous communities and other groups who are displaced by large infrastructure projects and deforestation.108 More generally, the former Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Raquel Rolnik, has stated that human rights standards “require the existence of institutional forms of redress for grievances, compensation in response to inevitable damages and an evaluation of the distributional impacts of projects and effects.”109 The UNFCCC does not explicitly recognize a right of access to justice or remedies for individuals. Article 14 outlines a procedure for the settlement of disputes between countries concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.110 More notably, Paragraph 92 of the Cancun Agreements describes the need to consider “information from those affected, and evidence of actual impacts” of response measures (adaptation and mitigation).111 But the 103 Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, p. 13, UN Doc. A/CONF.216/6 (2012). 104 See discussion, infra, section 2.2.3. 105 OHCHR (2009), supra note 71, at p. 79. 106 François Crépeau, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants to the General Assembly, pp. 39, 73-76, 79, 93, UN Doc. A/67/299 (Aug. 13, 2012). 107 See, e.g., Rio Declaration, Principle 10; Aarhus Convention Art. 9; CBD, supra note 99, Art. 10(b). 108 See CESCR, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Mexico, p. 28, UN Doc. E/C.12/MEX/CO/4 (June 9, 2006); CESCR General Comment No. 15, p. 55, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (Jan. 20, 2003). For a more detailed discussion of CESCR’s views on this, see Mapping Report (2013), supra note 64, Individual Report on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, pp. 55-56 (Dec. 2013). 109 Rolnik (2009), supra note 101, p. 50. 110 Specifically, Art.14 directs the country parties to settle such disputes “through negotiation or any other peaceful means” when possible, and allows parties to request that a “conciliation commission” be convened to issue a “recommendatory award” when such disputes have not been settled after twelve months. UNFCCC Art. 14(1), (5)-(6). Alternatively, the parties may issue a declaration consenting to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and/or an independent arbitrator to settle such disputes. UNFCCC Art. 14(2). Notably, no countries have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ over such disputes, and only three countries (Netherlands, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu) have recognized arbitration as compulsory for the settlement of UNFCCC disputes, but the COP has yet to develop any procedures for the arbitration of disputes. UNFCCC, Declarations by Parties, http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ convention/items/5410.php (last viewed Oct. 19, 2015). 111 Cancun Agreements (2011), supra note 86. 18 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