Climate change is no longer solely an environmental issue; it has become a critical human rights challenge, especially for the most vulnerable communities. Its impacts-rising temperatures, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events threaten fundamental rights such as the rights to life, health, food, water, housing, and a dignified standard of living, as recognised in various international human rights instruments.
The international climate change regime has acknowledged this reality. The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), through Resolution 26/27 on Human Rights and Climate Change, recognised that climate change creates serious challenges to the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life. The 2007 Male Declaration, the first intergovernmental declaration endorsed by small island developing states, marked a landmark moment in recognising climate change as an immediate threat to fundamental human rights. Similarly, the Preamble to the Paris Agreement 2015 urges nations to respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights and gender equality when taking action to address climate change.
Guaranteeing climate-related human rights requires a two-fold approach: substantively realising the rights and procedurally ensuring access to remedies. Alongside other rights (e.g., the rights to life, health, and housing), substantive realisation involves either ‘greening’ existing rights by integrating environmental dimensions into them, or establishing a new, specific environmental right. Although both approaches remain anthropocentric, they also contribute to environmental protection. On the procedural side, affected individuals and communities must have the right to access legal remedies when their rights are violated due to environmental harm.
States, as duty bearers, have obligations under international human rights law to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights. Previously, the case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also reinforced this obligation and set an important precedent for climate-related human rights protections. In López Ostra v Spain and Fadeyeva v Russia, the Court held governments accountable for failing to prevent harmful pollution by private industries. Perhaps most notably, in the Urgenda Foundation v The State of The Netherlands (2019), a Dutch court ruled that the government had a legal duty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The recent advisory opinion of the ICJ in July 2025 reaffirmed that states have a responsibility under international law to protect the climate from human-induced emissions for the benefit of present and future generations. If they cause significant harm, they bear responsibility towards affected States, especially vulnerable small islands, and impacted people. However, it is important to note that climate experts and environmental activists believe this will not bring much meaningful change or benefit for a small country like Bangladesh.
Thus, despite some positive efforts, many climate policies fall short in addressing human rights and social justice concerns, including loss of livelihoods, displacement, and limited access to resources and information for climate-vulnerable communities. Notably, climate-displaced individuals are still not recognised as ‘climate refugees’ under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Moreover, there is no unified global environmental court to ensure consistent enforcement of environmental rights or address climate-induced human rights violations. Even domestically, in Bangladesh, although the Environment Court Act 2010 allows claims for compensation for environmental pollution under the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995, this is only possible through written reports by inspectors, which limits direct access to justice for affected individuals.
Furthermore, climate change creates not only an immediate human rights crisis but also poses a major challenge to intergenerational justice. Thus, the rights of future generations must be considered as well. Traditional human rights laws focus on individuals, while climate law often emphasises community protection and long-term ecological sustainability. To ensure collective and generational justice, judicial activism, particularly through legal mechanisms such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has played an important role in shaping environmental rights in Bangladesh. Notably, in the landmark case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997), popularly known as the FAP-20 Case, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the protection and preservation of the environment and ecological balance.
Climate change cannot be addressed in isolation from human dignity, rights, and equality. Ensuring the right to participation, non-discrimination, and access to information is also essential for establishing effective, community-driven climate mechanisms. Additionally, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms may serve as effective tools in this context. Overall, effective climate governance must ensure that mitigation and adaptation strategies do not harm the very communities they are intended to protect, especially marginalised and vulnerable groups.
The Daily Star.
