Over 60 Constitutions contain specific provisions relating to the protection of the environment and natural resources. Some of them recognize explicitly the right to a satisfactory environment even if the adjectives used differ from one Constitution to another. This right is generally presented as entailing corresponding duties towards the State and its institutions and obligations for individuals and organs of society. A few recognize corresponding rights for the individuals and groups.
An increasing number of States have developed the framework of laws and regulations needed to ensure implementation of this right. Some of them have spelt out the substantive aspect of that right and the related procedural rights, such as, the right to health, to life, to participation, to association, to information, and to legal action or recourse. Some countries have provided for the
punishment of offences against the environment and/or have affirmed the principle of compensation for the victims, as well as reparation for damage. In some cases there is also a reference to preventive aspects. A number of cases in national courts directly affirm and enforce the constitutional right to the environment.
For example, the Supreme Court of India cited the fundamental duty of all citizens under Article 51 (A) of the Constitution to protect the environment as a basis for its decision to enjoin illegal mining operations. The Court noted that the obligation to maintain an ecological balance extended as much to the State as to individuals. In another case, the same Court gave express recognition to the right to environment, stating that: “...[the] right to life is a fundamental right [which] includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”
Colombian Courts have also affirmed and enforced the constitutional right to environment. The Court of the district of Antioquia acknowledged the “grave consequences” to the health and life of the indigenous peoples as a result of living in deforested and polluted areas. The Court stated that “...the devastation of their forests alters their relation with the environment and endangers
their lives and culture and ethical integrity ...” It ordered the defenders to pay for an environmental and cultural impact study to be carried out by the appropriate authorities. In another case, the First Superior Court of Tulua-Valle ordered the suspension of an asphalt plan
operation, stating that “... it is evident that there is a threat to a fundamental right recognized in the national constitution ... which could be violated, causing irreparable harm to the community.” The Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the decision of the First Superior Court.
The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ordered that a dump threatening the rights to life and a healthy environment be closed immediately, asserting that “...life is only possible in solidarity with nature ...” The Philippines Supreme Court recently affirmed the right of present and future
generations to a balanced and healthy environment and ruled that the plaintiffs, who were children, had standing to represent future generations.
An increasing number of States have developed the framework of laws and regulations needed to ensure implementation of this right. Some of them have spelt out the substantive aspect of that right and the related procedural rights, such as, the right to health, to life, to participation, to association, to information, and to legal action or recourse. Some countries have provided for the
punishment of offences against the environment and/or have affirmed the principle of compensation for the victims, as well as reparation for damage. In some cases there is also a reference to preventive aspects. A number of cases in national courts directly affirm and enforce the constitutional right to the environment.
For example, the Supreme Court of India cited the fundamental duty of all citizens under Article 51 (A) of the Constitution to protect the environment as a basis for its decision to enjoin illegal mining operations. The Court noted that the obligation to maintain an ecological balance extended as much to the State as to individuals. In another case, the same Court gave express recognition to the right to environment, stating that: “...[the] right to life is a fundamental right [which] includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”
Colombian Courts have also affirmed and enforced the constitutional right to environment. The Court of the district of Antioquia acknowledged the “grave consequences” to the health and life of the indigenous peoples as a result of living in deforested and polluted areas. The Court stated that “...the devastation of their forests alters their relation with the environment and endangers
their lives and culture and ethical integrity ...” It ordered the defenders to pay for an environmental and cultural impact study to be carried out by the appropriate authorities. In another case, the First Superior Court of Tulua-Valle ordered the suspension of an asphalt plan
operation, stating that “... it is evident that there is a threat to a fundamental right recognized in the national constitution ... which could be violated, causing irreparable harm to the community.” The Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the decision of the First Superior Court.
The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ordered that a dump threatening the rights to life and a healthy environment be closed immediately, asserting that “...life is only possible in solidarity with nature ...” The Philippines Supreme Court recently affirmed the right of present and future
generations to a balanced and healthy environment and ruled that the plaintiffs, who were children, had standing to represent future generations.