Does a Human Right to a Clean Environment Exist?
- Jana Perez-Angelo
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 20 hours ago
The UN's Top Court Says Yes, but Does the Universe Itself Confer This Right?
As wildfires rage, oceans rise, and extreme weather events strain vulnerable communities worldwide, the question is becoming increasingly urgent: Do people have a universal human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment? In July 2025, the United Nations’ top judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ),delivered an advisory opinion asserting that such a right exists.
The ruling was requested by a coalition of small island nations and supported by over 130 countries. Climate activists, human rights advocates, and environmental scholars hailed it as a moral milestone, potentially reshaping global environmental governance. The opinion articulates a vision of environmental protection as more than policy, and suggests a collective responsibility grounded in legal, moral, and spiritual imperatives.
Yet the opinion also raises complex legal and philosophical questions. Is this right enforceable, or does it remain aspirational? And does it reflect a deeper, perhaps divine or natural, universal moral law, echoing the stewardship principles upheld by many religious and philosophical traditions?
What the ICJ Said
The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of the International Court of Justice. Ben Bender/Wikipedia
The ICJ declared that states have a duty to protect the environment and prevent activities that cause transboundary environmental harm. While advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant moral and persuasive authority in international law.
“States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” ICJ Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the “stringent obligations” placed on them by climate treaties is a breach of international law. This principle draws upon established doctrines in international environmental law that underscore that environmental protection is a shared responsibility.
Countries with existing environmental rights enshrined in their constitutions, such as France, Kenya, and Norway, may now find new judicial support for strengthening protections and expanding avenues for litigation. The constitutions of more than three-quarters of the countries on Earth explicitly reference environmental rights or responsibilities. However, this is not the case in the United States. The US Constitution contains no unequivocal right to a clean and healthy environment, and efforts to persuade federal courts to recognize an implied constitutional right have been unsuccessful. Consequently, environmental protection in the US remains largely statutory and regulatory, rather than constitutional.
The ICJ ruling sets up a clash between national sovereignty and international responsibility.
The ICJ ruling sets up a clash between national sovereignty and international responsibility. The ICJ emphasized that environmental protection is a shared global duty, asserting that “no state may act in a vacuum when its activities impact ecosystems beyond its borders.” The Court clarified that a state’s failure to take adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may constitute an internationally wrongful act, not because of the emissions themselves, but due to the state’s breach of its duty to safeguard the planetwide climate system.
This principle resonates with the concept of common concern of humankind, which has appeared in climate and biodiversity treaties, affirming the global nature of environmental responsibility.
Moral and Religious Dimensions
Across the world’s religions and philosophies, the natural world is viewed as sacred, and humans are entrusted with its care. The late Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ encyclical emphasizes care for “our common home,” reminding policymakers that environmental degradation disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized. In Islam, the Qur’anic principle of khalifah describes humans as trustees of the Earth, bearing responsibility to preserve ecosystems for future generations. Hindu traditions teach ahimsa, nonviolence toward all living beings, while Indigenous and Native American worldviews understand humans as kin within the web of life, with obligations to maintain balance and reciprocity. Jewish teachings on tikkun olam call for repairing and protecting the world—human and natural—as a divine duty.
The Laudato Si document recalls the biblical statement that God put human beings in the Garden of Eden “to cultivate and keep it,” meaning to maintain it, with no option to ruin it (Genesis 2:15). “Keeping,” according to the encyclical, in fact means “caring, protecting, overseeing, and preserving.” Psalm 24:1 reminds people that “the Earth is the Lord’s,” implying that humans are merely borrowing from the Earth materials that are divine creations and therefore holy.
In an interview with The Earth & I, Dr. Celia Deane-Drummond, director of the Laudato Si’ Research Institute at Campion Hall, University of Oxford, emphasized that the right to a clean and healthy environment is deeply connected to the right to life, since human survival depends on the flourishing of other creatures. Philosophical, moral, and religious traditions affirm that all creatures possess intrinsic value—worth in themselves, not simply in their usefulness to humans.
Many faith traditions see this intrinsic worth as grounded in the sacred: All life reflects divine presence, and humans, as moral agents or divine trustees, bear a responsibility toward creation. To deprive communities of a healthy environment, Deane-Drummond notes, is therefore a grave injustice. Stewardship, in this sense, is not mere management of resources but a transcendent calling to care for the Earth as a sacred trust.
Protecting the environment is not only a matter of governance but a moral obligation owed to creation, to humanity, and to future generations, grounded in the will of the Creator.
From this interreligious perspective, the ICJ ruling codifies what diverse traditions have long proclaimed: Protecting the environment is not only a matter of governance but a moral obligation owed to creation, to humanity, and to future generations, grounded in the will of the Creator.
Opportunities for Vulnerable Nations
For small island developing states facing existential climate threats, the ICJ ruling offers potential leverage. The Stockholm Environment Institute suggests that nations like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives could use the advisory opinion to support claims for climate finance, adaptation aid, or reparations under international law. Analysts note that such legal recognition can strengthen negotiations at forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Green Climate Fund, even if enforcement mechanisms remain limited.
Legal experts also suggest that the opinion could bolster strategic litigation efforts. Cases that allege cross-border environmental harm, rising sea levels, or climate-induced displacement may find a stronger footing when international law increasingly frames these issues as fundamental human rights. For instance, the precedent set by the Netherlands’ Supreme Court in Urgenda v. Netherlands shows that domestic courts are willing to hold governments accountable for failing to prevent climate harms—a principle potentially reinforced by the ICJ’s advisory opinion.
Critiques and Counterarguments
Not everyone sees the ruling as a step forward. Some conservative scholars and commentators caution against judicial overreach, arguing that climate policy should be determined by democratic processes, not by courts. Bjorn Lomborg, writing in The Washington Post, says the ruling will cause “significant economic harm, with far-reaching consequences for human well-being,” and claims it risks undermining democratic governance by creating obligations without legislative approval. The Heartland Institute and other climate-skeptic think tanks echo concerns about expanding obligations through appointed judges rather than popularly elected legislatures.
Other critics warn that the advisory opinion may provide a false sense of progress. While symbolic victories matter, they caution that without enforcement mechanisms, states may ignore obligations or prioritize economic growth over environmental protection. US legal scholars, for example, note that advisory opinions historically carry persuasive weight but require domestic or international follow-up for binding implementation.
Transforming the ICJ’s moral and legal recognition into binding obligations would require treaties, international enforcement mechanisms, or domestic legislation. Precedents suggest that advisory opinions can inspire national legal reforms, but their global impact often depends on political will, civil society pressure, and moral advocacy, including from religious communities.
Legal scholars at the European Journal of International Law note that recognition of environmental rights as customary international law could eventually allow litigation against states or corporations causing cross-border harm, particularly in jurisdictions with preexisting environmental rights. Soft-law instruments, like the 1972 Stockholm Declaration or the 2022 UN General Assembly resolution on human rights and the environment, have previously catalyzed gradual legal integration. If political momentum continues, advisory opinions may evolve into enforceable norms, especially when aligned with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Scientific and Policy Context
The ICJ ruling emerges against a backdrop of worsening global environmental crises. Rising temperatures, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and deforestation all demonstrate that environmental harm has immediate and long-term human rights implications. The World Bank and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, creating a feedback loop between environmental degradation and social inequities.
Integrating the ICJ opinion into policy could encourage governments to prioritize environmental protection alongside economic development. By framing environmental protection as a human right or even a supernatural mandate, policymakers may be compelled to adopt stricter regulations, incentivize renewable energy, and enhance international cooperation. This could also influence financial institutions to incorporate environmental criteria into investment and lending decisions, effectively mainstreaming sustainability as both a legal and moral imperative.
Ultimately, the ICJ opinion forces us to ask: Is there a fundamental human right—perhaps even undergirded by divine authority—to a clean environment? If it’s more than just ink on a legal document, if it’s truly a transcendent reality, then scholars, policymakers, religious leaders, and civil society are called to urgently grapple with how to operationalize this right in legal, political, and ethical terms. Time will tell whether humanity embraces the responsibility owed not only to people around the world but to the entire web of life and to generations yet unborn.
*Jana Perez-Angelo is a Denver-based writer and multidisciplinary creative and digital strategist passionate about brand storytelling and purpose-driven content. Her work has been featured in Relevant Magazine, Medium, and Faithful Life.
Comments