1. Defending the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: a human rights framework

We are not against development — we are against destruction. Our land is not for sale. Our rivers are not for dams. Our forests are not for oil. We are fighting for life, for all of us.
Nemonte Nenquimo — Waorani Indigenous leader from the Ecuadorian Amazon

States have the ultimate and primary duty to protect you. If a company abuses your rights and a State fails to stop it or punish them, the State is also failing its obligation. Businesses cannot hide from accountability. They also have a direct responsibility to respect human rights and ensure their operations do not harm defenders or the environment. Below are some frameworks that can help you:

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs): the stepping stone to corporate accountability

_{Source: OHCHR}

The UNGPs were endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011 and have since become the primary global framework for guiding States in addressing human rights abuses linked to business activities. These principles are summarised into the following pillars:

_{Source: Shift - UN Guiding Principles 101}

Pillar 1: The State must PROTECT. Governments are not bystanders. They have a legal duty to:

• Prevent abuses by businesses before they happen.
• Protect communities and defenders from corporate harm.
• Punish companies that violate rights and ensure victims get justice.
• Example: If a mine poisons your water, the State responsible for this jurisdiction cannot stay silent. It must intervene, stop the pollution, and hold the company accountable.

Pillar 2: Companies must RESPECT. Businesses cannot claim ignorance. They have a direct responsibility to:

• Avoid harm: Ensure their operations and supply chains do not hurt people or the planet.
• Perform due diligence: This is not a 'box-ticking' exercise. Companies must continuously identify risks, consult with you, the affected community and defenders, and take action to prevent harm.
• Act: If harm occurs, they must fix it immediately.

Pillar 3: Access to REMEDY. When prevention fails, victims must have a path to justice.

• State duty: Governments must provide courts and mechanisms to ensure effective remedies.
• Harm often crosses borders (e.g., a multinational company based in Europe causing damage in Africa). The UNGPs state that States should adopt appropriate steps to ensure appropriate means to an effective remedy when such abuses occur within their territory and/or jurisdiction (see below on extra territorial obligations).

The UNGPs are voluntary guidelines, not a binding treaty. While most major companies claim to follow them, critics argue they lack 'teeth' because they cannot legally force a company to pay compensation without a national law backing them. Use the UNGPs to shame companies into action and pressure States to turn these voluntary principles into binding national laws!

Note on extraterritoriality:

Globalised markets and supply chains make it possible for companies to cause harm in a different country than the one where they have their official headquarters. Extraterritoriality closes this loophole. A State is responsible for the actions of companies headquartered within its borders, even if the abuse happens outside of them.

Example: If a Canadian mining company poisons a river in Brazil, Canada can be held accountable because the company is registered there.

• This confirms that companies are never exempt from preventing or ensuring remedies for human rights abuses, regardless of where they operate.
• Companies cannot shield themselves from abuses committed at any stage of their supply chains to escape responsibility.
• If local courts fail in the jurisdiction where the harm was committed, you can seek justice in the country where the parent company is based.

Global frameworks and other standards

There have been numerous efforts to increase awareness and to pursue more substantive involvement from corporate actors. Some of the most largest efforts are:

Focus

The 2025 ICJ Climate Change Advisory Opinion

Youth activists in the Pacific were at the forefront of the 2025 landmark advisory opinion requested by Pacific Island nations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It fundamentally shifts how we hold States and corporations accountable for climate change.

• States have binding duties: Preventing climate change is not a voluntary goal; it is a legal obligation under international law.

• State responsibility for corporate action: If a State fails to regulate companies (e.g., allowing unchecked fossil fuel exploration or subsidies), the State itself is committing a wrongful act in contradiction with international law.

• Due diligence: Governments must actively prevent private actors from causing significant climate harm.

• Even though the opinion is 'advisory', it is now the most powerful persuasive authority ruling for courts worldwide. Judges can use it to interpret national laws strictly and governments can use it to adapt their current legislation and policies.

• Defenders are already using this opinion in national lawsuits to force governments to tighten regulations on polluters.

• Article on youth mobilisation (The Conversation)

• Earthrights article

In your litigation and advocacy, cite the 2025 ICJ Opinion to argue that government inaction on corporate pollution is a violation of international law, not just a policy failure. It turns climate goals into legal duties.

You are now done with Chapter 1! Let’s now check what you have learnt so far!