landmark environmental rights
cases
Using legal channels to secure any
form of human or environmental rights can
be a slow, expensive and frustrating
process. The existence of laws, conventions
and agreements does not guarantee that they
are respected or implemented, and as the
case studies in this publication show, many
individuals and communities have used legal
channels to no avail. However, there are
some important precedents and ongoing legal
cases that can serve as inspiration for
those waging legal battles as part of a
broader campaign. A few of these are
described below.
yanomami vs.
brazil
In the 1970s and 80s, the
construction of a road through Yanomami
indigenous territory in the Brazilian
Amazon posed a huge threat to the survival
of these people. The resulting intrusion of
gold miners brought diseases to which the
Yanomami had no resistance, and an
estimated ten percent of the population has
since been decimated. In 1985, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
ruled that the Brazilian government had
violated several human rights and must
remedy the situation. Despite this historic
ruling in the field of environmental
rights, the government has not kept its
commitment to protect Yanomami land, and
these people are still threatened.
awas tingni vs.
nicaragua
In 2001, the Inter- American Court ruled
against the state of Nicaragua in
connection with illegal logging in the
territories of the indigenous Awas Tingni
people. The Nicaraguan government was
ordered to recognize and protect the Awas
Tingni's rights to their traditional lands,
natural resources and environment. This
case, the first land and resource dispute
to be addressed by the Inter-American Court
, was an important victory in the emerging
field of environmental rights
litigation.
lubicon cree vs.
canada
In 1990, the Human Rights
Committee (which enforces the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
ruled that both historical inequities and
more recent developments threaten the way
of life and culture of the Lubicon Lake
Band Cree of Canada. The Canadian
government, which had expropriated Lubicon
land for oil and gas exploration, was
ordered to rectify the situation as soon as
possible. Despite this historic legal
victory, however, the Lubicon Cree have had
to apply continual pressure on the Canadian
government to respect the Committee's
decision.
western shoshone vs. us
government
In 1993, a group of Western
Shoshone Native Americans filed a petition
with the Inter- American Commission on
Human Rights alleging that their rights to
their ancestral land were being illegally
violated by the United States . Ten years,
later, the Commission ruled that the claims
of the United States to Western Shoshone
land were indeed illegal and violated
international human rights law.
guerra vs. italy
In 1998, the European Court of
Human Rights made a strong link between
human rights and environmental protection
by ruling that Italy had violated the
European Convention on Human Rights by
failing to provide the local population of
Manfredonia with information about the
risks of accidents at a nearby chemical
factory.
ecuadorian amazon communities
vs. texaco
From 1964 to 1991, the US oil
company Texaco allegedly illegally dumped
18.5 million gallons of toxic waste and
contaminated residue in the Ecuadorian
Amazon. In 1993, a classaction lawsuit was
filed in the US on behalf of some 30,000
indigenous and settler residents in the
affected areas. Texaco delayed the case for
years by refusing to accept the
jurisdiction of the American court. In
2002, however, the US court ordered the
company to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador .
If won, the case could result in US
companies being held environmentally
accountable for their actions in foreign
countries.
doe vs unocal
In this ongoing case, Burmese
peasants are seeking redress for human
rights abuses including the involuntary
relocation of entire villages, forced labor
and violence that resulted from Unocal's
pipeline project. The case, brought under
the Alien Tort Claims Act in 1997, is now
in appeal. The lawsuit marks the first time
that a US corporation has faced a trial in
the US for alleged human rights abuses
committed abroad.
wiwa v. royal dutch petroleum
(shell)
In November 1995, two Ogoni
leaders from Nigeria , Ken Saro-Wiwa and
John Kpuinen, were hung in Nigeria . This
and other related abuses are the focus of a
lawsuit against Shell for its role in
suppressing peaceful opposition to oil
activities in the Niger Delta. The case
continues despite Shell's attempts to throw
it out of court, where it is being heard
under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
bowoto vs. chevrontexaco
In 1999, victims of gross human
rights abuses associated with Chevron's oil
production activities in the Niger Delta
filed suit against Chevron in a federal
court in San Francisco . The case, filed
under the Alien Tort Claims Act, is based
on the shooting of peaceful protestors at
Chevron's Parabe offshore platform and the
destruction of two villages by soldiers in
Chevron helicopters and boats. Chevron's
attempt to have the case dismissed, arguing
that Nigeria is the proper forum for the
dispute, did not succeed.
more information
:
EarthRights International:
www.earthrights.org
