Explanation of Vote by India before the adoption of the Resolution on ‘The human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ at the 52nd Session of Human Rights Council (27 February – 4 April 2023) delivered by Ms. Seema Pujani, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India,Geneva, 4 April 2023
Mr. President,
We thank the core group for their constructive engagement throughout the negotiations and for their flexibility in revising the text to address different concerns of Member States.
India is deeply committed to the promotion and protection of human rights of its people, including in the context of the environment. Environmental protection is part of our cultural values. Our traditions have for long stressed the importance of living in harmony with nature. We have worked with partners for significant global initiatives for environmental protection, including in recent times the International Solar Alliance, the focus on One Sun One World One Grid, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the Leadership Group for Industry Transition.
Throughout the negotiations, we participated constructively with a view to reaching consensus on the text. While some of our proposals have been taken on board and the text is more balanced as a result, some of our key concerns in respect of the resolution under consideration still remain.
India had abstained on HRC resolution 48/13 that had recognized the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. While we had voted in favour of UNGA resolution 76/300, we dissociated from its OP1 that recognized the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right. We had expressed our concerns both in terms of procedure and substance.
In our view, neither HRC nor UNGA resolutions themselves create legally binding obligations. It is only through conventions and treaties that State parties commit to a new human right and undertake appropriate obligations for its realization. At this stage, there is no agreed definition of the terms ‘clean’, ‘healthy’, or ‘sustainable’ that have been used to qualify the right. They remain open to subjective interpretation.
There is reference to States’ obligations in the context of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in OP4 of the text at hand, especially its sub-para (f) and in OP5, especially its sub-paras (a), (b), (c) and (h). No differentiation has been made between obligations of States who have recognized the right and those that haven’t. It does not acknowledge the fact that the right is yet to be negotiated inter-governmentally between States. We also regret that the text fails to have a clear reference to the foundational principle of equity in international environmental law.
Mr. President,
India stands ready to support any effort for a better environment and to further international cooperation for environmental protection. However, for all the reasons mentioned above, we cannot support this resolution in its entirety. If it is adopted by consensus, we will dissociate from OP 4 (f) as well as OP5 (a), (b), (c) and (h).
I thank you.
