1 UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, “World Environment Day Statement”, 5 June 2022.

2 UNGA Res. 77/104, 7 December 2022. The resolution refers to “principles” and lists these in an Annex to the resolution, whereas the commentary refers to the “draft principles” adopted by the ILC. This article will thus use the terms “Principle(s)” for the final version recognized by the General Assembly and “Draft Principle(s)” when referring to the associated commentary.

3 Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Supply Chain Due Diligence Obligations for Union Importers of Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten, Their Ores, and Gold Originating from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, OJ L 130, 17 May 2017 (EU CMR), pp. 1–20.

4 See e.g. Morgera, Elisa, Corporate Environmental Accountability in International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, p. 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner, Stephen, “Business Practices, Human Rights and the Environment”, in May, James R. and Daly, Erin (eds), Human Rights and the Environment: Legality, Indivisibility, Dignity and Geography, Chap. VII of Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2019, p. 384Google Scholar; Affolder, Natasha, “Square Pegs and Round Holes? Environmental Rights and the Private Sector”, in Boer, Ben (ed.), Environmental Law Dimensions of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 17Google Scholar.

5 See e.g. Jong, Daniëlla Dam-de and Wolters, Saskia, “Through the Looking Glass: Corporate Actors and Environmental Harm Beyond the ILC”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020, p. 111Google Scholar. See also Tignino, Mara, “Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence and Liability in Armed Conflicts: The Role of the ILC Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment and the Draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights”, QIL Zoom-in, Vol. 83, 2021, p. 47Google Scholar; Davoise, Marie, “Business, Armed Conflict, and Protection of the Environment: What Avenues for Corporate Accountability?”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020, p. 151Google Scholar.

6 See e.g. Hulme, Karen, “Using a Framework of Human Rights and Transitional Justice for Post-Conflict Environmental Protection and Remediation”, in Stahn, Carsten, Iverson, Jens and Easterday, Jennifer S. (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace: Clarifying Norms, Principles, and Practices, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017Google Scholar.

7 UNGA Res. 76/300, 28 July 2022.

8 HRC Res. 48/13, 8 October 2021.

9 Ibid. Neither resolution refers specifically to conflict. The omission of a reference to environmental human rights defenders was noted with disappointment by several States in their statements following the adoption of Resolution 76/300: see e.g. Japan, New Zealand and EU statements in Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-Sixth Session, UN Doc. A/76/PV.97, 28 July 2022.

10 See Naysa Ahuja, Carl Bruch, Arnold Kreilhuber, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema and John Pendergrass, “Advancing Human Rights through Environmental Rule of Law”, in J. R. May and E. Daly (eds), above note 4, p. 15. See also James R. May and Erin Daly, Global Environmental Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014; Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/61, 3 February 2015, para. 73.

11 Schabas, William A., The Customary International Law of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, p. 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Ibid., fn. 34–45. See also Analytical Study on the Relationship between Human Rights and the Environment: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/34, 16 December 2011, para. 31; Rebecca M. Bratspies, “Reasoning Up: Environmental Rights as Customary International Law”, in John H. Knox and Ramin Pejan (eds), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, p. 128: “This chapter suggests that ‘reasoning up’ – looking to state practice in the form of domestic regulation – supports the conclusion that at least procedural environmental rights have crystallized into customary international law.”

13 See e.g. Ebbesson, Jonas, “Getting It Right: Advances of Human Rights and the Environment from Stockholm 1972 to Stockholm 2022”, Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2022, p. 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, in the context of protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-Sixth Session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/66/10, 2011, Annex E, para. 6.

14 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, 1973, Annex I, Principle 1.

15 Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights and the Environment: Final Report Prepared by Mrs. Fatma Zohra Ksentini, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, 6 July 1994, Annex I, Draft Principle 21: “All persons, individually and in association with others, have the duty to protect and preserve the environment.” Regarding due diligence as a standard of care, see e.g. ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law (ILA Study Group), Second Report, July 2016, p. 2; Lise Smit et al., Study on Due Diligence Requirements through the Supply Chain: Final Report, European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, 2020, p. 262.

16 E.g. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, 3 September 2019, para. 62.

17 See e.g. Peters, Birgit, “Clean and Healthy Environment, Right to, International Protection”, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2021, para. 8Google Scholar. See also Bogojevic, Sanja and Rayfuse, Rosemary (eds), Environmental Rights in Europe and Beyond, Hart, Oxford, 2018, p. 11Google Scholar; J. Ebbesson, above note 13, p. 88.

18 See e.g. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1520 UNTS 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986), Art. 24; Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 2161 UNTS 447 (entered into force 30 October 2001), Art. 1; Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (entered into force 22 April 2021) (Escazú Agreement), Art. 1.

19 Regarding criticism of the terms as vague or imprecise, see e.g. Turner, Stephen J., “Conclusion: Analysing the Development of Standards in the Field of Environmental Rights”, in Turner, Stephen J., Shelton, Dinah L., Razzaque, Jona, McIntyre, Owen and May, James R. (eds), Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, p. 392CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also David Boyd, The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment, UBC Press, Vancouver, 2012, p. 33.

20 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/43/53, 30 December 2019, para. 2. See also UN Development Programme (UNDP), UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights), What Is the Right to a Healthy Environment?, Information Note, 2023.

21 D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 117: “Given the volatility of the situation and the lack of regulatory oversight, there is an increased risk that corporations intentionally or unintentionally contribute to human rights abuses and/or inflict harm on the environment.” See also Virginie Rouas, Achieving Access to Justice in a Business and Human Rights Context: An Assessment of Litigation and Regulatory Responses in European Civil-Law Countries, University of London Press, London, 2022, p. 4; M. Tignino, above note 5, p. 47.

22 See Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008, esp. paras 16, 47–49.

23 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011, Annex.

24 Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises – Business, Human Rights and Conflict-Affected Regions: Towards Heightened Action, UN Doc. A/75/212, 21 July 2020, paras 44–45.

25 Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, UN Doc. A/73/163, 16 July 2018, para. 14(c).

26 UNDP, Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence for Business in Conflict-Affected Contexts: A Guide, 2022.

27 Ibid., p. 10.

28 UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, above note 23, commentary to UNGP 12: “Depending on circumstances, business enterprises may need to consider additional standards.” See also UN Doc. A/75/212, above note 24.

29 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, above note 15, paras 111–116 and Annex I, Principle 1.

30 See e.g. Popovic, Neil A. F., “In Pursuit of Environmental Human Rights: Commentary on the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1996, pp. 502–504Google Scholar.

31 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, Annex I. See also D. Boyd, above note 19, pp. 90–91.

32 UNEA Res. 2/15, 27 May 2016, Preamble; UNEA Res. 3/1, 30 January 2018, Preamble.

33 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/59, 24 January 2018, para. 18.

34 HRC Res. 48/14, 8 October 2021, Preamble.

35 UN Doc. A/75/212, above note 24, para. 44; see also UN Doc. A/73/163, above note 25.

36 See M. Tignino, above note 5, p. 60.

37 Ibid., p. 49.

38 Timo Koivurova and Krittika Singh, “Due Diligence”, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2022, para. 1. See also ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict: Rules and Recommendations Relating to the Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law, with Commentary, Geneva, 2020, para. 46.

39 ILA Study Group, above note 15, p. 2.

40 Ibid, p. 2. On this contrast between strict liability and due diligence, see also Smit, Lise, Bright, Claire and Neely, Stuart, “Muddying the Waters: The Concept of a ‘Safe Harbour’ in Understanding Human Rights Due Diligence”, Business and Human Rights Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2023, p. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Joanna Kulesza, Due Diligence in International Law, Queen Mary Studies in International Law, Vol. 26, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2016, p. 262: “due diligence is the source of the customary principle of prevention”.

42 HRC, Text of the Third Revised Draft Legally Binding Instrument with Textual Proposals Submitted by States during the Seventh and the Eighth Sessions of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/52/41/Add.1, 23 January 2023, pp. 22–29.

43 Ollino, Alice, Due Diligence Obligations in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022, p. 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Heike Krieger and Anne Peters, “Due Diligence and Structural Change in the International Legal Order”, in Heike Krieger, Anne Peters and Leonhard Kreuzer (eds), Due Diligence in the International Legal Order, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, p. 356, noting that “due diligence works as a legal tool to restrict or to create accountability”.

44 A. Ollino, above note 43, p. 266.

45 Federica Violi, “The Function of the Triad ‘Territory’, ‘Jurisdiction’, and ‘Control’”, in H. Krieger, A. Peters and L. Kreuzer (eds), above note 43, p. 91.

46 H. Krieger and A. Peters, above note 43, p. 363: “In various subfields of international law, procedural duties (duties to notify, warn, inform or consult) are tied to the due diligence standard.”

47 UN Doc. A/HRC/37/59, above note 33, Annex, para. 22; see also para. 35. See also Macchi, Chiara, Business, Human Rights and the Environment: The Evolving Agenda, T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022, pp. 94–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 For further discussion on due diligence in international humanitarian law specifically, see e.g. Marco Longobardo, “Due Diligence in International Humanitarian Law”, in H. Krieger, A. Peters and L. Kreuzer (eds), above note 43; ILA Study Group, First Report, 2014, pp. 11–14.

49 T. Koivurova and K. Singh, above note 38, para. 29. See also Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli, The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018.

50 Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Moli, Ginevra Le and Viñuales, Jorge E., “Customary International Law and the Environment”, in Lavanya Rajamani and Jacqueline Peel (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, p. 395Google Scholar. See also J. Kulesza, above note 41, p. 269, regarding the required duty of care of “a good government”.

51 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supp. 10, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Chap. V, commentary to Draft Article 3, para. 18.

52 P.-M. Dupuy, G. Le Moli and J. Viñuales, above note 50, p. 394.

53 ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14, para. 204.

54 Ibid., para. 79.

55 Ibid., Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, para. 26.

56 See T. Koivurova and K. Singh, above note 38, para. 31, noting that “[s]cholarly discussion on this issue is ongoing and of relevance to the understanding of due diligence in these situations”. See also Jutta Brunnée, Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2020, pp. 145–146.

57 See e.g. Jutta Brunnée, “Harm Prevention”, in L. Rajamani and J. Peel (eds), above note 50, p. 274.

58 See e.g. Peter H. Sand, “Origin and History”, in L. Rajamani and J. Peel (eds), above note 50, p. 64: “One much-neglected aspect … has been the extraterritorial application of multilateral environmental agreements.”

59 Markus Vordermayer, “The Extraterritorial Application of Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2018, p. 124.

60 T. Koivurova and K. Singh, above note 38, para. 44.

61 Björnstjern Baade, “Due Diligence and the Duty to Protect Human Rights”, in H. Krieger, A. Peters and L. Kreuzer (eds), above note 43, p. 92.

62 Ibid., p. 95: “Whether the term ‘due diligence’ is used coherently in the Guiding Principles has recently become controversial.” See also ILA Study Group, above note 15, pp. 29–30; Jonathan Bonnitcha and Robert McCorquodale, “The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2017, p. 909. For a different perspective, see John Ruggie and John Sherman III, “The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A Reply to Jonathan Bonnitcha and Robert McCorquodale”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2017.

63 Robert McCorquodale, “Human Rights Due Diligence Instruments: Evaluating the Current Legislative Landscape”, in Axel Marx, Geert Van Calster, Jan Wouters, Kari Otteburn and Diana Lica (eds), Research Handbook on Global Governance, Business and Human Rights, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2022, p. 123. Regarding the risks of “cosmetic” due diligence and “bluewashing”, see also Eliana Cusato, The Ecology of War and Peace: Marginalising Slow and Structural Violence in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021, pp. 176–177; Fatimazahra Dehbi and Olga Martin-Ortega, “An Integrated Approach to Corporate Due Diligence from a Human Rights, Environmental, and TWAIL Perspective”, Regulation and Governance, 2023, p. 8.

64 EU CMR, above note 3, Art. 5.

65 (1) Identifying and assessing adverse human rights impacts, (2) integrating findings from impact assessments across company processes, (3) tracking effectiveness, and (4) communicating how impacts are being addressed. See e.g. UN Doc. A/73/163, above note 25, para. 10.

66 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, “The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 29 March 2004, para. 8.

67 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities”, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/24, 23 June 2017, para. 16.

68 Ibid., para. 30.

69 L.-A. Duvic-Paoli, above note 49, pp. 236–237. See also Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/53, 30 December 2013, para. 64: “[M]ost of the sources reviewed that have addressed the issue do indicate that States have obligations to protect human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, from the extraterritorial environmental effects of actions taken within their territory.”

70 IACtHR, Medio ambiente y derechos humanos, Advisory Opinion No. OC 23-17, Series A, No. 23, 15 November 2017, para. 124.

71 Ibid., para. 123.

72 IACtHR, Comunidades Indígenas Miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) v. Argentina, Series C, No. 400, 6 February 2020, para. 208.

73 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, UN Doc. A/77/284, 10 August 2022, para. 38.

74 Ibid., para. 81.

75 UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, Essential Elements of Effective and Equitable Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Legislation, Policy Brief No. 3, June 2022, p. 5.

76 Ibid., p. 21.

77 C. Macchi, above note 47, pp. 95–104.

78 See e.g. Colin Mackie, “Due Diligence in Global Value Chains: Conceptualizing ‘Adverse Environmental Impact’”, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2021, p. 298.

79 UN Doc. A/73/163, above note 25, para. 86.

80 L. Smit et al., above note 15, p. 357.

81 R. McCorquodale, above note 63, p. 141.

82 Affolder, Natasha, “Contagious Environmental Lawmaking”, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2019, pp. 190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar (referring particularly to environmental impact assessments).

83 See e.g. EU CMR, above note 3, Preamble, para. 14.

84 See e.g. Partzsch, Lena, “The New EU Conflict Minerals Regulation: Normative Power in International Relations?”, Global Policy, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2018, p. 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 EU CMR, above note 3, Arts 4–7. See also L. Smit et al., above note 15, pp. 167–168.

86 R. McCorquodale, above note 63, p. 132. See also D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 143, discussing the linkages between the OECD Guidance and the associated five-step approach building on the human rights due diligence process outlined in UNGP 17.

87 Macchi, Chiara, “A Glass Half Full: Critical Assessment of EU Regulation 2017/821 on Conflict Minerals”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2021, p. 276Google Scholar.

88 Ibid., p. 279: “The Regulation, generally speaking, constitutes a positive development both in an EU law perspective and from the point of view of the implementation of the UNGPs.”

89 Okowa, Phoebe, “The Pitfalls of Unilateral Legislation in International Law: Lessons from Conflict Minerals Legislation”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3, 2020, p. 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Ibid., p. 711.

91 See e.g. C. Macchi, above note 87, p. 283.

92 L. Smit et al., above note 15, p. 226.

93 Luis Miguel Vioque, “A Proposal for Criminal Liability for Breach of Due Diligence Obligations: The European Conflict Minerals Regulation as an Example”, European Criminal Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2021, p. 81. See also C. Macchi, above note 87, p. 282.

94 C. Macchi, above note 87, p. 283.

95 Sara Ghebremusse, “The Shortcomings of Regulating Transparency for Sustainable Development in African Mining”, in Beate Sjåfjell, Carol Liao and Aikaterini Argyrou (eds), Innovating Business for Sustainability: Regulatory Approaches in the Anthropocene, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2022, p. 149.

96 Regarding burden of proof, see e.g. UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, above note 75, p. 25; UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/24, above note 67, para. 45.

97 C. Macchi, above note 87, p. 281.

98 Ibid., pp. 282, 284.

99 OECD, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, 3rd ed., 2016, p. 42.

100 OECD, Stocktaking Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2022, pp. 57–58.

101 See also cases before OECD National Contact Points (NCPs) referring to the linkages between human rights and the environment, e.g. Norwegian and Swedish NCPs, Jinjevaerie Saami Village v. Statkraft AS; Dutch NCP, Oxfam Novib, Greenpeace Netherlands, BankTrack and Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) v. ING.

102 ICRC/UNEP technical seminar organized in March 2009 in Nairobi, as referenced in David Jensen and Silja Halle (eds), Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, UNEP, 2009.

103 UN Doc. A/66/10, above note 13, para. 365.

104 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-Eighth Session, Supp. 10, UN Doc. A/68/10, 2013, para. 167.

105 Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-Seventh Session, Supp. 10, UN Doc. A/77/10, 2022, paras 52–54.

106 See above note 2.

107 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, Annex E, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 1.

108 Ibid., para. 2.

109 UNGA Res. 77/104, above note 2, Preamble.

110 D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 113. See also Daniëlla Dam-de Jong and Britta Sjöstedt, “Enhancing Environmental Protection in Relation to Armed Conflict: An Assessment of the ILC Draft Principles”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2021, p. 141.

111 Alexandra Wormald, “Protecting the Environment during and after Armed Conflict, the International Law Commission and an Overdue Due Diligence Duty for Corporations: Good in Principle?”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2021, p. 317.

112 See e.g. Tamás Szabados, “Multilevel Hardening in Progress – Transition from Soft Towards Hard Regulation of CSR in the EU”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2021.

113 See e.g. “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Claudio Grossman Guiloff”, 8 July 2019, p. 9. See also D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 115.

114 Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, International Organizations and Others, UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, 17 January 2022, p. 169.

115 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 11.

116 Danae Azaria, “The Working Methods of the International Law Commission: Adherence to Methodology, Commentaries and Decision-Making”, in United Nations, Seventy Years of the International Law Commission: Drawing a Balance for the Future, Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, 2021, p. 177.

117 Ibid., p. 180.

118 See e.g. Christian Djeffal, Static and Evolutive Treaty Interpretation: A Functional Reconstruction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, section 6.4: “The context of the treaty comprises according to Art. 31(2) [of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] inter alia the preamble and annexes to the treaty.” See also section 7.1.

119 Second Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts by Marja Lehto, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc A/CN.4/728, 27 March 2019, paras 67–103. See also D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 127.

120 See also Third Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, by Marja Lehto, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/750, 16 March 2022, para. 107.

121 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 8. See also D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 115.

122 D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 139.

123 Ibid., pp. 138–139.

124 Valentina Grado, “The EU ‘Conflict Minerals Regulation’: Potentialities and Limits in the Light of the International Standards on Responsible Sourcing”, Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 27, 2017, p. 249.

125 Ibid., p. 242 fn. 19. Some scholars have outlined potential risks with extraterritorial application of supply chain due diligence provisions, including that without meaningful participation and access to justice for affected populations, such application could aggravate social, economic and environmental injustices: see e.g. F. Dehbi and O. Martin-Ortega, above note 63, pp. 6–8; P. Okowa, above note 89. These risks could be mitigated by implementation of due diligence requirements that respect, protect and fulfil the right to a healthy environment, particularly given the emphasis on meaningful participation and access to justice as part of the right, and the large number of regional and domestic provisions recognizing the right. See e.g. Okowa, above note 89, p. 716: “[T]here are situations where unilateral legislation can sometimes be a force for good, especially in situations where multilateral enforcement is at an impasse. … This is likely to be the case where the underlying values are uncontested and have been arrived at by consensus, clear examples being extraterritorial unilateral measures for the protection of uncontested human rights norms or the protection of the environment.”

126 See e.g. Martin-Ortega, Olga, Dehbi, Fatimazahra, Nelson, Valerie and Pillay, Renginee, “Towards a Business, Human Rights and the Environment Framework”, Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 11, 2022, p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 Anne Dienelt, Armed Conflicts and the Environment: Complementing the Laws of Armed Conflict with Human Rights Law and International Environmental Law, Springer, Cham, 2022, pp. 272–273.

128 IACtHR, Medio ambiente y derechos humanos, above note 70.

129 See e.g. D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 132.

130 OECD, above note 99, p. 15.

131 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 7, referring to Draft Principle 3 and the associated illustrative list of relevant measures.

132 L. Smit et al., above note 15, p. 226.

133 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Investing in Renewable Energy to Power a Just Transition, Investor Guide, October 2022, pp. 5, 9.

134 See also M. Tignino, above note 5, p. 57.

135 UN Doc. A/HRC/37/59, above note 33, Annex, para. 34. see also S. J. Turner, above note 19, p. 389.

136 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 11.

137 See e.g. Micronesia in Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-Seventh Session, UN Doc. A/C.6/77/SR.24, 12 December 2022, p. 6; El Salvador in Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-Seventh Session, UN Doc. A/C.6/77/SR.21, 12 December 2022, p. 20; the EU in Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-Seventh Session, UN Doc. A/C.6/77/SR.21, 12 December 2022, p. 9; and Portugal in UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, above note 114, p. 20. International organizations also referenced the right to a healthy environment: see e.g. OHCHR, UNHCR, UNECLAC and IUCN in UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, above note 114.

138 See e.g. H. Krieger and A. Peters, above note 43, p. 363.

139 Jorge E. Viñuales, “Due Diligence in International Environmental Law”, in H. Krieger, A. Peters and L. Kreuzer (eds), above note 43, pp. 120–122 (referring to a right to an environment of a certain quality).

140 See e.g. Mwanza, Rosemary, “Framing the Normative role of the Right to a Healthy Environment: Thinking with Internormativity, Embodiment and Emergence”, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2022, p. 369Google Scholar.

141 UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, above note 75, p. 7.

142 See e.g. Marie-Catherine Petersmann, “Conflicts between Environmental Protection and Human Rights”, in J. R. May and E. Daly (eds), above note 4, 2019, pp. 297–298.

143 Cima, Elena, “The Right to a Healthy Environment: Reconceptualizing Human Rights in the Face of Climate Change”, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2022, p. 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 HRC Res. 48/13, above note 8, para. 3.

145 George, Erika, “Shareholder Activism and Stakeholder Engagement Strategies: Promoting Environmental Justice, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development Goals”, Wisconsin International Law Journal Vol. 36, No. 2, 2019, p. 298Google Scholar; Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, UN Doc. A/74/198, 19 July 2019, see e.g. para. 81. See also F. Dehbi and O. Martin-Ortega, above note 63. Regarding the ILC Principles, see also D. Dam-de Jong and S. Wolters, above note 5, p. 115, highlighting potential challenges and discussing “the appropriateness of the integrative approach taken by the Draft Principles with respect to international environmental and human rights law”.

146 UNDP, UNEP and UN Human Rights, above note 20, p. 9.

147 UN Doc. A/77/10, above note 105, commentary to Draft Principle 10, para. 1; UNGA Res. 174(II), 21 November 1947, Art. 1. Regarding the impact of the ILC, see e.g. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, “The International Law Commission in a Mirror – Forms, Impact and Authority”, in United Nations, above note 116.

148 Escazú Agreement, above note 18, Art. 1.

149 Political Declaration of the Special Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly to Commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme, UN Doc. UNEP/EA.SS.1/4, 8 March 2022.

150 Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Human Rights and the Protection of the Environment, 27 September 2022.

151 J. Brunnée, above note 56, p. 140: “[T]he practical/functional linkages between procedure and substance find expression in the notion of due diligence.” See also Monnheimer, Maria, Due Diligence Obligations in International Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, p. 142Google Scholar: “Similar to the field of human rights protection, a strong emphasis on prevention has evolved in environmental law, and some inspiration might be drawn from the way in which preventive obligations have become more concrete and substantiated in light of environmental risks. The development of independent procedural obligations, in particular, could also enhance global human rights protection.”

152 A. Ollino, above note 43, p. 270.

153 Baber, Walter F. and Bartlett, Robert V., Environmental Human Rights in Earth System Governance: Democracy beyond Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, p. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “[S]ubstantive environmental rights without complementary procedural components usually fail to protect human interests (often due to a lack of justiciability) and … procedural environmental rights (by themselves) guarantee nothing more than that ecologically disastrous decisions will be made after due process.”

154 ILA Study Group, above note 15, p. 3. See also Buhmann, Karin, Power, Procedure, Participation, and Legitimacy in Global Sustainability Norms: A Theory of Collaborative Regulation, Routledge, New York, 2018, p. 136Google Scholar.

155 C. Macchi, above note 47, p. 157.