Impact of Economic Globalization on Human Rights

The phenomenon of economic globalization, characterised by increased cross-border movement of goods, services, capital, technology, and labour, has had a profound and often complex impact on human rights worldwide. While globalization can bring benefits like economic growth, increased access to information, and opportunities for some, it also presents significant challenges that can exacerbate existing human rights issues or create new ones. The interconnectedness it fosters means that economic decisions and practices in one part of the world can have direct or indirect consequences for human rights elsewhere.

Labour rights

Economic globalization has significantly reshaped the landscape of work and labour, leading to both positive and negative impacts on labour rights. The movement of manufacturing and services to countries with lower labour costs, often referred to as "offshoring" or "outsourcing," can create jobs but also puts downward pressure on wages and working conditions globally. The intense competition in the global market can incentivise companies to cut costs, sometimes at the expense of workers' rights.

Issues related to labour rights in the era of globalization include:

• Exploitation in Global Supply Chains: Complex global supply chains make it difficult to monitor working conditions throughout the production process. Workers, often in developing countries like India, Bangladesh, or Vietnam, may face extremely low wages, excessive working hours, unsafe working environments, lack of freedom of association, and even forced labour or child labour in informal sectors or supplier factories. The drive for efficiency and low costs in the global production network can push conditions down the chain below minimum human rights standards.
• Precarious Work: The rise of flexible labour markets, the gig economy, and contract work, partly driven by the need for adaptability in a global market, can lead to job insecurity, lack of benefits (like healthcare, pension, paid leave), and difficulty in collectively bargaining, undermining the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 7 ICESCR). In India, the growth of platform-based work raises significant questions about social security and labour protections for gig workers, highlighting a gap between new work models and existing labour law frameworks.
• Migration Challenges: Globalization involves increased labour migration, both internal (rural to urban within India) and international. Migrant workers, often filling labour demands in various countries or sectors, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination, wage theft, unsafe housing, and denial of basic rights and access to justice (Article 6, 7, 8, 11 ICESCR, Article 5, 8 ICCPR). They may lack legal status or social networks, making them easily exploited.
• Weakening of Worker Power: The threat of companies moving production to other countries with lower labour standards (the "race to the bottom") can weaken the bargaining power of trade unions and workers, making it harder to advocate for better rights and conditions or organise effectively (Article 8 ICESCR, Article 22 ICCPR).

Addressing these challenges requires stronger national labour laws, effective enforcement, international cooperation, and greater accountability within global supply chains, including due diligence obligations for corporations regarding labour standards throughout their operations.

Environmental rights

The link between economic globalization and environmental rights is increasingly clear and critical. Increased global trade, production, and consumption patterns driven by globalization contribute significantly to environmental degradation, which in turn impacts a range of human rights. The pursuit of profit in a globally competitive market can lead to unsustainable resource extraction, pollution, and climate-changing emissions.

Key environmental issues linked to globalization impacting human rights include:

• Resource Depletion and Extraction: Global demand for raw materials, often extracted in developing countries, can lead to deforestation, soil erosion, water scarcity, destruction of ecosystems, displacement of communities, and conflicts, affecting rights to land, food, water, health, cultural rights, and the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples and local communities (Articles 1, 11, 12, 15 ICESCR, Article 27 ICCPR, UNDRIP). Large-scale mining or logging for global markets can devastate local environments and livelihoods.
• Pollution: Increased international transport (shipping, air freight) and the shift of polluting industries to countries with weaker environmental regulations contribute to global pollution levels. Air pollution from industrial zones or vehicular traffic (linked to globalised transport) impacts respiratory health. Water pollution from factories or agriculture (driven by global food demands) affects access to clean water and food sources. These directly impact the right to health (Article 12 ICESCR) and the right to a safe environment (increasingly recognised). For instance, the environmental impact of export-oriented manufacturing hubs in places like India can have severe consequences for the health of local populations, leading to respiratory diseases and contaminated water sources.
• Climate Change: Driven significantly by global industrial activity, energy consumption patterns, and emissions linked to globalisation, climate change is perhaps the most pervasive environmental challenge. Its impacts – rising sea levels, extreme weather events, desertification, water scarcity, decreased agricultural yields – threaten fundamental human rights globally, including the right to life, food, water, health, housing, and self-determination (Article 6 ICCPR, Article 11, 12 ICESCR). Vulnerable populations and developing nations, despite contributing less to historical emissions, often bear the brunt of these impacts.
• Lack of Access to Information and Justice: Communities affected by environmental damage caused by globally operating entities often face challenges in accessing information about risks and seeking justice across international borders or from powerful corporations (linked to Right to Information and Right to Fair Trial).

Recognising a human right to a healthy environment is gaining traction globally and could strengthen legal frameworks to hold states and corporations accountable for environmental harm in the context of global economic activities. This highlights the interdependence of economic development, environmental sustainability, and human rights.

Role of Multinational Corporations

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are central actors in the era of globalization. With their vast economic resources, complex organisational structures spanning multiple countries, control over global supply chains, and significant influence on governments and economies, their operations have a direct bearing on human rights. While MNCs can contribute positively through job creation, technology transfer, investment, and economic development, their pursuit of profit and efficiency in a competitive global market can sometimes lead to or contribute to practices that result in human rights abuses.

MNCs are not states and therefore are not direct duty bearers under core international human rights treaties (like ICCPR or ICESCR, which bind states). However, their actions can impact human rights, and there is a growing consensus that they have a responsibility to respect human rights and should be held accountable for abuses linked to their operations.

Corporate accountability for human rights abuses

Holding MNCs accountable for human rights abuses is a major challenge in the globalized world. This is due to several factors:

• Jurisdictional Complexities: Abuses may occur in one country (e.g., where production takes place), the company is headquartered in another, decisions leading to the abuse might be made elsewhere, and the victim might be from yet another country. National legal systems often struggle with establishing jurisdiction over complex corporate structures operating across borders.
• Corporate Structure and Supply Chains: MNCs often operate through numerous subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, and complex global supply chains involving many third-party suppliers. This makes it difficult to pinpoint legal responsibility, especially for actions taken far down the chain by entities that are legally distinct from the parent company.
• Power Imbalances: The economic power of large MNCs can sometimes dwarf that of the states or communities where abuses occur, making effective legal action, regulation, or negotiation difficult for victims.
• Information Asymmetry: Victims and external regulators often face challenges in obtaining information about corporate operations, decisions, and supply chain relationships relevant to proving responsibility.

Efforts to address corporate accountability for human rights abuses have evolved, moving beyond voluntary initiatives towards frameworks that clarify responsibilities and mechanisms for remedy:

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)

Endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, the UNGPs are the most authoritative global framework in this area. They clarify the distinct roles and responsibilities of states and businesses and are based on three pillars:

1. The State Duty to Protect: States have a duty under IHRL to protect against human rights abuses committed by third parties, including business enterprises, within their territory and/or jurisdiction. This requires states to enact and enforce laws, regulate corporate activities, and provide access to remedies.
2. The Corporate Responsibility to Respect: This is an expectation that businesses, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership, or structure, should respect human rights wherever they operate. This means they should avoid infringing on human rights and address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. This responsibility exists independently of states' abilities or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations.
3. Access to Remedy: Victims of business-related human rights abuses must have access to effective remedy, both through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms (like state-based non-judicial mechanisms or operational-level grievance mechanisms).

The UNGPs elaborate on the corporate responsibility to respect, explaining that it requires companies to implement a policy commitment to respect human rights, undertake human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their actual and potential human rights impacts, and put in place processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.

National Legislation and Litigation Trends

Increasingly, states are exploring or enacting legislation that places mandatory human rights due diligence obligations on companies operating within or connected to their jurisdiction, including regarding their supply chains (e.g., modern slavery acts, supply chain acts, duty of vigilance laws in Europe). There is also a trend towards using national courts in home states of MNCs to pursue litigation against parent companies for abuses occurring abroad, although this area of law is complex and evolving.

International Treaty Efforts

Discussions continue at the UN level regarding the possibility of developing a binding international treaty on business and human rights to strengthen corporate accountability and address jurisdictional gaps.

Holding MNCs accountable for human rights abuses in a globalized world remains a significant challenge, requiring a multi-pronged approach involving stricter national regulation, cross-border legal cooperation, robust due diligence by companies, and effective access to remedies for victims, guided by frameworks like the UNGPs.

Freedom of Expression and Online Censorship

The digital age, characterised by the internet, social media platforms, and ubiquitous digital communication technologies, has profoundly impacted the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. The internet has opened up unprecedented avenues for seeking, receiving, and imparting information and ideas globally, empowering individuals and facilitating public discourse. However, it has also presented new challenges related to censorship and content control.

Opportunities for Expression

The internet and digital technologies have significantly expanded the space for freedom of expression by:

• Increasing Reach and Accessibility: Individuals can communicate with a global audience instantly and at low cost, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers.
• Facilitating Information Access: Vast amounts of information are readily available online, enhancing the ability to "seek and receive information" (Article 19 ICCPR).
• Enabling Participation: Online platforms facilitate civic engagement, social movements, and political mobilisation, strengthening the right to participate in public affairs (Article 25 ICCPR).
• Promoting Diversity: A wider range of voices and perspectives can be shared, including from minority groups and those historically excluded from traditional media.

Challenges of Online Censorship and Content Regulation

Despite the potential for expanding expression, the digital space is increasingly subject to various forms of censorship and content control, raising human rights concerns:

• State Censorship and Blocking: Governments may block access to entire websites, social media platforms, or specific content deemed undesirable. This can take various forms, including technical filtering, network disruption ("internet shutdowns"), or legal orders to intermediaries. Such actions constitute restrictions on freedom of expression and must meet the strict test of legality, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights law (Article 19(3) ICCPR).
• Intermediary Liability and Content Moderation: Internet intermediaries (like social media companies, search engines, internet service providers) play a significant role in controlling the flow of information. Governments increasingly place obligations on intermediaries to remove content deemed illegal (e.g., hate speech, incitement to violence, defamation). While intermediaries need to moderate content to comply with laws and their own terms of service, their content moderation decisions can also inadvertently or arbitrarily restrict legitimate expression. The scale of online content makes effective and consistent moderation challenging.
• Over-regulation: Vague or overly broad laws aimed at controlling online content can lead to self-censorship by individuals and intermediaries, chilling legitimate expression.
• Disinformation and Misinformation: The ease of spreading false or misleading information online poses challenges to informed public discourse and can be used to manipulate opinions or incite hatred. While states may have a legitimate interest in addressing harmful speech, measures to combat disinformation must be carefully designed to avoid restricting legitimate expression and promoting diverse views.
• Attacks on Journalists and Bloggers: Online harassment, threats, and doxing (publishing private information) of journalists, bloggers, and human rights defenders undermine freedom of expression and can force individuals offline or into silence.

In India, laws like Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, allow the government to issue content blocking orders, and new rules concerning intermediaries place greater obligations on platforms regarding content regulation. While aimed at legitimate concerns like national security or public order, their implementation must be carefully scrutinised to ensure they do not lead to excessive or arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression, aligning with the constitutional protection under Article $19(1)(a)$ and international standards under Article 19 ICCPR.

Right to Privacy and Data Protection

As discussed earlier, the Right to Privacy (Article 12 UDHR, Article 17 ICCPR, Article 21 Indian Constitution) faces significant challenges in the digital age due to the pervasive collection, processing, and sharing of personal data and the increased capabilities for surveillance. Protecting personal information and ensuring individuals' control over their data are crucial aspects of privacy in the digital environment.

Data protection

The digital economy thrives on data, leading to the collection of vast amounts of personal information by corporations (for targeted advertising, service delivery, etc.) and by the state (for public services, law enforcement, etc.). This proliferation of data necessitates robust data protection frameworks to safeguard individuals' informational privacy. Key principles of data protection in the digital age include:

• Consent: Processing of personal data should ideally be based on the free, specific, informed, and unambiguous consent of the individual.
• Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency: Data processing must be lawful, conducted fairly, and individuals should be informed about how their data is being used.
• Purpose Limitation: Data should be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.
• Data Minimisation: Only data that is adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which it is processed should be collected.
• Accuracy: Personal data should be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
• Storage Limitation: Data should be stored for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it is processed.
• Integrity and Confidentiality (Security): Personal data must be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction, or damage.
• Accountability: Those who process data (data fiduciaries/controllers and data processors) should be accountable for complying with data protection principles.
• Rights of Data Principals: Individuals should have rights regarding their data, including the right to access their data, rectify inaccuracies, erase data ("right to be forgotten" in some jurisdictions), and the right to data portability.

The absence of a comprehensive data protection law can leave individuals vulnerable to privacy violations by both state and private actors. The ongoing efforts to enact the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill in India reflect the recognition of the urgent need for a legal framework to govern data processing activities in line with global best practices and the constitutional right to privacy recognised in *Puttaswamy*.

Surveillance

Digital technologies have also dramatically enhanced the capabilities for surveillance, making it easier and cheaper for states and private entities to monitor communications, online activities, locations, and associations. Types of digital surveillance range from targeted interception of communications based on warrants to potentially mass surveillance capabilities.

• Impact on Privacy: Digital surveillance, especially if conducted without adequate legal basis, necessity, and proportionality, constitutes a significant interference with the right to privacy (Article 17 ICCPR, Article 21 Indian Constitution). The possibility of being monitored can also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association.
• Legal Standards: For state surveillance to be compatible with human rights, it must meet the three-part test: provided by law (the legal basis must be clear, accessible, and predictable), necessary (required to achieve a legitimate aim, like preventing crime or protecting national security), and proportionate (the interference must be the least intrusive means to achieve the aim, and the potential harm to privacy must be balanced against the public interest). Robust authorisation procedures (ideally judicial warrants), oversight mechanisms, and transparency are essential safeguards.
• Mass Surveillance: Blanket or indiscriminate surveillance that collects data on large populations without specific suspicion is highly problematic under human rights law as it is unlikely to meet the necessity and proportionality tests.

The use of sophisticated surveillance technologies (like spyware) by states raises serious concerns about the potential for misuse to monitor political opponents, journalists, activists, or ordinary citizens, constituting severe violations of privacy and potentially other rights like freedom of expression and association. Ensuring that surveillance powers are exercised only under strict legal frameworks, with independent oversight and accountability, is a critical human rights challenge in the digital age.

Cybersecurity and Human Rights

Cybersecurity, which refers to measures taken to protect computer systems, networks, and data from theft of or damage to their hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from disruption or misdirection of the services they provide, is essential for the functioning of modern society and the digital infrastructure upon which many human rights are exercised. However, cybersecurity measures themselves can sometimes have unintended consequences for human rights.

Interplay between Cybersecurity and Human Rights

A secure digital environment is necessary for the full enjoyment of many rights:

• Freedom of Expression: Cybersecurity is needed to protect online platforms and communications from attacks (like denial-of-service attacks or hacking) that disrupt the ability to express or receive information.
• Right to Privacy: Cybersecurity measures are crucial for protecting personal data from breaches and unauthorised access.
• Right to Health/Education/Work: Access to online health information, e-learning platforms, or digital workplaces relies on secure internet infrastructure.
• Political Participation: Secure online platforms are necessary for civic engagement, online voting (where implemented), and protecting electoral processes from cyber interference.

However, measures taken in the name of cybersecurity can sometimes pose risks to human rights:

• Restrictions on Freedom of Expression: Measures to control the internet for security reasons might involve blocking access to websites or online content, potentially restricting legitimate expression.
• Increased Surveillance Powers: Cybersecurity concerns are often used to justify expanded state surveillance powers, potentially undermining the right to privacy.
• Mandatory Data Retention: Requiring telecommunications companies to retain user data for long periods for security purposes is an interference with privacy.
• Encryption Restrictions: Measures to weaken or ban encryption (which is essential for secure communication and data protection) in the name of cybersecurity or law enforcement undermine privacy and security for all users.
• Attacks on Human Rights Defenders: Sophisticated cyberattacks, often originating from state actors, can target human rights defenders and journalists to access sensitive information or disrupt their work, impacting their right to freedom of expression, association, and privacy.
• Impact of "Cyber-Patrols" and Content Monitoring: Government efforts to monitor online content for security threats can lead to over-policing and suppression of legitimate online activities.

Striking the right balance between ensuring cybersecurity and protecting human rights is a key challenge for states in the digital age. International human rights law requires that cybersecurity measures must be implemented in a manner that respects human rights, particularly the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Measures taken must be specifically targeted, non-discriminatory, and subject to independent oversight. Blanket restrictions or surveillance are generally incompatible with human rights standards.

As India develops its cybersecurity policies and laws, it faces the challenge of securing its digital infrastructure and protecting its citizens from cyber threats while upholding the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy guaranteed by its Constitution and international commitments. Ensuring judicial and independent oversight over cybersecurity measures with human rights implications is crucial.

Protection of LGBTQ+ rights

While the principle of non-discrimination based on sex is well-established in international human rights law (IHRL), the recognition and protection of rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) represent a more recent and evolving area of human rights concern. Historically, individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other diverse gender identities and sexual orientations (LGBTQ+) have faced widespread discrimination, marginalization, violence, and criminalisation across the globe, often rendering their experiences invisible within traditional human rights frameworks.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Discrimination based on SOGI can manifest in various forms and across all areas of life, violating a wide range of human rights:

• Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of Person: LGBTQ+ individuals are disproportionately targets of violence, hate crimes, arbitrary arrest, and torture in some contexts, often by state actors or with state complicity.
• Equality and Non-Discrimination: Laws and policies may explicitly discriminate based on SOGI (e.g., criminalising consensual same-sex relations, denying legal recognition of gender identity, discriminatory access to marriage or adoption). Even without explicit discrimination, LGBTQ+ individuals face *de facto* discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and access to public services.
• Freedom of Expression and Association: Restrictions on the ability to express one's SOGI identity publicly or to form LGBTQ+ organisations and hold peaceful assemblies.
• Right to Privacy and Family Life: Intrusion into private lives, lack of recognition for same-sex partnerships or diverse family structures.
• Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Discrimination in employment leading to economic vulnerability, denial of access to healthcare or education, exclusion from social welfare schemes, and lack of participation in cultural life due to stigma and prejudice.
• Right to Legal Recognition: Lack of legal recognition for chosen gender identity for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, often requiring invasive procedures or denial of identity documents.

International and National Developments

While core treaties do not explicitly list SOGI as prohibited grounds, human rights bodies have increasingly interpreted existing prohibitions on discrimination (e.g., based on "sex" or "other status" in Article 2 and 26 ICCPR) to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Landmark developments include:

• Jurisprudence of treaty bodies (e.g., Human Rights Committee finding violations based on SOGI discrimination under ICCPR).
• Reports and work of the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Commitments by states and civil society to promote SOGI equality.

In India, significant strides have been made through judicial decisions. The Supreme Court's judgment in *National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India* (2014) recognised the rights of transgender persons, affirming their right to self-identified gender identity and directing the government to treat them as a "third gender" for affirmative action purposes, aligning their rights with Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations by the Supreme Court in *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India* (2018) was another crucial step towards upholding the rights to privacy, dignity, and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, challenges remain in ensuring full legal equality and combating social stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in India.

Rights of persons with disabilities

Persons with disabilities constitute a significant global population who have historically faced marginalization, exclusion, discrimination, and denial of their human rights. For a long time, disability was primarily viewed through a medical or charity lens, focusing on individual impairment or needing welfare, rather than as an issue of human rights and social barriers. The shift towards a rights-based model of disability is a crucial development in IHRL, recognising that persons with disabilities are holders of rights and that barriers in society, not just individual impairments, are the primary cause of their exclusion.

Discrimination and the Shift to a Rights-Based Model

Persons with disabilities face discrimination and barriers that prevent their equal participation in society, violating their rights:

• Access Barriers: Lack of physical accessibility (buildings, transport), communication barriers (lack of sign language interpretation, accessible formats), and attitudinal barriers (stigma, prejudice) prevent access to education, employment, healthcare, justice, and political life.
• Discrimination: Denial of reasonable accommodation, discriminatory laws or policies, and negative stereotypes.
• Violence and Abuse: Persons with disabilities, particularly women and children, are at higher risk of violence, abuse, and neglect.
• Denial of Legal Capacity: Historically, some legal systems have denied persons with certain disabilities the right to make their own decisions.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The rights-based model is most fully articulated in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006 and entered into force in 2008. The CRPD is a landmark treaty that clarifies how existing human rights apply to persons with disabilities and identifies specific rights needed to ensure their equality, non-discrimination, and full participation. India ratified the CRPD in 2007.

Key principles and rights under the CRPD:

• Key Principles (Article 3): Respect for inherent dignity, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion, respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities.
• Equality and Non-discrimination (Article 5): Explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantees equal and effective legal protection against discrimination. Requires states to prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds. Includes the denial of reasonable accommodation (necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms) as a form of discrimination.
• Accessibility (Article 9): Requires states to take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public.
• Right to Live Independently and Be Included in the Community (Article 19): Right to choose where and with whom to live, with necessary support services.
• Right to Education (Article 24): Inclusive education system at all levels, with reasonable accommodation.
• Right to Health (Article 25): Highest attainable standard of health without discrimination.
• Right to Work (Article 27): Right to work on an equal basis with others, including in an open, inclusive, and accessible labour market.
• Legal Capacity (Article 12): Recognition as persons before the law and equal legal capacity, with support measures if needed to exercise legal capacity.

The CRPD is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) replaced earlier legislation and brought Indian law in line with the CRPD principles, increasing the recognised categories of disabilities and strengthening provisions for accessibility, education, employment, and social security for persons with disabilities. However, effective implementation and changing societal attitudes remain key challenges.

Climate Change and Human Rights

Climate change, driven by human activities, is increasingly recognised as a major threat to the enjoyment of human rights globally. Although not a traditional human rights issue in the sense of a specific treaty on climate change and human rights, the impacts of climate change exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and create new forms of marginalization and human rights challenges. The human rights framework provides a powerful lens for understanding the impacts of climate change and holding states accountable for taking necessary action.

Impacts on Human Rights

The adverse effects of climate change (such as rising temperatures, sea-level rise, extreme weather events like floods, droughts, and cyclones, changes in precipitation patterns, and resource scarcity) directly and indirectly impact a wide range of human rights, particularly for vulnerable populations and communities that are highly dependent on the natural environment:

• Right to Life: Extreme heatwaves, floods, storms, and other climate-related disasters can lead to loss of life.
• Right to Health: Climate change contributes to the spread of vector-borne diseases, heat-related illnesses, respiratory problems from air pollution (often linked to fossil fuel use), and mental health impacts from climate disasters.
• Right to Food and Water: Changes in weather patterns, droughts, floods, and desertification undermine agricultural production and access to clean water, threatening food and water security.
• Right to Housing and Adequate Standard of Living: Sea-level rise and extreme weather can destroy homes and infrastructure, leading to displacement and loss of property.
• Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Climate impacts can threaten traditional livelihoods, cultures, and connection to ancestral lands.
• Right to Self-determination: Climate change can undermine the ability of communities and nations to determine their own future and development path, particularly for Small Island Developing States threatened by sea-level rise.

Climate refugees

The term "climate refugees" is often used to describe people who are forced to leave their homes due to the impacts of climate change (such as sea-level rise, desertification, environmental degradation, or climate-related disasters). However, this term is not recognised under international refugee law (the 1951 Refugee Convention applies to individuals fleeing persecution). These individuals are more accurately described as "climate migrants" or "environmentally displaced persons."

• While not legally refugees, these individuals are often highly vulnerable and may face severe human rights challenges, including loss of livelihoods, lack of access to basic services, and risks during migration.
• The issue highlights a gap in international legal frameworks for protecting and assisting people displaced by environmental factors.

In India, coastal communities, populations in arid regions, and those in areas prone to extreme weather events are particularly vulnerable to climate displacement. Ensuring planned relocation, providing adequate compensation, and guaranteeing rights during and after displacement are critical human rights concerns.

Environmental justice

Environmental justice is a concept that links environmental issues with social justice and human rights. It calls for the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, ensuring that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, is disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards (like pollution, toxic waste) or denied equal access to environmental benefits (like clean air, clean water, parks). It also emphasizes procedural justice, ensuring that affected communities have a meaningful role in environmental decision-making processes (Right to Information and Participation).

• Climate change raises significant environmental justice issues, as the communities least responsible for causing climate change (often poor, marginalised, or in developing countries) are often the most severely impacted.
• Advocating for environmental justice means ensuring that climate policies (mitigation and adaptation) do not create new inequalities or burdens on vulnerable groups, and that affected communities' voices are heard and their rights protected in climate action and development projects with environmental impacts.

States have obligations under IHRL to take necessary measures to prevent foreseeable human rights harms caused by climate change, both through mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to the impacts of a changing climate). These obligations are based on existing rights like the right to life, health, food, etc., and require states to act with due diligence, cooperate internationally (particularly with vulnerable states), and ensure that climate action is human rights-consistent and addresses environmental justice concerns. Litigation is increasingly being pursued against governments and corporations based on the human rights impacts of climate inaction or harmful environmental practices.