|OAS headquarters in Washington|
Carmen Gonzalez these days posted “Environmental Racism, American Exceptionalism, and Chilly Battle Human Rights”. The abstract:
Environmental justice college students and activists coined the phrases “environmental racism” to elucidate the disproportionate focus of environmental hazards in neighborhoods populated by racial and ethnic minorities. Having exhausted residence approved remedies (or having concluded that these remedies are unavailable), communities of shade within the US are increasingly more turning to worldwide human rights regulation and institutions to drawback environmental racism.
Nonetheless, the US has ratified solely a handful of human rights treaties, and has restricted the house utility of these treaties by way of reservations and declarations that preclude judicial enforcement inside the absence of implementing legal guidelines. Actually, the U.S. has usually resisted scrutiny of its human rights file by residence or worldwide institutions on the premise of “American exceptionalism” — the idea that the U.S. is unique in its dedication to freedom and equality and provides additional sturdy security of human rights than worldwide regulation. What historic events triggered this resistance to worldwide human rights regulation? What are the implications for human rights-based approaches to environmental security?
This textual content explains how the battle for racial justice within the US on the highest of the Chilly Battle shaped U.S. attitudes to worldwide human rights regulation. Using Mossville Environmental Movement Now v. United States as a case look at (at current pending sooner than the Inter-American Payment on Human Rights), the article argues that worldwide human rights regulation is far superior to U.S. residence regulation as a technique of addressing environmental injustice. Nonetheless, its utility is constrained by approved doctrines developed over time nonetheless bolstered all through the Chilly Battle that prohibit the enforcement of worldwide human rights regulation in U.S. courts. Nonetheless, a victory for the Mossville petitioners may very well be immensely useful as half of an even bigger method to name and shame the US, to bridge the opening between worldwide regulation and residential regulation, and to show authorities officers and most of the people at large regarding the relationship between environmental security and human rights.