THE LEGAL GAPS IN HOLDING MULTINATIONAL POLLUTERS ACCOUNTABLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Authored By: OLOKO Ayobamidele Grace

Graduate of Ajayi Crowther University

Abstract

Notwithstanding the existence of many legal frameworks, multinational corporations continue to contribute significantly to environmental degradation in developing nations, frequently evading meaningful accountability. This article examines the legal gaps that permit such impunity to continue, looking at the state of environmental regulation, the enforcement shortcomings that undermine its efficacy, and the ongoing effects on vulnerable communities. In addition to explaining why these gaps are important from an economic, health, social, political and global perspective, the discussion also looks at future directions, highlighting reforms that can improve accountability and advance environmental justice.

By bridging the gap between the laws on paper and the law in practice, this article emphasizes the need for a systemic change.

INTRODUCTION

Most developing countries are endowed with abundant natural resources, however, what should be a blessing, e.g; oil, minerals, fertile soil, e.t.c., too often become a burden, as powerful corporations strip these resources unchecked, sheltered by weak or poorly enforced laws.

From the oil-stained creeks of Ogoniland to the haunting shadows of the Bhopal gas leak and the toxic waste dumped in Ivory Coast, one question keeps echoing: how do you make a giant answer for the mess it leaves behind when the law itself is too small to confront it?[1]

The truth is not always the absence of laws, but the absence of teeth. Multinationals sidestep real punishment; an out-of-court settlement here, a token fine there while communities live with poisoned soil, polluted air, and shattered livelihoods. The harm repeats, the cycle continues, and justice feels like a promise that never arrives.

This article asks a simple but urgent question: what would it take to finally close these gaps and make corporations answer not just with money, but with true accountability?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Using a doctrinal and analytical approach, this article evaluates the legal frameworks governing multinational polluters in developing nations using primary sources like statutes, case law, and regional treaties, and contextualises enforcement challenges using secondary sources like academic journals, reports, and news publications. The analysis emphasises the discrepancy between the law as written and the law as practiced, with comparative examples taken from a few developing nations.

THE CURRENT LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Multinational polluters thrive not because there are no regulations, but because such laws are poorly enforced. Many developing countries have already adopted legal systems that, on theory, should protect their environment. On paper, many states have extensive laws, but these are frequently weakened by institutional weakness, political pressure from influential economic players, or corruption. A few examples illustrate this reality;

Colombia: A comprehensive framework for the preservation and sustainable use of natural resources is established under the National Code of Renewable Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (1974). However, enforcement agencies are frequently unable to match corporate power, and extractive industries especially those in mining, oil, and agro-industries continue to cause serious ecological devastation.[2]
Bangladesh: Pollution control methods and environmental clearance certificates are provided by the Environment Conservation Amendment Act (2010). Despite this, the textile and tannery industries have been able to pollute rivers and groundwater with relative impunity due to growing industrialisation.[3]
South Africa: The duty of care and accountability for pollution are two guiding concepts for environmental governance outlined in the National Environmental Management Act (1998). Nevertheless, mining activities, particularly in coal and gold, usually result in devastation of communities and acid mine drainage, for which there is little legal recourse.[4]
The Philippines: A home to progressive laws like the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (2000) and the Clean Air Act (1999), which both seek to combat pollution and advance sustainability. However, enforcement is inconsistent, and industries use settlements or lax oversight to get around compliance.[5]
Nigeria: Before starting large-scale projects in Nigeria, businesses must assess and reduce environmental harm in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992 (as amended in 2004). But the Niger Delta story shows how oil companies frequently act without any responsibility, leaving behind decades of gas flaring and disasters that destroy local populations.[6]

This is a dilemma that all other emerging countries face around the world. This tendency is not limited to national frameworks.

The three major developing continents recognise environmental rights on an international scale.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) expressly provides the right to “a generally satisfactory environment favourable to development.”

The Escazú Agreement (2018), the first regional environmental treaty in Latin America, aims to promote access to information, public engagement, and justice in environmental concerns.

In Asia, agreements like the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002) seek to limit cross-border environmental damage, particularly from forest fires.[7]

However, the question remains: Why do environmental disasters occur despite the existence of national and regional laws? The answer is not only in the legislation, but also in the organisations that enforce it. Laws without consequences, authorities without resources, and governments susceptible to corporate pressure make accountability a mirage.

Multinational polluters frequently exploit these flaws, securing settlements or delaying procedures until victims lose momentum. Thus, the recurrence of environmental crises is due less to a lack of legal frameworks and more to a persistent gap between legal theory and practical justice.

THE GAPS OF THE CURRENT LEGISLATIONS

If there are already many frameworks in the legal landscape, the question of why enforcement fails so frequently becomes more pressing. The response is complex, encompassing economics, politics, and law.

First, one of the key obstacles is still institutional weakness. The technical know-how, funding, and skilled workforce needed to properly monitor and control multinational operations are often lacking in poor nations’ environmental agencies. Accountability is merely a theory in a case where hundreds of mining or oil sites are under the supervision of a single inspector.[8]

Second, corporate influence and political pressure frequently undermine enforcement. Multinational corporations, with their enormous economic leverage, contribute significantly to state revenues and exert quiet power over political elites. In such cases, regulators may be hesitant to take action that will “scare away” investors, leaving communities vulnerable to unchecked harm.[9]

Third, the system is weakened by corruption. Settlements are quietly negotiated, fines are reduced or waived, and legal processes are prolonged until victims lose faith. Justice is postponed and hence denied. What results is a vicious loop in which businesses decide that polluting and paying a tiny tax is more cost-effective than conducting business correctly.[10]

Fourth, accountability is complicated by cross-border issues. Pollution transcends national boundaries: industrial pollutants drift into neighbouring states, oil spills spread across waterways, and shipments of toxic trash go from one nation to another. However, jurisdictional restrictions frequently allow multinational corporations to take advantage of the legal ambiguities between national and international law in a game of legal hide-and-seek.[11]

The issue of impacted communities’ access to justice comes last. Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and frequently skewed in favour of businesses with the resources to hire top-tier attorneys. The very courts that are supposed to offer remedies could be out of reach for families living close to South African mines, farmers in Bangladesh, or villages in Ogoniland due to financial or geographic constraints.[12]

Therefore, enforcement is ineffective not because there is no law, but rather because the institutions that are supposed to uphold it are too flimsy, too compromised, or too readily overthrown. Furthermore, environmental catastrophes in developing nations are likely to continue to occur sporadically unless this disconnect between the law on paper and the law in practice is addressed.

WHY THIS MATTERS (IMPACT)

Failure to implement environmental regulations is a lived reality in underdeveloped countries, with terrible repercussions. When multinational firms pollute with minimal constraint, the most vulnerable communities bear the genuine costs, not corporations. Why is any of this relevant? The economy, public health, society, politics, and even global justice are all impacted by the non-enforcement of environmental regulations in developing nations; it is not limited to statutes or courtrooms. The damages done are real, lived, and long-lasting.

Economic Impact: Communities already contending with poverty bear the consequences when polluters evade accountability. After their livelihoods were destroyed by hazardous lead emissions, the people of Kenya’s Owino Uhuru community filed a lawsuit against Metal Refinery Ltd., property values fell, farms became desolate, and subsistence farming people faced financial collapse. The fact that the law’s shortcomings in this case resulted in economic displacement shows that environmental damage in developing nations is not only ecological but also a contributing factor to inequality and poverty.[13]
Health Impact: The human body is usually the first victims of legal failure. In Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, young plaintiffs claimed that unregulated deforestation in the Amazon infringed their constitutional rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. The Colombian Supreme Court concurred, recognising the Amazon as a legal subject with rights. This example demonstrates how slack enforcement not only damages landscapes, but also jeopardises public health and the well-being of future generations in developing countries.[14]
Social and Political Impact: Environmental collapse also destabilizes societies. In Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, a farmer sued the government for failing to execute climate change policy. The Lahore High Court ruled that residents’ fundamental rights were breached by inaction. A key point was the societal realisation that harm to the environment equates to injury to human rights. As Argentina battled between the demands of international investment and preserving its glaciers, the political case of Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A. v. National Government demonstrated how multinational mining interests can conflict with state sovereignty. When taken as a whole, these incidents show how lax enforcement erodes public confidence in governments, escalating social discontent and political tension in emerging countries.[15]
Global Impact: Finally, the consequences of legal gaps in poor countries are felt globally. In Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell, families of executed Ogoni activists sued Shell in US courts, claiming complicity in human rights violations related to environmental devastation in the Niger Delta. Although the case was settled out of court, it underscored a grim reality: when accountability fails locally, victims seek justice abroad. This not only exposes the flaws in local systems, but also brings environmental issues from developing countries to international fora, emphasising the global interconnectivity of environmental justice.[16]

Weak enforcement of environmental laws in developing nations leads to poisoned economies, sick communities, fragile social and political commitments, and a widening global justice gap. These cases demonstrate that the stakes are never vague and serve as a reminder that the environment is not distinct from human life but rather serves as the cornerstone of economies, societies, and futures.

PATHWAYS FORWARD (SOLUTIONS)

If the law on paper is ineffective without teeth in practice, the issue becomes: what practical steps can developing countries take to close the gap between principle and enforcement? Several paths are emerging, some through the courts, others through advocacy, and some by completely reinventing international law.

Strengthening Transnational Litigation: Transnational litigation offers a crucial path when domestic justice is insufficient. The United States’ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell settlement demonstrated that when domestic courts fail, corporations can be held accountable overseas. Zambian villagers successfully sued a UK-based parent corporation in British courts for environmental harm caused by its subsidiary’s copper mining operations in Zambia in the more recent case of Lungowe v. Vedanta Resources. In order to ensure that corporate giants cannot hide behind lax domestic enforcement, these cases highlight an emerging precedent: poor nations can use foreign authorities to hold corporations accountable.[17]
Empowering Regional Courts: Environmental accountability is gradually being facilitated by regional judicial authorities in emerging nations. Human rights and environmental issues have been acknowledged by the ECOWAS Court of Justice. One such instance is SERAP v. Nigeria, in which the court held Nigeria accountable for environmental deterioration in the Niger Delta. Likewise, communities now have a supranational remedy in the event that domestic mechanisms fail via the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which has upheld the environmental rights guaranteed by the African Charter. By giving these courts more authority and a clearer jurisdiction, they might become powerful allies in closing the accountability gap.[18]
Innovative Legal Tools: Developing countries are also experimenting with novel legal approaches. Climate litigation is gaining traction: in Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, youth plaintiffs obtained recognition of the Amazon as a rights holder, forcing the state to take action against deforestation. Environmental tribunals offer another option; in India, the National Green Tribunal has developed as a specialised organisation that handles environmental issues quickly, presenting a model that other developing countries could follow. Class actions are also emerging: in Lopez Ostra v. Spain (albeit technically in Europe), parallels can be drawn with community-led class actions in emerging countries, where residents band together to sue polluters for collective harm. These instruments democratise access to justice, enabling ordinary persons to take on giant corporations.[19]
Civil Society Involvement: Where states fail to act, civil society organisations frequently serve as watchdogs. In Kenya, groups like the Kenya Human Rights Commission have helped communities fight harmful industrial practices, while in Nigeria, NGOs like as SERAP (Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project) have utilised litigation and activism to highlight oil pollution and human rights violations. In Bangladesh, environmental activists successfully advocated for a ban on plastic bags in 2002, one of the first of its kind in a developing country. These examples demonstrate how empowering NGOs and community movements may close monitoring gaps while keeping governments and businesses on their toes.[20]
Recognizing Ecocide as a Crime: The movement to declare mass environmental damage, or ecocide, an international crime is arguably the most audacious frontier. Developing nations are leading the charge in advocating for ecocide, even though the International Criminal Court (ICC) has not yet legally adopted the concept. Small developing island nations Vanuatu and the Maldives led the push in 2021 for ecocide to be added to the list of major international crimes, along with crimes against humanity and genocide. Adopting such recognition might create a revolutionary precedent for environmental justice around the world by enabling weaker states to file lawsuits against strong multinational corporations and even complicit governments.[21]

For underdeveloped countries, these remedies are survival measures, not speculative legal experiments. From multinational litigation to regional courts, class actions to ecocide campaigning, each method underscores a critical truth: the struggle for environmental accountability cannot be left to frail local systems alone. It must be shared – across countries, courts, and communities — until industry titans realise that damage is no longer cheaper than justice.

CONCLUSION

The most impacted individuals are left to shoulder the burden when regulations in developing nations are frequently not enforced. Developing nations must discover the power in their laws and the bravery to enforce them in order to confront this.

But there is another question that lingers, one that pierces deeper than law books or court judgments: If justice is delayed or denied, what story do we tell the children who inherit the land?

However, there is still hope by initiatives like the Colombian Amazon rights-holder movement, African communities’ use of regional courts, and small island states’ calls for the criminalisation of ecocide.

In the words of Mary Robinson, first female President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

“…Doing this with a conscious empathy for those who are most affected by climate change and least responsible would build the solidarity we need to ensure that developing countries can develop without emissions and lead to a fairer, more equal, more people-centred, more climate-just world.”[22]

Developing nations may build a new narrative in which natural riches is viewed as a blessing if they have the resolve to do so, enforce the law more strictly, and innovate boldly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Mary Robinson, Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience and the Fight for a Sustainable Future (1^st edn, Bloomsbury 2018) 290.

Case Laws

Barrick Exploraciones Argentina S.A. v. National Government

EPZA & 10 Others v. NEMA & 3 Others [2024] KESC 75 KLR

Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others [2018] Climate Case Chart

Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan [2015] W.P No. 25501/201

Lopez Ostra v. Spain [1990] HUDOC No. 16798/90

Lungowe v. Vendata [2019]

SERAP v. Nigeria [2012] ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12

Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell [2009]

Journals

Edward Broughton, ‘The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review’[2005] 4(1) Environmental Health, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1142333/ accessed 21 August 2025.

Olof Linden & Jones Palsson, ‘Oil Contamination in Ogoniland, Niger Delta’ [2013] 42(6) Ambio. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3758819/ accessed 20 August 2025.

Precious Okedele, Reginald Aziza, Portia Oduro, Akinwale Ishola, ‘Transnational Environmental Law and the Challenge of Regulating Cross-Border Pollution in an Interconnected World’ [2024] 8(6), IRE Journals, https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1706652.pdf accessed 22 August 2025.

Statutes

ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002)

Banjul Charter, Art. 24 (1981)

Escazú Agreement (2018)

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act 2000, Republic Act No. 9003

Environment Conservation Amendment Act 2010, Sec. 1

Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2004 (as amended)

National Code of Natural Renewable Resources and Environmental Protection 1974, Art. 1 Codigo de Recursos Naturales.

National Environmental Management Act 1998, Chapter 1, Sec. 2

Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, Republic No. 8749

News Reports

BBC News, ‘Transfigura found guilty of exporting toxic waste’ (United Kingdom, 23 July 2010), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-10735255.amp accessed 21 August 2025.

Keith Anthony Fabro, ‘Indigenous community fighting a mine in Palawan wins a milestone legal verdict’ Conservation News (Philippines, 2023).

Simi Jolaoso, ‘Oil clean-up ‘scam’ warnings ignored by Shell, whistleblower tells BBC’ BBC News (Niger Delta, 12 February 2025) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rqe85q1jno.amp accessed 21 August 2025.

Official Websites

African Courts on Human and Peoples’ Rights, https://www.african-court.org/wpafc/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Bank Track, ‘Barrick Gold Suffers Legal Defeat in Argentine Supreme Court Glacier Protection Law Holds and Mining Companies Must Reveal Impacts’ (2012) https://www.banktrack.org/news/barrick_gold_suffers_legal_defeat_in_argentine_supreme_court_glacier_protection_law_holds_and_mining_companies_must_reveal_impacts_1 accessed 22 August 2025.

BLR, ‘Lungowe and Others v. Vendata Resources Plc and another, United Kingdom’ (2021), https://www.bhr-law.org/court-cases/lungowe-v-vedanta-resources accessed 22 August 2025.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others (2018), Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente’ https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/future-generation-v-ministry-environment-others/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015) W.P No. 25501/201’, https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Earth Rights International, ‘Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell— Getting Away with Murder: Shell’s Complicity with Crimes Against Humanity in Nigeria’ (2023), https://earthrights.org/case/wiwa-v-royal-dutch-shell/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Oidhaco, ‘Environmental and Human Right Challenges in Colombia’ (2024) https://www.oidhaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Oidhaco_Business-Environment-HR.pdf accessed 21 August 2025.

EJIL, ‘Should Ecocide be an International Crime? It’s Time for States to Decide (2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/should-ecocide-be-an-international-crime-its-time-for-states-to-decide/ accessed 22 August 2025.

ESCR-Net, Lopez Ostra v. Spain [1990] HUDOC No. 16798/90, https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2008/lopez-ostra-vs-spain-application-no-1679890/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Institute of Economic Affairs, ‘Economic Analysis of the Owino Uhuru Case and Public Policy Lessons’ (2025) https://ieakenya.or.ke/download/economic-analysis-of-the-owino-uhuru-case-and-public-policy-lessons/#:~:text=The%20case%20concerned%20lead%20poisoning,self%2Dinterest%20over%20public%20welfare accessed 22 August 2025.

Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), ‘Failure to enforce environmental law ‘widespread’, UN study finds: Weak enforcement of environmental law is one of the greatest barriers to halting climate change, reducing pollution and preventing biodiversity loss, a UN study has warned.’ (2025) https://www.isepglobal.org/articles/failure-to-enforce-environmental-law-widespread-un-study-finds accessed 22 August 2025.

Just Access, ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’ (2022) https://just-access.de/access-to-justice-in-environmental-matters/ accessed 22 August 2025.

National Green Tribunal, formed 2010, https://www.greentribunal.gov.in accessed 22 August 2025.

SERAP v. Nigeria [2012] ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, https://caselaw.ihrda.org/entity/pftlz3gneo0wxsgq0kdszto6r?page=1&file=1650956721947oath9e3rph8.pdf accessed 22 August 2025.

Stephen Ndoma, ‘AD776: South Africans see pollution as a serious problem requiring greater government attention’ (AfroBarometer, 27 February 2024) https://www.afrobarometer.org/publication/ad776-south-africans-see-pollution-as-serious-problem-requiring-greater-government-attention/ accessed 21 August 2025.

Syed Islam, ‘Environmental problem in Bangladesh and how STP can help’ (Daiki Axis Bangladesh, 24 February 2025) https://daiki-axisbd.com/environmental-problem-in-bangladesh/ accessed 21 August 2025.

Transparency International Bangladesh, ‘Dhaka’s Youth Rally to End Plastic Pollution by 2040: TIB Urges United Nations.’ [2025] https://www.ti-bangladesh.org/articles/story/7273 accessed 22 August 2025.

Kindly Note: My Article from the Title to the Conclusion is 2,613 words without the Bibliography. I however added the Bibliography because the article is heavy research based and that is why it is 3311 which has exceeded the 3000 word limit. Thank you.

[1] Olof Linden & Jones Palsson, ‘Oil Contamination in Ogoniland, Niger Delta’ [2013] 42(6) Ambio. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3758819/ accessed 20 August 2025.

Edward Broughton, ‘The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review’[2005] 4(1) Environmental Health, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1142333/ accessed 21 August 2025.

BBC News, ‘Transfigura found guilty of exporting toxic waste’ (United Kingdom, 23 July 2010), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-10735255.amp accessed 21 August 2025.

[2] National Code of Natural Renewable Resources and Environmental Protection 1974, Art. 1 Codigo de Recursos Naturales.

Oidhaco, ‘Environmental and Human Right Challenges in Colombia’ (2024) https://www.oidhaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Oidhaco_Business-Environment-HR.pdf accessed 21 August 2025.

[3] Environment Conservation Amendment Act 2010, Sec. 1

[4] National Environmental Management Act 1998, Chapter 1, Sec. 2

[5] Ecological Solid Waste Management Act 2000, Republic Act No. 9003

Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, Republic No. 8749

Keith Anthony Fabro, ‘Indigenous community fighting a mine in Palawan wins a milestone legal verdict’ Conservation News (Philippines, 2023).

[6] Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2004 (as amended)

[7] Africa, Asia and Latin America are otherwise known as the Third World Continent

Art. 24, Banjul Charter (1981)

Escazú Agreement (2018)

ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002)

[8] Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), ‘Failure to enforce environmental law ‘widespread’, UN study finds: Weak enforcement of environmental law is one of the greatest barriers to halting climate change, reducing pollution and preventing biodiversity loss, a UN study has warned.’ (2025) https://www.isepglobal.org/articles/failure-to-enforce-environmental-law-widespread-un-study-finds accessed 22 August 2025.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Precious Okedele, Reginald Aziza, Portia Oduro, Akinwale Ishola, ‘Transnational Environmental Law and the Challenge of Regulating Cross-Border Pollution in an Interconnected World’ [2024] 8(6), IRE Journals, https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1706652.pdf accessed 22 August 2025.

[12] Just Access, ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’ (2022) https://just-access.de/access-to-justice-in-environmental-matters/ accessed 22 August 2025.

[13] EPZA & 10 Others v. NEMA & 3 Others [2024] KESC 75 KLR, commonly known as the Owino Uhuru case.

[14] Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others [2018] Climate Case Chart, also known as Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others [2018], Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente’ https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/future-generation-v-ministry-environment-others/ accessed 22 August 2025.

[15] Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan [2015] W.P No. 25501/201, https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan/ accessed 22 August 2025.

Barrick Exploraciones Argentina S.A. v. National Government

[16]Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell [2009]

[17] Ibid.

Lungowe v. Vendata [2019]

BLR, ‘Lungowe and Others v. Vendata Resources Plc and another, United Kingdom’ (2021), https://www.bhr-law.org/court-cases/lungowe-v-vedanta-resources accessed 22 August 2025.

[18] SERAP v. Nigeria [2012] ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12

SERAP v. Nigeria [2012] ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, https://caselaw.ihrda.org/entity/pftlz3gneo0wxsgq0kdszto6r?page=1&file=1650956721947oath9e3rph8.pdf accessed 22 August 2025.

African Courts on Human and Peoples’ Rights, https://www.african-court.org/wpafc/ accessed 22 August 2025.

[19] Ibid.

National Green Tribunal, formed 2010, https://www.greentribunal.gov.in accessed 22 August 2025.

ESCR-Net, Lopez Ostra v. Spain [1990] HUDOC No. 16798/90, https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2008/lopez-ostra-vs-spain-application-no-1679890/ accessed 22 August 2025.

[20] SERAP, https://serap-nigeria.org accessed 22 August 2025.

KHRC, https://khrc.or.ke accessed 22 August, 2025.

[21] EJIL, ‘Should Ecocide be an International Crime? It’s Time for States to Decide (2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/should-ecocide-be-an-international-crime-its-time-for-states-to-decide/ accessed 22 August 2025.

[22] Mary Robinson, Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience and the Fight for a Sustainable Future (1^st edn, Bloomsbury 2018) 290.

Authored By: OLOKO Ayobamidele Grace

Graduate of Ajayi Crowther University

Related Posts

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply