Environmental and Biological Security as Guarantees of the Right to Life in a Natural Environment

The article examines fundamental issues related to the characterization of the human right to life in the natural environment in connection with institutions of environmental and biological security. In addressing the stated objectives, the authors explore the concept and content of the right to life in the natural environment, identify the subjects and objects of this right, and touch upon key aspects of the public-law mechanism for ensuring environmental and biological security as a guarantee of the realization of this right. The article presents successful examples of legal regulation and judicial protection of the right to life in the natural environment in foreign countries, including practices based on the principles of generational equality and intergenerational justice, which currently require broader dissemination. The object of the research is constitutional legal relations concerning the regulation and realization of the human right to life in the natural environment. The purpose is to study recent state policy practices in the field of environmental and biological security, and to identify modern mechanisms for countering environmental and biological challenges and threats. The research methodology includes methods of formal logic, comparative legal analysis, as well as dialectical and systemic-structural approaches. As a result of the study, the authors conclude that it is necessary to develop an effective national policy for the legal protection of the natural environment as a living space, in conjunction with measures to ensure environmental and biological security. Achieving this goal requires the definition of the concept and content of the human right to life in the natural environment, along with the development of public-law mechanisms for legislative regulation and judicial protection of this right. 

1. Abashidze A.Kh., Malichenko V.S. (2023). Peculiarities of regulating the circulation of dual-use biotechnologies under international and national law. RUDN Journal of Law. Vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 541–563 (in Russian). DOI: 10.22363/2313-23372023-27-3-541-563.

2. A conceptual framework… (2024). Arndt E. et al. A conceptual framework for measuring and improving the resilience of biosecurity systems. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 61, pp. 1749–1760. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14707.

3. Anikina E.A. (2023). Consideration of disputes related to the application of legislation on environmental protection. Arbitration Disputes. No. 4, pp. 3–30 (in Russian).

4. Biodiversity conservation… (2021). Guayasamin J.M. et al. Biodiversity conservation: local and global consequences of the application of «rights of nature» by Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 541–545. DOI: 10.1080/23766808.2021.2006550.

5. Edirisinghe A., Suchet-Pearson S. (2024). Nature as a sentient being: Can rivers be legal persons? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 224–235. DOI: 10.1111/reel.12529.

6. Kalis M., Priebe A.-L. (2024). The right to climate protection and the essentially comparable protection of fundamental rights: Applying Solange in European climate change litigation? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 265–275. DOI: 10.1111/reel.12560.

7. Kartkhia A.A. (2024). Legal Prospects of the Climate Agenda as the Basis of Human Biological Security: Russian and International Aspects. Social and Humanitarian Sciences. Domestic and Foreign Literature: IAZH. Series 4: State and Law. No. 2, pp. 37–51 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31249/ iajpravo/2024.02.04.

8. Kauffman C.M., Martin P.L. (2021). The Politics of Nature’s Rights: Strategies for Building a Stronger Future. S.l.: MIT Press, 281 pp. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/13855.001.0001.

9. McEldowney J. (2021). The rights of Nature (RoN): A Challenging Concept (I). Available at: https://www.chemins-publics.org/articles/the-rights-of-nature-ron-achallenging-concept-i, accessed 11.07.2024.

10. Quising J.D.F. (2023). Beyond OPOSA: Courts reinforcing intergenerational equity as customary international law. European Law Journal. Vol. 29, no. 3–6, pp. 422–444. DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12489.

11. Schilling-Vacaflor A. (2021). Integrating Human Rights and the Environment in Supply Chain Regulations. Sustainability. Vol. 13, article 9666, 15 pp. DOI: 10.3390/ su13179666.

12. Tang K., Spijkers O. (2022). The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Chinese Journal of Environmental Law. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 87–107. DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340078.

13. The Boundary… (2021). Stoneham G. et al. The Boundary of the Market for Biosecurity Risk. Risk Analysis. Vol. 41, pp. 1447–1462. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13620.

14. The conflict… (2024). Peck M.R. et al. The conflict between Rights of Nature and mining in Ecuador: Implications of the Los Cedros Cloud Forest case for biodiversity conservation. People and Nature. Vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1096–1115. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10615.

15. Vasilevich D.G. (2024). The precautionary principle in ensuring somatic rights. Journal of Russian Law. No. 6, pp. 16–25 (in Russian). DOI: 10.61205/jrp.2024.6.1.

16. Weiss E.B. (1989). In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity. Tokyo: United Nations University; New York: Transnational Publishers, 385 pр.

17. Wewerinke-Singh M., Garg A., Agarwalla Sh. (2023). In Defence of Future Generations: A Reply to Stephen Humphreys. European Journal of International Law. Vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 651–668. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chad033.

18. Xie Z. (2019). China’s Historical Evolution of Environmental Protection Along with the Forty years’ Reform and Opening-up. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology. Vol. 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ese.2019.100001.

19. Xue Y. (2024). The Hague Ethical Guidelines and the Tianjin Biosecurity Guidelines. In: Shang L., Zhang W., Dando M. (eds.) Essentials of Biological Security. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, pp. 201– 212. DOI: 10.1002/9781394189045.ch16.