Turning a new page in the history of diplomacy, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration placed environmental challenges at the forefront of international concerns. It solemnly outlines key principles that still resonate today. After stating in its preamble that “man is both creature and moulder of his environment,” it recognizes in Principle 1, on the one hand, his “fundamental right to (…) adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being” and, on the other hand, as a counterpoint, his “solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.”

Nevertheless, more than fifty years later, the scientific data is clear: the state of our environment continues to deteriorate ¹ . As humanity faces a triple global crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—it has become crucial to incorporate and effectively enforce key legal principles, rights, and duties into our legal systems, with binding authority. This must first be accomplished at the international level. International cooperation is obviously vital, given the nature of climate and environmental issues, which are shared by all nations and thus, go beyond individual borders.

This was the goal of the Global Pact for the Environment project, spearheaded by France following a civil society initiative. Following a proposal made by the Environment Commission of the Club des Juristes ² , an initial draft was prepared by an international network of approximately 100 lawyers, led by the Commission and chaired by Laurent Fabius, then President of the French Constitutional Council ³ .  Fabius, the architect of the Paris Agreement, believed that the sectoral climate treaty should be expanded into a broader treaty covering key environmental law principles. The launch of negotiations on the draft Pact was successful, highlighted by a United Nations General Assembly resolution on May 10, 2018, titled “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment” ⁴ , which was adopted almost unanimously ⁵ . However, the discussions among nations, mainly held in 2019 in Nairobi at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters, ended without agreement ⁶ .

Despite this setback, the draft Global Pact for the Environment remains a benchmark widely discussed among legal scholars ⁷ . It also reflects other similar initiatives. These include the 22-point draft “Proposed legal principles for environmental protection and sustainable development” in Annex 1 of the 1987 Brundtland Report, the “Draft international covenant on environment and development” proposed in 1995 by the Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), the draft “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” drafted in 2015 by a group of lawyers chaired by Corinne Lepage, and the “International Covenant on Human Rights to the Environment” proposed in 2017 by the International Center for Comparative Environmental Law (CIDCE).

Admittedly, this requirement for a foundational document outlining key environmental principles is currently challenged by a rise of populism and identity politics. However, now more than ever, it remains essential to establish a major global pact on environmental rights, one that reaffirms the core values guiding environmental efforts and provides a basis for all sector-specific environmental texts.

In a classic review or outlook exercise, our analysis first examines the weaknesses of international environmental law (I), then proceeds to explain why and how the adoption of a Global Pact on Environmental Rights could help reshape the field (II).

I – Current situation: weaknesses in international environmental law

If we were to take stock of the overall situation, we would undoubtedly be able to identify the strengths of environmental multilateralism. Specifically, we would highlight the normative dynamism of the field, since there are as many as 1,500 treaties related to the environment ⁸ , whether directly or indirectly. However, the focus here is on the persistent weaknesses in this area.

A – A fragmented legal field

International environmental law is characterized by conventions that address specific topics separately, such as climate, ozone, desertification, biodiversity, the protection of certain animal species, waste, and chemical use. Each of these sectoral conventions exists as a distinct entity and functions independently, with no coordination among these different legal instruments.

The proliferation of international sectoral texts has caused confusion and reduced accessibility in international environmental law. Legal practitioners, judges, and lawyers often come across, unexpectedly while handling cases, an international environmental convention they had never heard of before.

In December 2018, the UN Secretary-General issued a report titled “Gaps in international environmental law and environment-related instruments: towards a Global Pact for the Environment” ⁹ , which examines international environmental law and identifies gaps in multilateral environmental agreements, environmental governance, and institutions. The report emphasizes that “the proliferation of multilateral environmental agreements and the resultant distinct and separate mandates ignore the unity, interconnectedness, and interdependence of the Earth’s ecosystem” and advocates for the creation of a “comprehensive and unifying” international instrument that includes all principles of environmental law. The adoption of a Pact on the right to a healthy environment would therefore serve as the long-awaited cornerstone of international environmental law.

B – Fragmented institutions

When standards are scattered, governance tends to be as well, which is why today we observe not only the UNEP administration (around 2,000 employees), but also a range of services and secretariats that oversee various sectoral conventions in this area. The most prominent include the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (nearly 500 people in Bonn) and the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (more than 100 people in Montreal). This proliferation of entities creates administrative burdens and remains unclear to all stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and NGOs. It can lead to contradictions that hinder effective environmental protection.

C – A technical legal field

International environmental law is also marked by the proliferation of relatively technical standards. There are agreements on chemicals, pollutants, ozone, hazardous waste, and, of course, greenhouse gas reduction.

This set of rules, sometimes referred to as “industrial environmental law,” plays an important, even leading role in international law. Admittedly, this is justified by the scientific background of the subject and its main goal of regulating industrial activities’ impact. However, it can also be explained by the fact that, in diplomatic contexts with tensions and disagreements over core values, it is sometimes easier to agree on purely technical standards than on broad principles.

As a result, international environmental law has increasingly become a technical field that is hard for citizens to navigate and has shown limited openness to approaches grounded in respect for fundamental rights.

D – An unambitious legal field: the diplomat’s dilemma

Historically, states have found it challenging to pass ambitious and binding texts to protect individuals’ right to a healthy environment.

As a result, we observe what might be called the “diplomat’s dilemma”: negotiators must often choose between an ambitious agreement and a universal one. But they cannot have both. If the agreement is ambitious, few states will agree to sign it; if it aims to be universal, diplomats are often forced to scale back their ambitions to include as many states as possible.

E – A legal field with few restrictions

To resolve this dilemma, a common solution is to adopt a text that seems ambitious in its content but is not particularly binding on its signatories. Consequently, ambitious international standards often have little legal force (for example, due to the lack of sanctions) and can even fall under soft law. This is evident in major declarations and founding texts adopted over the past 50 years, from Stockholm to Rio, including the 1982 World Charter for Nature. It also applies to the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015 as a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution. Similarly, the recognition of the right to a healthy environment in July 2022 gained majority support from states because it was framed as a simple United Nations General Assembly resolution rather than a genuine treaty.

The Paris Agreement itself is no exception to this observation: while it is legally binding in form, as it holds the status of an international treaty rather than a simple declaration, it is based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which are voluntary and left to the discretion of individual states. Moreover, it establishes a system of sanctions less severe than that of its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. It is true, however, that since the unanimous advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice on July 23, 2025, national contributions are no longer seen as purely voluntary: the Court now considers them to be part of more binding legal obligations under, not only international treaties, but also customary international law, with international responsibility in case of non-compliance ¹⁰ .

The weakness of enforcement is also reflected in the feebleness of sanction mechanisms. In international law, justice is only an option. Recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary—France is one of the few countries in Europe that has refused it. Most environmental treaties are exempt from judicial sanctions. At best, they set up monitoring of compliance through compliance committees, which, with few exceptions, cannot be referred to by individuals and have limited authority. Lastly, countries can always choose to withdraw from agreements to avoid possible sanctions ¹¹ .

F – A negotiated legal field

In reality, international environmental law merely reflects a system of global governance that is still mostly based on a contractual approach, where only the consent of states to self-restraint can form the basis of law. As a result, negotiations are permanent, giving pride of place to the primacy of national interests and self-interest. The adoption of texts relies on the so-called “consensus” method, which often leads to the rule of the minority—specifically, the minority of states that are both powerful and opposed to environmental progress. Foremost among these is the United States, which is absent from many environmental agreements.

Thus, the history of international environmental negotiations has been marked by a long series of failures, from the 2009 Copenhagen Conference on climate change to the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on a treaty on plastic pollution, held in Geneva in August 2025, and the discussion of the draft Global Pact for the Environment in Nairobi in 2019. Each time, history repeats itself: the 193 UN member states are unable to reach an agreement on a text, often because a majority in favor of the project is blocked by a minority of states that hinder the progress and ambition of the treaty ¹² .

Another concept, based on recognizing a global public interest that is superior and external to the national interests of States, as the foundation for the binding force of international law, would undoubtedly be possible… But it is probably too early for this to become a reality ¹³ .

II – Outlook: A Global Pact to Reshape International Environmental Law

A – The persistence of a gap

When we take a step back, one thing becomes clear to the observer: there is no legally binding international document on environmental rights.

The contrast with other human rights is striking. Numerous international conventions protect specific human rights: the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Above all, in 1966, two international treaties gave legal force to the human rights recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration, distinguishing between two broad categories: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. However, third-generation rights, or environmental rights, are not yet covered by such a Covenant. John H. Knox, former Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment, noted that “Were the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be drafted today, it is hard to imagine that it would fail to include the right to a healthy environment, a right so essential to human well-being and so widely recognized in national constitutions, legislation and regional agreements” ¹⁴ .

The parallel with French law is interesting: after the Declaration of 1789, which primarily addresses civil and political rights, and then the Preamble of 1946 for economic and social rights, the Environmental Charter of 2004 established a new category of rights, environmental rights. There is nothing comparable on the international level.

Granted, there are major declarations, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and the 1992 Rio Declaration. Admittedly, these texts have had a significant influence as sources of inspiration. The principles they establish have shaped international agreements and national laws. However, these soft law instruments have no legal weight on their own and therefore cannot be used in court.

Just as the 1966 Covenants legally reinforced the rights established in the 1948 Declaration, it is now time to adopt a third Covenant to formally enshrine the principles derived from these major environmental declarations into binding law.

B – The need for a foundation of shared core values

Adopting a major global text on environmental rights would signify a return to international environmental law rooted in fundamental values, as affirmed in 1972. Currently, this legal field appears to have lost its broad vision and concentrates only on technical rules. Values must serve as the foundation of international environmental law; without them, it is doomed to instability and to facing enforcement challenges.

Every society needs shared values. This is clear in the foundational texts, from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These values are not merely symbolic. They are the glue that unites societies, the compass that points the way forward, and encourages us to transcend national and individual self-interest.

President Barack Obama’s words resonate here: “[S]ometimes we think people are motivated only by money, or they’re only motivated by power, or these very concrete incentives. But people are also inspired by stories… You think about the United States of America.  We have a really good story called the Declaration of Independence.  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…’  That’s a wonderful story… [W]hen the Declaration was made, there really was not United States.  It was just a good story that they were telling about what could be. And then people were attracted to that story. And it led to independence…  It inspired movements around the world. So, yes, the stories we tell each other are very, very important.” ¹⁵

Without a set of general principles to refer to when the temptation to disregard international commitments increases, international environmental law is destined for instability and stays vulnerable to some actors taking a free rider approach.

Therefore, it is essential to revisit the fundamental principles that unite all nations in environmental protection. In this context, such a Pact could serve a role similar to that of a constitution. In a legal system, the Constitution is a document that stands the test of time, a repository of fundamental norms that we aim to safeguard from the shifting tides of political majorities. It also serves as a yardstick against which laws and regulations enacted by parliaments and governments—inherently temporary—can be evaluated. Likewise, in an aspirational sense, a comprehensive global text that consolidates environmental values could be considered a form of global constitution for environmental protection.

C – The possible content of a Global Pact on Environmental Rights

Such a Pact could enshrine fundamental environmental rights and responsibilities and, more broadly, the core principles that would underpin government action on environmental issues. Its content can be interpreted in different ways, but its broad outlines are easy to imagine.

Some of these principles are already included in non-binding texts that have been adopted, notably the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the Rio Declaration of 1992, as well as the General Assembly resolution of July 2022 on the right to a healthy environment. Other, more recent principles should also be incorporated to update these major declarations.

The draft Global Pact for the Environment, drawn up in 2017 by an international network of hundreds of lawyers, offers one example among many of the principles that could be included in such a text ¹⁶ . It naturally encompasses the right to a healthy environment and its counterpart, the duty to protect the environment, which are the two cardinal values and the foundation for all others, already implicit in Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration. It would also affirm intergenerational equity, which involves the obligation to consider the rights of future generations, the principle of integrating environmental requirements into all public policies, and the three related principles of prevention, precaution, and remediation of environmental damage. These include the polluter pays principle, the three major procedural rights of public access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making, and access to environmental justice, as well as newer principles such as the requirement for resilience and the principle of non-regression.

Most of these principles are already recognized in many countries through national legislation and regional agreements. A document formalizing them at the international level should therefore, in theory, be able to gain widespread support.

D – The legal effects of a Global Pact on Environmental Rights

The failure of negotiations in 2019 regarding the draft Global Pact for the Environment revealed that the benefits of its adoption were not always recognized, even by some countries that advocate for environmental protection, which sometimes questioned its actual impact. It is therefore important to recall the legal effects of such a document.

First, adopting a Pact would strengthen and safeguard the core principles of environmental law.

Admittedly, these rights have already been affirmed in declarations; however, their recognition in a binding treaty would lend them greater legal force. Such a shift from soft law to hard law has an illustrious precedent in the incorporation of the content of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the 1966 international human rights covenants.

Granted, these principles are already embedded in the national legislation of many states. However, on the one hand, some countries have not yet recognized all of these principles. On the other, and more importantly, enshrining principles that are recognized nationally into international law has the immense legal benefit of sanctifying them and protecting them from political shifts. Of course, following such a shift, a state can always choose to withdraw from an international agreement, as seen twice with the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Nonetheless, this path is more complex in terms of international public opinion. Each state is thus subject to the scrutiny of global citizens.

Second, adopting such a Pact would generate positive momentum in both domestic and international legal systems.

National legislators could find a job description there, as they would be responsible for passing laws to implement the principles of the Pact. For example, the principles of public information and participation, after being included in the Aarhus Convention, have gradually been turned into laws within the member states of that convention.

Furthermore, adopting such a Pact would have an impact on national judges. Even in countries with a dualist tradition, the principles could, at the very least, serve as a source of inspiration for domestic courts, which could consider interpretations given by courts of other member states. In countries with a monist approach, like France, the Pact could even be directly invoked before domestic courts, as such a treaty would clearly satisfy the criteria established by case law regarding the direct effect of international conventions ¹⁷ .

In this way, national judges would thoroughly fulfill their role as “guardians of the promises” made by states ¹⁸ , ensuring they adhere to their international environmental commitments. In line with this, in the case of Urgenda v. Netherlands ¹⁹ , the Supreme Court of the Netherlands determined that the Dutch government had violated the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the duty of care arising from Articles 2 and 8 relating to the rights to life and privacy, by not sufficiently reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Similarly, in the Grande-Synthe case ²⁰ , the French Council of State ruled that the French government failed to take the necessary measures to cut GHG emissions and thus violated domestic law as interpreted in light of the Paris Agreement.

Finally, at the international level, such a Pact would lay the groundwork for new developments, both legislative and jurisdictional.

On the one hand, as the cornerstone of international environmental law, the Pact would provide guidance for future sector-specific treaties. As negotiations in specific sectors take place, new standard environmental policies will inevitably need to incorporate the shared objectives, values, and principles outlined in the Pact. Some treaties might even explicitly refer to the Pact, especially in the area of investment: the Pact would serve as the common standard adopted by all States in the realm of environmental human rights.

On the other hand, international courts could apply the Pact or draw inspiration from it to establish or develop customary environmental principles that even states not ratifying the Pact would have to follow. An example of this approach is provided by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice from July 23, 2025, which affirms the right to a healthy environment even though this right is not explicitly recognized in any treaty ²¹ : it relies on a combination of soft law international instruments (such as the Stockholm and Rio declarations and the United Nations General Assembly resolution of July 28, 2022) as well as hard law (especially regional agreements) to conclude that “under international law, the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential to the enjoyment of other human rights.”

To take this further, one could imagine the creation of an International Environmental Court whose main mission would be to ensure that states comply with the principles of the Pact. Currently, monitoring the proper implementation of States’ environmental commitments is essentially entrusted to administrative monitoring committees, or “compliance committees,” established by each sectoral treaty, which have limited investigative and enforcement powers. The only sanctions that most of these committees can impose are constraints related to the international and diplomatic image of their counterparts, through a “name and shame” mechanism. The creation of an International Environmental Court would have the advantage of contributing to the effectiveness of the principles affirmed by the Pact. In line with the recognized rights and duties, its jurisdiction could be extended to major multilateral environmental agreements.

Conclusion: Is the Pact a realistic utopia?

Some might contend that the current period, marked by high tensions on the international stage, is not conducive to the adoption of such a text. This is probably true. However, this should not be an obstacle to reflection. Sooner or later, we will have no choice but to overhaul our international institutions. The current system, established in 1945, is no longer suited to the demands of our time. Admittedly, it is difficult to know when that moment will come: history teaches us that, unfortunately, human societies need catastrophes, wars, or other revolutions to question themselves. But this uncertainty does not prevent us from preparing the path.

In this respect, the current period of intellectual ferment in the face of global change is reminiscent of the Age of Enlightenment. In the 18th century, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, and others were not concerned with when their ideas would ultimately triumph. They forged concepts—separation of powers, social contract, direct democracy—that would later inspire the drafters of fundamental texts such as the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.

When the time comes, the overhaul of global governance will probably involve the international endorsement of key principles, particularly in the area of environmental protection. The only question that will then arise is why these principles were not enshrined earlier in a major, foundational text. In this sense, the draft Pact may be a utopia, but it is, to quote Mireille Delmas Marty, a “realistic utopia” ²² .

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022); Maria-Antonia Tigre, The Evolution of International Environmental Law amidst Political Gridlock: Environmental Rights as a Common Ground (SJD thesis, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University 2022).
2. A commission that the author has the honor of chairing. See Environment Committee of Le Club des Juristes, Increasing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Law (2015) https://think-tank.leclubdesjuristes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CDJ_Report_Increasing-the-effectiveness_Nov.2015_UK.pdf.
3. For more information and documentation on the Global Pact for the Environment project, see the Pact’s website: https://globalpactenvironment.org. See also the website of the Green Rights Coalition, an NGO accredited by UNEP, which aims to promote this initiative: https://www.greenrightscoalition.org.
4. United Nations General Assembly, Towards a Global Pact for the Environment UN Doc A/72/51 (7 May 2018).
5. The resolution was adopted by 143 votes in favor, 5 against (United States, Russia, Syria, Turkey, and the Philippines), and 7 abstentions (Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Iran, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Tajikistan).
6. For a detailed account of the history of the Pact project, see Y Aguila, ‘Le projet de Pacte mondial pour l’environnement : un témoignage en quatre saisons’ in M Prieur, E Gaillard and MA Mekouar (eds), Immersion dans les coulisses de la diplomatie environnementale internationale (Mare & Martin 2023).
7. See in particular, Y Aguila and JE Viñuales (eds), A Global Pact for the Environment: Legal Foundations (C-EENRG 2019). For other doctrinal references, see the aforementioned Pact website, under the ‘documents’ section.
8. S Maljean-Dubois, ‘Les forces et les faiblesses du droit international face aux défis planétaires : quelles nécessaires évolutions ?’ in L Boisson de Chazournes (ed), L’effectivité du droit international face à l’urgence écologique (Collège de France 2024).
9. UN Secretary-General, Gaps in International Environmental Law and Environment-Related Instruments: Towards a Global Pact for the Environment UN Doc A/73/419 (December 2018).
10. ICJ, Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change (23 July 2025) General List No 187, §§234–236, 237–249, 309–315.
11. See, for example, Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011, when it failed to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments and was at risk of facing sanctions under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
12. For a reflection on these failures, see Y Aguila and M-C de Bellis, ‘A Martian at the United Nations or Naive Thoughts on Global Environmental Governance’ (March 2021) 2 Revue européenne du droit 113.
13. See Y Aguila and M-C de Bellis, ‘L’intérêt public mondial : un concept pour fonder un système juridique mondial adapté à notre temps’ in Mélanges en l’honneur de Mireille Delmas-Marty (Mare & Martin 2022) 447; Y Aguila and M-C de Bellis, ‘On the Concept of a Global Public Interest: Some Reflections’ (2022) Environment Policy and Law.
14. UN Secretary-General, Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment UN Doc A/73/188 (19 July 2018).
15. Barack Obama, ‘Remarks at YSEALI Town Hall, Vietnam, 25 May 2016’.
16. The Pact drafted in 2017 is available at: https://globalpactenvironment.org/uploads/EN.pdf.
17. In accordance with the requirements of the GISTI ruling by the French Council of State of April 11, 2012, it is generally accepted that most provisions of a comprehensive treaty on environmental rights are not solely intended to regulate relations between states and also do not require any additional acts to have legal effect concerning individuals.
18. Y Aguila, ‘Petite typologie des actions climatiques contre l’État’ (2019) AJDA 1853.
19. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019).
20. Commune de Grande-Synthe (Conseil d’État, 1 July 2021) no 427301.
21. ICJ, Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect to Climate Change (23 July 2025) General List No 187, §§ 387–393.
22. M Delmas-Marty, Le travail à l’heure de la mondialisation (Bayard/Collège de France 2013) Annex II, ‘Une utopie réaliste : humaniser la mondialisation’.