Law School hosts international conference on the New Age of Environmental Human Rights Law

Posted on by Jeremy Letwin

A man presenting and people sat at tables listening.

In September 2026, the Law School hosted a Conference on Theorising the New Age of Environmental Human Rights Law at Lancaster Castle. The conference was the inaugural event for the Law School’s new Human Rights and Global Vulnerabilities research cluster and was organised by Jeremy Letwin and James Summers. It was generously funded by the Society for Legal Scholars and the Iredell bequest. The conference brought together academics and practitioners working in environmental human rights law to examine how recent developments in the legal practice should be understood in theory. There were around 40 attendees from across the globe (coming from as far as Mexico). The keynote speech was delivered by Marc Willers KC.

Background to the New Age of Environmental Human Rights Law

The conference was based on the idea that 2020s are becoming a pivotal decade for ‘environmental human rights law’. Following the ‘rights-turn’ in environmental litigation during the 2010s, a wave of rights-based climate change cases has swept across the globe. Part of the purpose of the conference was to map and define the distinctive features of this ‘new age of environmental human rights law’. A number of features were discussed, including: the rapid escalation of the severity of the triple planetary crisis; the increase in the numbers of environmental human rights cases being brought before courts; the increased impact of such cases; the increased dialogue between different courts across the globe; and the involvement of key international tribunals (including the International Court of Justice, the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human Rights).

Following these developments in the legal practice, there has also been a rapid growth in theorising about the philosophical foundations of environmental human rights. Whereas the 2010s were the decade in which environmental human rights became more established in the courts, and where the emphasis of the scholarship was on opportunities for norm development, the 2020s are the decade in which their philosophical foundations are being shored up and their content refined and harmonised. This theorising has already begun to inform the arguments of practitioners, shape climate change advisory opinions, and be cited in judicial opinions. The conference accordingly examined how recent developments in the legal practice can be understood at the level of theory, and how this theory might in turn feed back into shaping the future practice — serving as a foundational reference point for future theorising about the ‘new age’.

The Conference

The conference began with a short introductory talk from Jeremy Letwin on the theory of environmental human rights, grounded in his recent work on the topic.

The event proper kicked off with a panel on the philosophical foundations of environmental human rights. Azadeh Chalabi (Liverpool) talked about her research on the right to environment, the needs, interests, and capabilities model, her multi-level approach to the right, and her book project on this topic. Stefan Theil (Cambridge) spoke about his groundbreaking book, Towards the Environmental Minimum.

After lunch, there was a panel on ‘Contested Right-holders’. Werner Scholtz (Southampton) spoke about the rights of nature and their (in)compatibility with the rights of wild animals. John Adenitire (QMUL) talked about his paper on the rights of future generations: arguing that, although many important obligations were owed to future generations, they do not have rights. Angel Gabriel Cabrera Silva (Mexican Supreme Court) argued for a Particular understanding of nature as a rights-holder, with a view to convincing courts that the rights of nature is a practical concept that is relatively easy to implement. Mario Gervasi (Bari) theorised the rights of nature in international law drawing out a number of different models apparent in the jurisprudence.

This was followed by a keynote from Marc Willers KC. Marc spoke about his experiences as lead counsel in a number of important climate change cases (including KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland and Finch v Surrey) and some environmental cases in which he is currently acting. He also spoke about the importance of dialogue between academics and practitioners, and how practitioners make use of simplified versions of academic arguments in court. Day 1 ended with a trip to Merchant’s Pub and then to the Sultan of Lancaster for dinner.

Day 2 began with a panel on environmental human rights in international law. Benoit Mayer (Reading) cast doubt on the received wisdom about the number of countries which truly recognise an enforceable right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Megan Donald (Danish Institute for Human Rights) unpacked the recognition of the right in the CESCR’s General Comment No 27. Guilherme Pratti (Sant’Anna) argued that international environmental law has undergone an ontological shift, from the managerial vocabulary of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration to the ‘semantics of apprehension’ of the Paris Agreement.

This was followed by a panel on institutional design. Evelyn Li Wang (Northumbria) and Erin Ferguson (Liverpool) both explored how Aileen Kavanagh’s model of collaborative constitutionalism applies to environmental human rights law. Debbie Kobani (Liverpool Hope) argued that courts are institutionally insufficient for securing environmental human rights. Lovleen Bhullar (Cambridge) examined the neglected category of environmental human duties.

The final panel turned to global and local case studies. Sam Adelman (Warwick) evaluated the growth of climate litigation led by children and young people. Giovanna Frisso (Lincoln) drew on mining in Indigenous territories in the Amazon to argue for a relational account of environmental human rights. Karen Morrow (Swansea) looked at the ancient Welsh law of Hywel Dda, an antecedent of pre-modern environmental law, and the lessons this might teach us for the modern day.

After lunch, the conference closed with a PGR roundtable on environmental justice, with Corina Heri (VUB), John Adenitire and Benoit Mayer acting as senior commentators. Five PhD students presented their work and were given feedback by the senior commentators. Ludovica D’Apote (Milan) argued that the apparent absence of substantive climate adaptation obligations reflects a problem of legal articulation. Morgiane Noel (Trinity College Dublin) argued that the right to life under Article 2 ECHR can offer meaningful protection against long-term climate risks. Gürkan Gür (Helsinki) explored the relationship between the rights of nature and animal rights. Karla Díaz Parra (Bonn) drew on fieldwork in the Amazon to show how the criminalisation of deforestation had turned environmental protection into a vehicle for penal violence against peasant and indigenous communities. Erika Moranduzzo (Leeds) argued that states have a positive obligation under the ECHR to develop a regulatory framework to protect climate refugees.

The organisers are grateful to the Society of Legal Scholars for funding the conference, and to Katie Neaves and Camilo Cornejo Martinez for their help in running it. A special issue edited collection drawing on the papers is planned.

Related Blogs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.

Back to blog listing