Inuit petition

Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seeking relief for violations

resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the US

About the Inuit

• Indigenous people in Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, Greenland (Denmark) and Chukotka in North Eastern Russia

• Approximately 160 000 Inuit• Common culture characterized by dependence on subsistence

harvesting (marine and terrestrial); now mix of cash-based and subsistence economies

• The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC): NGO representing the Inuit across all four countries, founded in 1977

• Petitioners: Inuit from the US and Canada

About the Inuit

• Indigenous people in Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, Greenland (Denmark) and Chukotka in North Eastern Russia

• Approximately 160 000 Inuit• Common culture characterized by dependence on subsistence

harvesting (marine and terrestrial); now mix of cash-based and subsistence economies

• The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC): NGO representing the Inuit across all four countries, founded in 1977

• Petitioners: Inuit from the US and Canada

Climate change in the Arctic• Substantial increase in ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet• Annual mean Arctic sea ice extent down by 3.5 to 4.1 % since

1979; summer sea ice down by 9.4 to 13.6 %• Northern Hemisphere early spring snow cover extent decreased

1.6 % per decade since 1967 • Permafrost temperatures up by 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska• “Very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century”, at

faster rate than elsewhere (the world´s health barometer)• IPCC projections:

– The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean– Arctic sea cover will continue to shrink; almost ice free Arctic Ocean in

September before mid-century?

Source: IPCC, 2013

Impact on Inuit• Communication and hunting made

difficult due to changes in ice and snow conditions (access and safety)

• Transfigured landscape (slumping, landslides, erosion); effects on homes and settlements

• Increase in storms due to loss of sea ice• Fish stock deterioration due to decreased water levels in rivers

and lakes• Health of marine species, risk of extinction (Arctic Climate

Impact Assessment, 2004)• Increased in sun and temperature related illnesses

Fears that subsistence culture may cease to exist altogether

Alleged HR violationsHRRight to the benefits of cultureRights to own means of subsistence

Hard to rely on year-round sustenance due to travel problems, lack of wildlife, quality of harvest.Subsistence culture damaged; may cease to exist

Right to traditional lands Large tracks of land are changing or becoming inaccessible

Right to personal and intellectual/ cultural property

Decreased quality of food; damages to/reduced value of personal effects; traditional knowledge has become unreliable/inaccurate

Right to health Right to life, physical protection and security

Pressure to change diet; more accidents; diminishing drinking water access and quality; risk of heat and sun-related illnesses

Rights to residence and movement Inuit homes and settlements destroyed (storms, permafrost melt, erosion, slumping, landslides); some forced relocation

Inter-American Human Rights System • Organization of American States (OAS) gathers 35 countries

of the Americas – including the US and Canada

• Respect for human rights is one of OAS’s basic principles

• Main human rights instruments are: – American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) – American Convention on Human Rights (1978) – US is not a party

• Two main HR bodies: the Commission and the Court

Inter-American Commission on HRMandate:

“to promote the observance and protection of human rights in the Americas” (art. 106 OAS Charter)

Functions:

1. monitoring of the human rights situation in the Member States (through visits for example);

2. priority thematic areas;

3. the individual petition system.

The Petition System WHO: individuals, groups or organizations FOR WHAT: alleged violations of the human rights contained in the

American Declaration, the American Convention, and other inter-American human rights treaties.

AGAINST: a State that may be responsible for violating human rights by:• action (as a result of an act by the State or its agents),• acquiescence (as a result of the tacit consent of the State or its

agents), or• omission (as a result of the State or its agents failing to take action

when they should have done so).

Result: a recommendation (non-binding) to the State OR send the case for further processing by the Court (when the State has accepted its contentious jurisdiction)

The Inuit Petition• When: filed in 2004

• Petitioners: ICC chair (Sheila Watt-Cloutier) on behalf of herself, 62 named individuals and all Inuit of the Arctic regions of the US and Canada

• Responding State: the US – not party to the Convention but yes member to the OAS, hence the rights and obligations of the Declaration apply and the Commission can exercise jurisdiction

• Violations alleged: rights contained in the Declaration with strong emphasis on the rights of the Inuit as indigenous peoples.

Legal outcomes of the Petition • The Commission did not consider the petition because “the

information it provided was insufficient for making a determination”

• Rejected an invitation from the ICC to come to the Artic to gather more information

• The Commission called for a hearing in 2007 in Washington to “address matters raised by the petition without revisiting the petition itself”

Legal IssuesExtraterritorial obligations: petitioners from various countries contribute to highlight the extraterritorial responsibility of the US (or any other country) for human rights violations

Prohibition of Transboundary harm: states are responsible for acts within their territory that cause harm to persons outside their territory or jurisdiction.

Attribution: can the alleged violations be attributed to an act or omission of the State? In 2004, the US was considered to be responsible for 25% of global emissions of GHG and had failed to reduce them.

Exhaustion of domestic remedies: petitioners claim there are no effective available remedies in the US and Canada

- principle of sovereign immunity: policy and regulation of GHG emissions is discretion of government and not subject to tort law ( US Clean Air Act does not provide an avenue for individual complaints)

- Lack of constitutional protection for the rights that the Inuit are claiming

Political outcomes of the Petition • Aim of petition to seek dialogue and raise public awareness• Awareness raising:

– Climate change can result in human rights violations– Indigenous people are especially affected– The situation in the Arctic

• Step towards bridging the gap between human rights and climate/environmental institutions

Links Petition: http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/files/uploads/icc-files/FINALPetitionICC.pdf

Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Earthjustice brief:http://www.ciel.org/Publications/COP10_Handout_EJCIEL.pdf

CIEL Inuit case website: http://www.ciel.org/Climate_Change/Climate_Inuit.html

2007 IACHR Hearing on Climate Change and Human Rights (video): http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/Hearings.aspx?Lang=en&Session=14