A/HRC/31/52 complex causal relationships” linking emissions from a particular country to a specific effect, and noted that “global warming is often one of several contributing factors to climate change-related effects such as hurricanes”. In addition, it stated that the “adverse effects of global warming are often projections about future impacts, whereas human rights violations are normally established after the harm has occurred” (see A/HRC/10/61, para. 70). 36. These conclusions can be challenged.22 As scientific knowledge improves and the effects of climate change become larger and more immediate, tracing causal connections between particular contributions and resulting harms becomes less difficult.23 But whether or not climate change legally violates human rights norms is not the dispositive question. As OHCHR emphasized, even in the absence of such a finding, “human rights obligations provide important protection to the individuals whose rights are affected by climate change” (see A/HRC/10/61, para. 71). 37. Specifically, States have obligations to protect against the infringement of human rights by climate change. This conclusion follows from the nature of their obligations to protect against environmental harm generally. Human rights bodies have made clear that States should protect against foreseeable environmental impairment of human rights whether or not the environmental harm itself violates human rights law, and even whether or not the States directly cause the harm. An illustrative example is a case of the European Court of Human Rights arising from mudslides in the Caucasus that killed several inhabitants of the town of Tyrnauz.24 The Government did not cause the mudslide, but the Court held that it still had a responsibility to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. 38. Above all, the Court stated, Governments must adopt legal frameworks designed to effectively deter threats to the right to life from natural disasters as well as dangerous human activities. While each State has discretion to choose particular preventive measures and “an impossible or disproportionate burden must not be imposed on the authorities”, the discretion of the State is not unlimited. In reviewing whether a State has met its obligations, the Court indicated that relevant factors include the foreseeability of the threat, whether the State undertook appropriate investigations and studies, and whether it followed its own law. The authorities must respect the right to information, including by providing for a system of advance warnings. Finally, the Court stated that where lives have been lost in circumstances that may engage the responsibility of the State, the State must provide an adequate response to the disaster, to ensure that the legal framework designed to protect the right to life is properly implemented.25 39. The reasoning of the European Court in this respect is typical of the approach taken by other regional tribunals and human rights mechanisms. The duty to protect against harmful interference with the enjoyment of human rights is accepted as a pillar of human rights law, and many human rights bodies have applied that duty to such interference occurring as a result of environmental degradation (see A/HRC/25/53, paras. 47-61). 40. Apart from questions of causation and responsibility, the nature of climate change also requires us to consider how human rights norms apply to a global environmental threat. Most human rights bodies that have examined the application of human rights norms to 22 23 24 25 10 For an analysis of the OHCHR report, see John H. Knox, “Linking human rights and climate change at the United Nations”, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2009). UNEP report, p. 13, footnote 70. European Court of Human Rights, Budayeva and others v. Russia, application. No. 15339/02 (2008). Available from www.echr.coe.int. Ibid., para. 138.