CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

1. INTRODUCTION

The global increase in environmental problems has made the right to live in a healthy, balanced, and sustainable environment one of the fundamental human rights. Climate change, air and water pollution, depletion of natural resources, unplanned urbanization, and the decline of biodiversity have transformed environmental protection from a purely individual or local issue into a necessity for states to assume legal, administrative, and social responsibility.

The right to a healthy environment encompasses not only the right of individuals to live in a healthy environment, but also the right to participate in environmental decision-making processes, access environmental information, and pursue effective legal remedies against environmental damage. In this respect, the right to a healthy environment is a solidarity-based right that safeguards the living conditions not only of present generations but also of future generations.

Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey recognizes that everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. The same provision states that improving the environment, protecting environmental health, and preventing environmental pollution are duties imposed on both the state and citizens. Thus, the right to a healthy environment is not merely a right of defense demanding that the state refrain from intervention, but a positive status right requiring active measures to prevent environmental damage.

The constitutional guarantee of the right to a healthy environment requires the state to conduct its economic development, energy, mining, industry, urbanization, and infrastructure policies in a manner consistent with the principle of environmental protection. It is essential that the administration considers scientific data, assesses environmental risks in advance, and strikes a fair balance between public interest and environmental values ​​when granting permits for activities that may impact the environment.

However, the mere fact that the right to a healthy environment is enshrined in the Constitution is not sufficient. For this right to be effectively protected, environmental impact assessment, access to information, public participation, administrative and judicial oversight, and effective remedies must be guaranteed. The fact that environmental damage is often irreversible means that a preventive approach and the precautionary principle hold a significant place in environmental law.

This study will examine the constitutional nature of the right to a healthy environment, the state's positive and negative obligations regarding environmental protection, the right to participate in environmental decision-making processes, and the judicial protection of this right. Furthermore, the scope and effectiveness of the right to a healthy environment in practice will be evaluated in light of the approaches of the Constitutional Court and other judicial bodies.

2. THE CONCEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

2.1. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

The right to a healthy environment refers to the right of everyone to live in a healthy, balanced, and sustainable environment that is suitable for human health and dignity. This right encompasses the protection and enhancement of environmental values ​​such as air, water, soil, natural resources, ecological balance, and biodiversity.

The right to a healthy environment encompasses not only the protection of individuals from environmental damage, but also their right to access environmental information, participate in decision-making processes, and pursue administrative or judicial remedies against environmental violations. In this respect, the right to a healthy environment is a human right that has both individual and societal dimensions.

Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey states that everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment; improving the environment, protecting environmental health, and preventing environmental pollution are regulated as the common duties of the state and citizens. Thus, the right to a healthy environment imposes on the state not only the obligation to avoid harming the environment, but also the obligation to prevent environmental risks and take necessary protective measures.

The beneficiaries of the right to a healthy environment are not only those living today. The protection of natural resources and ecological balance for future generations is also within the scope of this right. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment is considered a right of solidarity closely linked to the principles of intergenerational justice and sustainable development.

3. LEGAL NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO A BLOOD ENVIRONMENT

The right to a healthy environment is a fundamental constitutional right that guarantees everyone the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. This right, regulated in Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, is located in the section on social and economic rights. The same article recognizes that improving the environment, protecting environmental health, and preventing environmental pollution are duties of both the state and citizens.

The right to a healthy environment is not merely the right to demand that the state refrain from interventions that would harm the environment. It is also a positive status right. The Constitutional Court's decisions also acknowledge that the right to a healthy environment is a positive status right and that the state has active obligations towards environmental protection.

The right to a healthy environment is a right with both individual and societal aspects. Environmental pollution can directly affect an individual's life, health, and material and spiritual well-being, as well as the entire society and the natural environment. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment is considered a collective right that can be enjoyed by all individuals and legal entities, not just specific persons.

This right is not limited to those living today. The protection of the environment and natural resources is also crucial for ensuring healthy living conditions for future generations. The Constitutional Court emphasizes the close relationship between the right to a healthy environment and the rights to life and health, as well as its relevance to future generations. In this respect, the right to a healthy environment is considered among the third-generation or solidarity rights, based on an understanding of intergenerational justice.

The legal nature of the right to a healthy environment is not limited to remediation after environmental damage has occurred. Because environmental damage is often irreversible, the principles of prevention, precaution, sustainability, and polluter responsibility are fundamental to protecting this right. The Environmental Law No. 2872 also recognizes the environment as the common heritage of all living beings and aims to protect it in accordance with the principles of sustainable environment and sustainable development.

In conclusion, the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental constitutional right with individual, collective, and intergenerational characteristics, imposing on the state both the obligation to refrain from intervention and the obligation to actively protect the environment. For this right to be effectively protected, environmental decisions must be based on scientific data, individuals must be able to participate in decision-making processes, and effective administrative and judicial remedies must be provided against environmental violations.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

The fundamental constitutional basis for the right to a healthy environment in Turkish law is Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. This article explicitly recognizes that everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment; improving the environment, protecting environmental health, and preventing environmental pollution are regulated as the common duties of the state and citizens. Thus, the right to a healthy environment is not only a right granted to individuals but also a constitutional value that creates responsibility for the state and society.

Article 56 of the Constitution imposes on the state not only the obligation to avoid directly harming the environment, but also the duty to take active measures to prevent environmental damage. In this context, the state must supervise activities that may have significant impacts on the environment, assess environmental risks based on scientific data, create necessary legislation, and implement effective administrative measures. The Constitutional Court also characterizes the right to a healthy environment as a positive status right and recognizes that this right belongs to all natural and legal persons.

The constitutional basis of the right to a healthy environment is not limited solely to Article 56. Article 5 of the Constitution stipulates the state's duty to remove obstacles that restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and to create the necessary conditions for the development of the material and spiritual well-being of human beings. The right to life and the right to protect one's material and spiritual existence, guaranteed in Article 17 of the Constitution, are also closely linked to the right to live in a healthy environment. When air, water, or soil pollution has serious consequences for human health and life, environmental problems can also be considered within the scope of the right to life and bodily integrity.

The right to property, as stipulated in Article 35 of the Constitution, is also related to the right to a healthy environment. Since the exercise of property rights cannot be contrary to the public interest, property owners' use of their real estate or businesses in a manner that harms the environment does not enjoy unlimited constitutional protection. However, any limitations imposed on property rights for the purpose of environmental protection must be based on law, serve the public interest, and comply with the principle of proportionality.

The Constitution also contains other provisions that directly protect environmental values. Article 43, which prioritizes public interest in the use of coastlines; Article 44, which regulates the protection of soil; Article 45, which aims to prevent the misuse of agricultural lands, meadows, and pastures; and Article 63, which provides for the protection of historical, cultural, and natural assets, complete the constitutional protection of the right to a healthy environment. These provisions require the protection of natural resources not only because of their economic value but also because they are the common property of society.

Article 125 of the Constitution is also important in terms of judicial review of environmental actions. The provision of judicial review against all actions and decisions of the administration ensures that zoning plans, permits, mining licenses, and environmental impact assessment decisions that may affect the environment can be reviewed before administrative courts. Because environmental damage is often irreversible, suspension of execution and precautionary judicial measures are of particular importance in effectively protecting the right to a healthy environment.

The Constitutional Court emphasizes the close relationship between the right to a healthy environment and the rights to life and health, and its importance not only for present generations but also for future generations. This approach demonstrates that environmental protection cannot be reduced to short-term economic benefits; public authorities must strike a fair and sustainable balance between development activities and environmental values.

In conclusion, the right to a healthy environment is guaranteed by constitutional provisions, primarily Article 56 of the Constitution, along with the right to life, the right to property, the protection of natural resources, and the judicial review of the administration. This constitutional system obligates the state not only to refrain from harming the environment but also to prevent environmental risks, protect natural values, and provide individuals with effective avenues for redress.

5. THE PLACE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The right to a healthy environment has developed as a result of the strengthening of the relationship between human rights and environmental protection in international law. While initially environmental problems were addressed primarily within the scope of interstate cooperation and the protection of natural resources, over time it has been accepted that living in a healthy environment is directly linked to human life, health, and dignity.

The first significant step in the international development of the right to a healthy environment was the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment. For the first time, the Stockholm Declaration addressed environmental problems as a fundamental issue on a global scale, establishing that humans must live in a quality environment that allows for a dignified and fulfilling life. While not a legally binding treaty, the Declaration is a fundamental document in the development of international environmental law.

The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development addressed the relationship between environmental protection and economic development within the framework of the principle of sustainable development. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration recognized access to information on environmental issues, participation in decision-making processes, and access to justice as fundamental elements of effective environmental protection.

One of the most important developments in the recognition of the right to a healthy environment as an international human right is the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 76/300 of July 28, 2022. This resolution recognizes the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right. While the resolution is not an international treaty and therefore does not create binding obligations for states, it constitutes a strong legal and political basis for the universal acceptance of the right to a healthy environment.

The right to a healthy environment is directly regulated in several regional human rights documents. Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights recognizes that all peoples have the right to live in an environment conducive to their development and generally satisfactory. Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol states that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment and that States Parties are obliged to ensure the protection, development and improvement of the environment.

The Aarhus Convention holds particular importance in terms of procedural guarantees for the right to a clean environment. The Convention provides for three fundamental guarantees: access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making processes, and access to justice in environmental matters. This approach demonstrates that the right to a clean environment is not merely the right to enjoy a clean environment; it also encompasses the effective participation of individuals in environmental governance processes.

Similarly, the Escazú Agreement, adopted in the Latin America and Caribbean region, is a regional human rights and environmental law document that guarantees the rights to access environmental information, public participation, and access to justice. The agreement also makes a significant contribution to the implementation of the right to a healthy environment through its provisions protecting environmental rights advocates.

The right to live in a healthy environment is not explicitly regulated as an independent right in the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the European Court of Human Rights examines disputes concerning severe environmental pollution and environmental hazards, particularly under Article 2, which regulates the right to life, and Article 8, which regulates the protection of private, family life and the home. The Court accepts that states may have an obligation to take preventive and protective measures when environmental risks seriously affect an individual's health, life or enjoyment of their home.

In international environmental law, principles such as prevention, precaution, polluter pays, sustainable development, intergenerational justice, and cooperation on environmental damage have developed in connection with the right to a healthy environment. These principles require states not only to remedy existing environmental damage but also to take necessary scientific, administrative, and legal measures before damage occurs.

In conclusion, the right to a healthy environment first developed in international law through declarations and principles, and was later strengthened by regional human rights conventions, international court decisions, and United Nations resolutions. Today, the right to live in a healthy, clean, and sustainable environment is recognized as a fundamental human right with individual and collective aspects, linked to life, health, privacy, and human dignity.

6. CONCLUSION

The right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right essential for the continuity of human life, the protection of health, and the provision of living conditions worthy of human dignity. Considering the environment not merely as a resource for meeting the economic and social needs of humans, but as a shared living space for all living beings, extends the scope of the right to a healthy environment beyond classical individual rights. In this respect, the right to a healthy environment is a multifaceted fundamental right with individual, societal, and intergenerational dimensions, imposing responsibilities not only on the state but also on individuals and private legal entities.

Article 56 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey explicitly recognizes that everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. The same article stipulates that improving the environment, protecting environmental health, and preventing environmental pollution are shared duties of both the state and citizens. Thus, the right to a healthy environment is not merely a right granting the authority to demand protection from environmental damage, but a constitutional value that creates a shared responsibility for the protection and improvement of the environment.

The constitutional protection of the right to a healthy environment is not limited solely to Article 56 of the Constitution. Article 5, which regulates the fundamental aims and duties of the state; Article 17, which protects the material and moral integrity of the individual; Article 35, concerning the right to property; Article 43, regulating the protection of coastlines; Articles 44 and 45, concerning the protection of land and agricultural areas; and Article 63, which provides for the protection of historical, cultural, and natural assets, also complement the constitutional protection of environmental values. Article 125, which keeps the judicial path open against all actions and procedures of the administration, ensures that the right to a healthy environment does not remain merely a theoretical right, but that administrative actions can be examined through judicial review.

The legal nature of the right to a healthy environment imposes both negative and positive obligations on the state. On the one hand, the state must refrain from actions and processes that directly harm the environment; on the other hand, it is obligated to prevent, monitor, and, if necessary, impose sanctions on environmental violations that may be committed by private individuals and businesses. In this context, energy, mining, industry, transportation, tourism, construction, and infrastructure activities that may have significant impacts on the environment must be evaluated in light of scientific data.

The state's positive obligation is not limited to paying compensation or rehabilitating polluted areas after environmental damage has occurred. Preventive protection forms the basis of environmental law because environmental damage often has long-term and irreversible consequences. Therefore, public authorities must identify environmental risks before damage occurs, take necessary precautions, and prohibit activities in cases of serious danger.

The principles of prevention and precaution are of particular importance in the protection of the right to a healthy environment. The prevention principle means taking necessary measures before environmental damage occurs. The precautionary principle, on the other hand, requires that protective measures be taken even before complete scientific certainty is reached, if there is serious scientific doubt that an activity may cause serious or irreversible damage to the environment. This approach shows that economic interests or short-term development goals cannot be the sole determining factors in environmental protection.

Balancing economic development with environmental protection is a fundamental issue in the implementation of the right to a healthy environment. Completely halting development activities is not a necessary consequence of the right to a healthy environment, nor does the justification of economic development legitimize the unlimited sacrifice of environmental values. Public authorities must strike a fair balance between economic, social, and environmental interests. This balance must be consistent with the concept of sustainable development; it must ensure that while meeting the needs of the present, the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is not compromised.

The aspect of the right to a healthy environment that concerns future generations distinguishes it from many other fundamental rights. The effects of environmental damage can affect not only individuals living today, but also those yet to be born. Deforestation, pollution of water resources, reduction of biodiversity, and the worsening of climate change can limit the ability of future generations to live in a healthy environment. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment forms the legal basis for an understanding of intergenerational justice.

Effective protection of the right to a healthy environment requires the participation of individuals in environmental decision-making processes. Ensuring that individuals and civil society organizations have access to timely and understandable information about environmental projects, can express their views, and participate effectively in the decision-making process is fundamental to environmental democracy. Public participation should not be limited to formal meetings or consultations; objections and suggestions raised must be genuinely considered by the administration.

Access to environmental information is an integral part of the right to a healthy environment. Individuals need to be informed about air, water, and soil quality in their area, environmentally risky activities, waste management, emission levels, and environmental impact assessment reports. The concealment of environmental information by public authorities or businesses weakens individuals' ability to protect their health and to pursue administrative and legal remedies.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is one of the most important administrative tools in the concretization of the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The purpose of the EIA process is to identify the consequences of projects that may have significant environmental impacts before activity begins and to take the necessary precautions. This process should not be seen merely as a formal permit procedure. EIA reports must be based on independent, scientific, up-to-date, and concrete data; and must evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project on the environment together.

Judicial review of environmental decisions is a fundamental guarantee of effective protection of rights. Zoning plans, permits, mining licenses, energy projects, and environmental impact assessment (EIA) decisions that may have negative consequences for the environment can be reviewed before administrative courts. The judicial review should not be limited solely to formal aspects of the process; it should also assess whether environmental impacts have been adequately investigated, whether scientific data has been considered, and whether a balanced approach has been taken between public interest and environmental values.

The irreversible nature of environmental damage increases the importance of injunctions. Even if an action that could harm the environment is annulled by a court ruling after its completion, this may not always eliminate the damage. Therefore, the injunction mechanism must be effectively implemented for actions that, if implemented, would cause irreparable or irreversible harm and are clearly deemed unlawful.

The right to a healthy environment is increasingly recognized in international law. The process, beginning with the Stockholm and Rio Declarations, has linked environmental protection to human rights and the concept of sustainable development. The United Nations General Assembly's recognition of the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right has strengthened the universal importance of the right to a healthy environment. Furthermore, the right to a healthy environment is directly regulated in some regional human rights documents; rights to access environmental information, public participation, and access to justice are internationally guaranteed.

Although the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a separate environmental right, environmental damage is assessed by the European Court of Human Rights in connection with the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to property, and the right to an effective remedy. States are expected to take necessary preventive and protective measures if severe environmental pollution or danger seriously affects people's lives, health, or ability to use their homes.

Protecting the right to a healthy environment is not solely the responsibility of public authorities. Article 56 of the Constitution also places a responsibility on citizens to protect the environment. Individuals must refrain from polluting the environment, use natural resources judiciously, and comply with environmental regulations. Companies, too, must act not only with the aim of making a profit but also by considering their environmental and social responsibilities while conducting their economic activities. Businesses operating in sectors with high environmental risks, in particular, must take necessary technical measures, monitor environmental impacts, and remedy any damage that occurs.

The polluter pays principle is one of the fundamental criteria in determining environmental responsibility. Individuals or businesses that cause environmental damage must bear the costs necessary to prevent, limit, and remedy that damage. This principle aims to prevent the burden of environmental costs from falling on the entire society and to ensure that the true economic cost of harmful activities is borne by those who carry out the activity.

However, there are some difficulties in effectively protecting the right to a healthy environment in practice. The prioritization of economic expectations in environmental decision-making processes, inadequate oversight mechanisms, lengthy expert examinations, the conclusion of trials only after environmental damage has occurred, and problems in enforcing decisions can all reduce the effectiveness of constitutional protection. For the right to a healthy environment to be truly protected, the mere existence of constitutional and legal regulations is not sufficient; these regulations must be implemented effectively, timely, and in accordance with scientific principles.

Climate change further increases the scope and importance of the right to a healthy environment. Extreme weather events, droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, and risks to food security highlight the transnational and global nature of environmental problems. Therefore, states should consider developing policies to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects as part of their constitutional and international obligations stemming from the right to a healthy environment.

In conclusion, the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental constitutional right directly linked to the right to life and the protection of human dignity, safeguarding the common interests of present and future generations. To effectively protect this right, the state must develop policies to prevent environmental damage, base its administrative actions on scientific data, ensure public participation in decision-making processes, and establish effective judicial avenues for redress.

Environmental protection is not the antithesis of economic and social development, but a necessary condition for sustainable and equitable development. Without a healthy and balanced environment, the right to life, the right to health, and the right to develop one's material and spiritual well-being cannot be fully exercised. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment should be considered not merely a matter of legal policy, but an indispensable element of the rule of law and a democratic society based on human rights.