Concludes its Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held the second part of its annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child, discussing how legal and policy frameworks could be strengthened to uphold children’s rights in the digital environment. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Mariana, human rights defender from Colombia, addressing the discussion at the outset, said during the morning session, the High Commissioner had talked about the importance of working on equal access to the Internet in a safe way, and about working together with the private sector. It was important to protect children from the risks contained in inappropriate content which could be seen on social media.
Nidhi, youth advocate, author and podcaster from India, said the discussion would have a deep impact on how children could access digital services. Ten recommendations had emerged from this morning’s panel, including the need to promote training to children on how to protect themselves; bringing awareness among children to teach them how to be safe online; that businesses were equally accountable; and that Governments and companies should consult children in making policies, among others.
Philip Jaffé, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva, said the panel this afternoon aimed to discuss how legal and policy frameworks could be strengthened to uphold children’s rights in the digital environment. States parties should ensure that, in all actions regarding the provision, regulation, design, management, and use of the digital environment, the best interests of every child were a primary consideration. States and all stakeholders, including the business sector, needed to cooperate to ensure that in the digital world the full range of children’s rights were fulfilled.
Baroness Beeban Kidron, Crossbench Peer in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and Chair of 5Rights Foundation, said the Convention on the Rights of the Child set out rights which were universal, inherent and inalienable. Until just a few years ago, it was not as self-evident as it should be that rights applied in the digital environment, or how they applied. The adoption of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s two years ago changed that, and was a game changer for children’s rights in today’s world, which was increasingly digital. States parties must have in place a comprehensive policy for children’s rights in the digital environment.
Konstantinos Karachalios, Managing Director of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association, said technological developments presented children with a trove of information, enabling them to become independent learners, boost their creativity, hone their problem-solving skills, and connect with the outside world in an unprecedented manner. However, technology was rarely neutral and a simple app could be equally dangerous as a loaded gun. It was imperative to make the digital world age appropriate. To achieve this purpose, governmental actors and regulators needed to join forces with technical organizations to construct frameworks with concrete guidelines for companies and industry alike.
Julie Inman Grant, eSafety Commissioner of Australia, said today the international community was on the cusp of what may be the next great digital revolution. The future held enormous potential, even as it carried significant risks; she was therefore pleased to say the global online safety movement was expanding. Two years ago, States, businesses and regulators were given a blueprint on how to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all children in the digital environment – thanks to the historic launch of general comment 25. eSafety had been exploring and mapping the online experiences of children and young people for more than seven years to ensure that it was providing authentic resources and advice, taking a holistic, harms-based and trauma-informed approach to protecting human rights.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers said, among other things, that the international community had a responsibility to help provide meaningful and equal access to safe digital technologies to children, in a way that helped them realise their human rights. Children were considered to be the largest proportion of users of digital technologies in the world. Even though the online network provided them the opportunity to express, fulfil, and be informed about their rights, higher engagement and self-presentation by children on various digital platforms also posed risks to children’s rights – from violating their privacy to online sexual exploitation and abuse in worst cases. The digital environment offered up new opportunities for children, but also opened up alarming possibilities for violations of their rights. The development and implementation of child online protection policies and legislation was lagging. States should employ a human rights-based approach premised on accountability by formulating legislative frameworks that were protective of children, amid the pervasive use of technology.
Speaking in the discussion were Estonia on behalf of a group of countries, Croatia on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Uruguay on behalf of a group of countries, Luxembourg on behalf of a group of countries, Monaco, South Sudan, Israel, Ecuador, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Switzerland, Bolivia, Spain Sierra Leone, Viet Nam, Namibia, Botswana, Benin, United States, Georgia, Costa Rica, Malawi and Venezuela.
Also speaking were Child Rights Connect on behalf of a group of non-governmental organizations, Plan International, Make Mothers Matter, International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, Beijing NGO Association for International Exchanges, and Asociacion HazteOir.org.
The Council then concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, which started in previous meetings and a summary can be found and .
David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, in concluding remarks, said the Council had vitally important work to do in continuing to produce strong resolutions on human rights in the environment, human rights defenders and climate change. It was time for the Council to up its game in terms of incorporating the right for a clean, healthy and safe environment into the Universal Periodic Review process. There was a multi-trillion dollar gap in financing for the Sustainable Development Goals. These would not be achieved unless new types of financing were accessed. Men needed to advocate for the power of women and girls as environmental leaders. The Council deserved credit for its role in recognising and addressing the impacts of the climate crisis, but much remained to be done.
In the discussion on human rights and the environment, speakers said gender-based discrimination was aggravated by the failure to deliver environmental justice. Sustainable development depended on the gender-transformative realisation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and speakers recognised in this context the importance of gender equality and gender-responsive action to address the issues of the planetary environmental crisis, as women made up almost half of the world’s agricultural workforce. The way forward was finalising and adopting the Global Pact for the Environment, with a robust gender equality component. In order to protect the rights of women and girls – both domestically and extraterritorially – States must rapidly phase out fossil fuel extraction, consumption, and trade as well as adopt moratoriums on licenses for expansions or new petrochemical facilities.
Speaking in the discussion were Ghana, Cambodia, UN Habitat, Germany, Belize, Bangladesh, Chad, and Tanzania.
Also speaking were the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Human Rights Institution of India, Centre for International Environmental Law, Earth Justice, Youth Parliament for SDGs, Make Mothers Matter, Plan International, Franciscans International, Edmund Rice International, PRATYEK, Friends World Committee for Consultation, and iuventum e.V.
Speaking in right of reply at the end of the meeting were Japan, Armenia, China, and Azerbaijan.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found . All meeting summaries can be found . Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-second regular session can be found
The next meeting of the Council will be on Monday, 13 March at 10 a.m., when it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief.
Second Part of the Annual Full-day Panel Meeting on the Rights of the Child on the Theme of Rights of the Child and the Digital Environment, Focusing on How Legal and Policy Frameworks Could Be Strengthened to Uphold Children’s Rights in the Digital Environment
Remarks by Child Human Rights Defender and Youth Advocate
MARIANA, human rights defender from Colombia, said this morning the High Commissioner had talked about the importance of working on equal access to the Internet in safe way, and about working together with the private sector. It was important to ensure access to technology in schools in order to overcome the inequalities which existed, and to ensure the empowerment of children online. It was important to protect children from the risks contained in inappropriate content which could be seen on social media. Shared experiences had also been discussed.
NIDHI, youth advocate, author and podcaster from India, said the discussion would have a deep impact on how children could access digital services. Ten recommendations had emerged from this morning’s panel: the importance of making terms and conditions child friendly; prevention was better than cure and the Internet should be designed better; the need to promote training for children on how to protect themselves; more involvement in digital education; Governments should focus more on rural areas and girls; bringing awareness among children to teach them how to be safe online and distinguish what was good and bad on the Internet; recognising the diversity in children; businesses were equally accountable and must ensure that data was used responsibly; algorithms should also be used responsibly; and Governments and companies should consult children in making policies.
Opening Statements
PHILIP JAFFÉ, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva, said today he was fast approaching a ceiling when it came to technologies, including virtual reality, big data, neuromarketing, and algorithms. He asserted that his fellow Committee members were the same as they had plodded ahead to produce on children’s rights in the digital environment. Fortunately, the Committee could count on exceptional external experts to guide them, including the 5Rights Foundation represented by Beeban Kidron. The panel this afternoon aimed to discuss how legal and policy frameworks could be strengthened to uphold children’s rights in the digital environment. States and stakeholders should implement the recommendations contained in general comment 25. States parties should ensure that, in all actions regarding the provision, regulation, design, management, and use of the digital environment, the best interests of every child were a primary consideration.
Children were uniquely positioned to understand how the digital world empowered them and put them at risk. If they listened to children’s views and opinions, they would all feel more effective in the efforts they must put into protecting children and they would know how to make the digital world more inclusive. As all societies were absorbed more and more into the digital age, children were leading the change and should be consulted with. States and all stakeholders, including the business sector, needed to cooperate to ensure that in the digital world the full range of children’s rights were fulfilled. Children often cited cyberbullying and offensive sexual or violent imagery as dark sides of the Internet. His final question was very provocative: why strengthen the online legal and policy frameworks if offline legal frameworks were unable to stem the tide of violence, abuse, and exploitation of children in their everyday environments?
BARONESS BEEBAN KIDRON, Crossbench Peer in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and Chair of 5Rights Foundation, said the Convention on the Rights of the Child set out rights which were universal, inherent and inalienable. Until just a few years ago, it was not as self-evident as it should be that those rights applied in the digital environment, or how they applied. The adoption of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s general comment No. 25 two years ago changed that, and was a game changer for children’s rights in today’s world, which was increasingly digital. The international community continued to pursue the aim of building the digital world that children deserved, with the general comment as the shared roadmap; however, there was still a long way to go. The most important change over the last few years had been as regards language and the narrative. Now, it was common to hear leaders and lawmakers assert that what was illegal offline should be illegal online, and that rights applied equally online as offline. Education and parental controls had their place, but first and foremost, States and tech companies had the responsibility to uphold children’s rights.
The practical experience of children in the digital environment remained woefully disrespectful of their rights. Today, children’s experience was marred by discrimination, violence, and exploitation. The impact on their safety, their health, and their well-being was enormous. States parties must have in place a comprehensive policy for children’s rights in the digital environment. This meant undertaking a thorough review of national policy frameworks, filling in the gaps and setting up the structures for a sustainable approach henceforth. Building the digital world that children deserved was not a question of technological developments, or of resources, but first and foremost of political will.
KONSTANTINOS KARACHALIOS, Managing Director of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association, cited the story of “Frankenstein,” about a young scientist who was so horrified by the monstrous appearance of the creature he had brought to life that he abandoned him with catastrophic consequences. It was no wonder that the world was plagued by the same fears and anxieties about technology today. The world had experienced time and again just how powerful, creative and enabling technology could be in everyone’s lives, especially for children and youth. Technological developments presented children with a trove of information, enabling them to become independent learners, boost their creativity, hone their problem-solving skills, and connect with the outside world in an unprecedented manner. However, technology was rarely neutral and a simple app could be equally dangerous as a loaded gun. The immediacy of technological interactions had normalised instant gratification, the constant stimulation eventually structurally rewired the brain and created a psychological dependence which was similar to cocaine addiction.
Childhood became public record as children’s privacy was continuously compromised through the collection of their data points. The loss of human connection through face-to-face communication was creating a future where emotional intimacy became a rarity and emotional intelligence was stunted. Children’s perceived reality was twisted into carefully curated content, culminating in their developing severe self-esteem issues, social anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. It was imperative to make the digital world age appropriate. To achieve this purpose, governmental actors and regulators needed to join forces with technical organizations to construct frameworks with concrete guidelines for companies and industry alike. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association had made good on this promise and proved that the online world could be redesigned on principles. What was being proposed was a proactive stance which promoted the design of services which were age-appropriate by default. He asked how would the world make a steadfast commitment to youth digital rights and follow through, not just today but continuously? Or would the world, like Frankenstein, abandon its creation to run amok, playing hide-and-seek to escape the consequences of actions, hoping to outrun the destruction unleashed?
JULIE INMAN GRANT, eSafety Commissioner of Australia, said today the international community was on the cusp of what may be the next great digital revolution. The future held enormous potential, even as it carried significant risks; she was therefore pleased to say the global online safety movement was expanding. Two years ago, States, businesses and regulators were given a blueprint on how to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all children in the digital environment – thanks to the historic launch of general comment 25. The Internet was not developed with children in mind. Yet one in three of the world’s Internet users were children. It was therefore the job of the international community to ask difficult questions of ourselves, of industry, and of each other. As the world’s first dedicated online safety regulator, eSafety had been exploring and mapping the online experiences of children and young people for more than seven years to ensure that it was providing authentic resources and advice.
eSafety took a holistic, harms-based and trauma-informed approach to protecting human rights. In fact, the Australian Online Safety Act required that eSafety was guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the performance of its functions. Its approach was multi-pronged and was based on a model called the 3Ps. The first P, of course, was prevention: through extensive research, education, and awareness raising programmes, it strove to prevent online harms from happening in the first place. The second P was protection: eSafety operated world-first regulatory schemes to protect Australians from online harm, including child cyberbullying and image-based abuse. Finally, the third P was proactive and systemic change: the technology industry itself, with all its collective brilliance, should join with other stakeholders in building a safer online environment.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, speakers said, among other things, that children and young people should be protected and empowered online. This required applying a child’s rights approach to the development and implementation of legal and policy frameworks on the digital environment. The international community had a responsibility to help provide meaningful and equal access to safe digital technologies to children, in a way that helped them realise their human rights. Children were considered to be the largest proportion of users of digital technologies in the world. Even though the online network provided them the opportunity to express, fulfil, and be informed about their rights, higher engagement and self-presentation by children on various digital platforms also posed risks to children’s rights – from violating their privacy to online sexual exploitation and abuse in worst cases.
Some speakers said the digital environment offered up new opportunities for children, but also opened up alarming possibilities for violations of their rights. Such violations that disproportionately affected children appeared to be on the rise: it was therefore extremely important to continue taking concrete steps to guarantee children’s privacy and confidentiality to better protect children from any harm in the digital space, which in the long run contributed to ensuring a healthy and safe childhood for them. In order to achieve this, it was crucial to evaluate, update and put in place wide-ranging measures and best practices, with children’s rights at the core and the best interests of every child as a primary consideration.
Digital environments offered as many opportunities as challenges, and the most appropriate public policies must be drafted to allow children to benefit from this in the best way possible. Implementing key elements from the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s general comment no. 25 was crucial in this regard, as well as in many others. The best interests of the child should be a priority in everything that related to the design and use of the digital environment. Products must be offered in the digital environment that took this into account, to protect their dignity and integrity, and offer capacities that could enhance their lives and development. International cooperation was vital in managing these challenges. Children had a right to be protected from all forms of digital harm and be adequately supported.
Among the questions asked the panel were: what means should be prioritised to strengthen children’s protection and empowerment in the digital environment? What could States do in particular to guarantee the online rights of children with disabilities? What specific measures could be implemented by States to sensitise children to their rights and challenges in the digital sphere?
Intermediate Remarks
PHILIP JAFFÉ, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva, said he had not expected to discover Frankenstein was still loose under a more technological image. But all hope was not over. When children’s rights were violated, the barriers needed to be reduced for children to come forward and make complaints. Often children were forced to disclose sensitive information and feared a reprisal from peers and exclusion. It was important that compliant mechanisms be developed that were free of charge, private, and child friendly. There also need to be trained professionals who would listen to children and provide appropriate support. Appropriate reparations, including financial compensation, also needed to be introduced, and apologies from corporations needed to take place.
BARONESS BEEBAN KIDRON, Crossbench Peer in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and Chair of 5Rights Foundation, said for the last 10 years, 5Rights had held workshops with children and had understood something profound. In one of those sessions, young people said they did not understand why there were not subtitles on the screen for those who needed them. This should underly how laws were formed. Privacy was one huge route to safety, and it was recommended that everyone worked towards a unified national standard of age-appropriate privacy. The importance of rights in legislation could not be overlooked. It was on the text of the act that they needed to create their service with child rights in mind. It was important to use the tools which had already been built, to create a solution.
KONSTANTINOS KARACHALIOS, Managing Director of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association, said there were three categories of problems. The first was technical: connected and unconnected. Secondly, it was an issue of safety: the world would never be safe, billions and trillions were poured into it, and it did not change. The third was addiction, which was very low on the radar, despite being a pandemic that was immeasurable in human history. He then read a press release from the year 2020, announcing a global resolution on companies for deliberately causing a global pandemic of severe online addiction of billions of children worldwide, referring to the global opiate addiction crisis, which was similar in nature.
PHILIP JAFFÉ, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva, said further work needed to be done with the producers of online products to nudge them more forcefully to conduct child-rights impact assessments, going through the research actions to determine what impacts were positive and negative on children. These processes should be transparent and shared with the public, and should lead to consumer awareness. It should be inbuilt into commercial practices.
Discussion
In the continuing discussion, speakers raised, among other points, that requisite actions should be undertaken to facilitate the development of technological products aimed to improve life conditions. Roadmaps needed to be developed to involve all stakeholders, aiming to create safer environments and providing multi-disciplinary services. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were closed across the world: nine out of ten countries around the world used online services to continue children’s education. The digital technology development had created unprecedented opportunities for children and young people, but had also posed a number of challenges and risks to their safety and development. These perplexing challenges and threats persisted due to the borderless nature of the online environment.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Telecommunications Union reported that Internet use amongst young people was on the increase and that one in three children had access to the Internet at home. The digital environment could be an enriching and conducive environment for children provided the right safeguards were in place for the protection of children from online exploitation and abuse. However, the development and implementation of child online protection policies and legislation was lagging. The International Telecommunications Union reported that only 29 per cent of countries had a child online protection strategy or action plan in place, and that greater coordination, monitoring, and evaluation was required in those few countries as implementation remained worryingly modest.
Some speakers noted that while digital technologies provided the basis for accelerated human development, if not properly regulated, children could be exposed to harm due to their vulnerability in society. This could be through tracking, online harassment, cyber bullying, intrusion of private space, and exposure to harmful content such as pornography. States should employ a human rights-based approach premised on accountability by formulating legislative frameworks that were protective of children, amid the pervasive use of technology. A safe and empowering digital environment was a shared responsibility of everyone, from policy makers, industry, parents, carers, to educators, and other stakeholders. General comment 25 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child therefore rightly stated that opportunities for the realisation of children’s rights and their protection in the digital environment required a broad range of legislative, administrative and other measures, including precautionary ones.
Speakers asked the panellists how the digital industry could better play its part in keeping children safe and helping them thrive online; what concrete recommendations could States consider in enhancing cooperation towards bridging the digital divide and consequently improving child online protection; how to better maintain the protection of children’s rights within the context of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and what national legislation could be adopted to protect children from the dangers of the online world?
Concluding Remarks
PHILIP JAFFÉ, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva, thanked all representatives for the commitment they had vested in children’s rights. The support for this sphere was extremely important. Mr. Jaffé thanked the Council for dedicating an entire day to children’s rights and for the actual presence of children in the room. He thanked the children who were present. The Internet and technologies had a dark side. The digital world was one where children were demonstrating incredible creativity, new ideas and ways of problem solving, which needed to be harnessed.
BARONESS BEEBAN KIDRON, Crossbench Peer in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and Chair of 5Rights Foundation, said not all harms to children were in the digital environment. She thanked the leadership of President Biden who had called for comprehensive privacy for children in his state of the union speech. Emerging technology was immersive in nature. People were urged to take the best of what was out there and implement it swiftly with one eye on the future. Baroness Kidron said that she, like other women, had a life her mother could not have. Girls were being pushed offline and it was not an even playing field. She hoped that the international community would act in the interest of girls to ensure they could become the women that others had been allowed to be.
KONSTANTINOS KARACHALIOS, Managing Director of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association, said he represented a technological organization with a huge impact on humanity, connecting humanity. It also created algorithmic technologies that underpinned life. There was a need to understand the social impact of these technologies. Technical and scientific communities should assume their responsibilities. His presence was a sounding of an alarm bell to that effect. It was a simple step to reduce the addiction epidemic: stop collecting children’s data online, and make this a law. This could be done within two years from now: the international community should do this, and stop the pandemic now.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment
The interactive dialogue with David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, started in previous meetings and a summary can be found and .
Discussion
Speakers commended the analytical efforts made in the report regarding the triple global crises, combined with systemic gender discrimination, patriarchal norms and inequality, which inflicted distinct and disproportionate harm on women and girls, and threatened and violated their human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Gender-based discrimination was aggravated by the failure to deliver environmental justice. Sustainable development depended on the gender-transformative realisation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and speakers recognised in this context the importance of gender equality and gender-responsive action to address the issues of the planetary environmental crisis, as women made up almost half of the world’s agricultural workforce. Women were agents of change, and should be empowered to participate in decision-making processes and implementation to influence their future and the future of their families, communities and countries.
Some speakers said the industrial revolution and the rapid development of the automobile sector had hastened the use of fossil fuel, which caused the addition of greenhouse gases, confronting the world with agricultural droughts, cyclones, extreme rainfall, flooding and water scarcity. Climatic change influenced poverty and migration, and endangered biodiversity. The world required global cooperation for clean vehicles, fuels and energy to protect the environment. Even though the planetary environmental crisis was affecting everyone and everywhere, its effect was not the same. Some States, especially the developing and least developed countries, were highly affected. The way forward was finalising and adopting the Global Pact for the Environment, with a robust gender equality component. International cooperation and knowledge must be shared to prevent and minimise the exposure of women and girls to hazardous chemicals.
Women must be involved in environmental plans and policies. It was a reality that women and girls were a powerful force for change, and it would not be possible to achieve lasting peace, nor save the global climate if half the population was unable to participate in these fights, on an equal footing, in which women and girls should be considered not as victims, but as essential partners and leaders in the transition towards a just and sustainable future, on the same basis as men. In order to protect the rights of women and girls – both domestically and extraterritorially – States must rapidly phase out fossil fuel extraction, consumption and trade, as well as adopt moratoriums on licenses for expansions or new petrochemical facilities.
Among questions raised were a request for best practices for States with limited resources to promote equal rights and opportunities for women in agriculture, including access to finance, and technology; what could the Special Rapporteur say on the right to a clean and healthy environment for women in urban areas; what concrete steps could States take to improve a gender-transformative implementation of environmental policies; and what were the key measures that States could take to simultaneously advance gender equality and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment?
Concluding Remarks
DAVID R. BOYD, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, said the Council had vitally important work to do in continuing to produce strong resolutions on human rights in the environment, human rights defenders, and climate change. It was time for the Council to up its game in terms of incorporating the right for a clean, healthy and safe environment into the Universal Periodic Review process. The recommendations in the report were focused on education, empowerment and the acceleration of climate and environmental action. There was substantial work being done in this area by other United nations bodies, which could be drawn upon. Money was a primary obstacle.
There was a multi-trillion dollar gap in financing for the Sustainable Development Goals. These would not be achieved unless new types of financing were accessed. The Bridge Town initiative was one of the most creative and intelligent climate financing proposals which had been received and would mobilise billions of dollars to tackle the issues faced by developing countries. This included notions such as creating a fund of loss and damages, such as through a small tax per person visiting the island, implied by the air travel industry. There was a rise in lawsuits being brought against sovereign States for not fulfilling their climate obligations. The total potential liability in terms of these investor State dispute mechanisms was in the hundreds of billions of dollars conservatively, and prevented States from taking the bold climate actions that were needed. Why were foreign investors rights prioritised over human rights? Men needed to advocate for the power of women and girls as environmental leaders. The Council deserved credit for its role in recognising and addressing the impacts of the climate crisis, but much remained to be done. In a world filled with climate injustices, non-discrimination needed to be put at the centre to address these challenges. Mr. Boyd urged the Council to replace him with a woman when his mandate was completed.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
