In this third and final module, we will explore how human rights can help advance the just dimension of green energy transition projects in the Global South that involve Chinese investments or finance.
A number of participants highlighted the importance of this issue during the 2024-2025 series of workshops that Dialogue Earth and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute organised in Chile, Thailand, Kenya and Sweden.
To navigate the issue, we will zoom in on the right to a healthy environment and then look at the case study of Las Bambas in Peru, one of the world’s largest mines for the critical mineral copper.
Green transitions promote welfare and wellbeing through a sustainable economic model while respecting ecological limits. Renewable energy is essential for this shift.
At COP28 in Dubai in 2023, over 130 governments committed to tripling global installed renewable energy capacity by 2030. China is a critical factor in this global transition. Unlike many other countries, China put in place a long-term plan in the early 2010s. During 2023, China installed as much solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity as the entire world did in 2022.
Recent policies have accelerated China’s green transition, contributing approximately 40% to GDP growth and signalling a shift from coal dependency to renewable sources. Green development is vital for achieving “high-quality development”, positioning it as a key driver of China’s economic future. (The Decoding China Dictionary)
Why does this right matter?
The right to a healthy environment was recognised by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2022 following decades of advocacy from various groups. The resolution is considered a landmark partly due to the extremely strong support of UN member states: 161 voted in favour, zero were against, and only eight abstained. In fact, it was built upon conversations that started in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which marked China’s entry into international environmental law and governance fora, as we learned in Module 2.
The right has been gaining a legal foothold for several years. It has no internationally agreed definition, yet its content and associated obligations have been progressively clarified by legislation, jurisprudence and doctrine. As of 2019, it was legally recognised in the national legal systems of at least 156 out of 193 UN member states.
The right to a healthy environment is generally understood to include six “substantive” and three “procedural” elements.
Regarding obligations for states, the right to a healthy environment includes three main types, as other human rights do. These are: respect, which entails not violating the right; protecting the right from violation by third parties, such as businesses; and fulfilling the right, such as by implementing measures to ensure that everyone, for example, enjoys healthy and sustainable food.
What is China’s position on the right to a healthy environment?
China was one of the eight countries that abstained from the 2022 UNGA resolution. In 2024, following the UNGA’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on states’ climate obligations, China submitted a written statement to the court. It emphasised the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as the primary source for defining these obligations, and stated human rights are only relevant when issues fall outside the scope of that convention.
For example, the right to development is the only human right mentioned in the submission, with no reference to the right to a healthy environment. For China, the right to development is framed as a right of developing countries and their people, rather than a right of individuals and collectives such as Indigenous peoples. This stands in contrast to the established definition of states and businesses as duty-bearers vis-a-vis individuals and collectives as right-holders. Moreover, China’s statement stresses that developed countries have greater legal obligations in regards to climate justice than developing ones.
Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986, the declaration on the right to development states it is “an inalienable human right” for all individuals and peoples to enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised.
Since its first human rights white paper in 1991, China has made the right to development central to its human rights policy. It argues that sovereignty and non-interference take precedence over universal human rights standards, and that economic development must come before human rights. Recently, China has intensified efforts to promote this right, investing in UN resolutions and mechanisms to assert that “development holds the master key to all human rights.” (The Decoding China Dictionary)
Nevertheless, even if China does not legally recognise the right to a healthy environment in its constitution or national legislation, the right does offer pathways to address the impact of Chinese investments. This is because Chinese state and non-state companies must abide by the legislations of the countries in which they operate, a point also emphasised in China’s overseas investments “guidelines” (which we learned about in Module 2).
In addition, Chinese overseas investments for the green energy transition don’t exist in a vacuum. Various other factors are at play. There is the geopolitical context, the roles of international organisations, host countries, civil society organisations, and communities and environmental human rights defenders. All these aspects are relevant to the realisation of the right to a healthy environment and shape the nature of such investments.
The Defend-biosphere Framework
The Defend-biosphere Framework (co-produced by one of this course’s authors in 2023) can help us better understand how to use the right to a healthy environment, and other human rights, to advance the just dimensions of green energy transitions. It allows us to examine the role of multiple actors operating at distinct geographical levels, as well as opportunities and challenges involved in the realisation of the right, including the role of environmental human rights defenders as agents of change.
The framework includes five levers that may help such defenders in their efforts to uphold the right to a healthy environment:
● Lever A: Incentives and mobilisation of capacities
● Lever B: Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions
● Lever C: Pre-emptive action
● Lever D: Adaptive decision-making
● Lever E: Create, reform and implement law
The framework also allows us to see how procedural elements of this right, such as access to information, are connected to substantive elements of it – such as a non-toxic environment. It also allows us to see how these elements may play out in a particular local or national case (see the Las Bambas case below). This is a first step to understanding how Chinese actors interact and impact in a particular context – rather than assuming a homogenous approach to distinct cases. This helps us to approach questions such as:
● What avenues exist for actors at different levels and jurisdictions to help realise the right to a healthy environment?
● How is it that the failure to ensure procedural rights leads to the violation of substantive rights?
International human rights law and the energy transition
It is also important to note that human rights place a duty on states and responsibilities on businesses to make the energy transition just. These obligations derive from major international human rights treaties. They serve as a yardstick for discussing the just dimension of projects involving Chinese overseas investments and finance, based on commitments that states have set for themselves.
Core international human rights treaties include the international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights (ICESR) and on civil and political rights (ICCPR). Both came into force in 1976. Several problems of the green energy transitions are directly or indirectly connected to substantive human rights recognised in the ICESCR, such as the right to health, or the right to food. Meanwhile, procedural rights, such as freedom of expression and opinion, and peaceful assembly and association (recognised by the ICCPR), are critical to understanding how to move towards just transitions. These legal instruments can be weaved together with other strategies to make transnational green transitions projects more just.
Today 173 countries have ratified the ICESR, including China. While 174 countries have ratified the ICCPR, China is a signatory but has not ratified it. However, as mentioned, human rights treaties to which host countries are parties are relevant regardless of whether China is party.
Case study: Las Bambas copper mine in Peru
Owned since 2014 by the Chinese conglomerate MMG, Las Bambas copper mine in Peru is one of the 10 largest copper mines in the world.
Copper is central to energy transitions. It is used in electrical products, including batteries and electric vehicles, and defined as a “critical” mineral by many countries and the International Energy Agency.
Las Bambas has been the subject of expansive scrutiny at the national and international level due to years of conflicts. The case reflects the complexity of projects involving critical minerals and transnational actors.
To understand the conflicts, it is important to identify both procedural and substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment. Below, we will highlight all three procedural elements (open information, public participation and access to justice) and two substantive ones (clean air, and healthy and sustainable food).
Procedural elements: What went missing?
Several reports exist on the lack of open information and public participation in Las Bambas. The first environmental impact assessment, conducted before the project’s approval in 2011, did in fact include consultations. However, later changes to the environmental impact assessment removed any mention of those consultations. Other edits included changing the means of mineral transportation, from underground pipes to road and railway – something that would negatively impact substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment.
Access to justice for communities has also been challenging, with concerns over the criminalisation of protesters. Community members in Cotabambas province were sentenced to eight to 10 years in prison over protests against Las Bambas in 2015. The sentences were only overturned in 2025.
Substantive elements: What was impacted?
Communities around Las Bambas reported lower agricultural yields, as well as an increase in respiratory diseases caused by the dust stirred by trucks associated with the mine. These issues relate to the sustainable food and clean and healthy air elements. The grievances were voiced by civil society organisations in a joint submission to China’s third Universal Periodic Review cycle in 2018.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a regular review process through which each country’s human rights record is examined by other states. It follows a structured cycle, with formal recommendations and follow-ups.
One of its strengths is the involvement of civil society, which can submit independent “shadow reports” to highlight issues the government may not address. However, UPR reviews are carried out by member states rather than independent experts, which risks political influence.
In 2023, the company that operates the mine, Las Bambas SA, filed a lawsuit that sought to annul water-use licences granted to two rural communities in Peru’s southern Apurímac region. This jeopardised people’s access to safe and sufficient water. The Peruvian court ruled in favour of the communities, safeguarding their rights and setting an important precedent in the defence of natural resources against extractive projects. Yet the court procedure took significant time and resources from communities for whom these are scarce.
Levers: What avenues exist to promote the right to a healthy environment?
With an appreciation of the procedural and substantive elements at play in Las Bambas, we can now turn to the relevant levers that could bring about change. The Defend Bio-sphere framework contains five levers. Here we will focus on three:
Lever B: Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions
The Las Bambas case has included various actors operating on different jurisdictional levels. Communities and civil society organisations have been vocal at the national level, but have also brought attention to the case within UN human rights mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).
The CESCR is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) by its state parties.
All parties must submit regular reports to the committee on how the covenant is being implemented. As with the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), civil society organisations can also submit “shadow reports” to the committee. The committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of “concluding observations”.
The recommendations resulting from these reviews do not usually address a specific case but can nevertheless be key advocacy tools. In China’s fourth UPR cycle in 2024, two recommendations, from Ecuador and Peru, call for China to ensure that Chinese companies operating overseas promote the enjoyment of human rights. Significantly, the recommendations come from countries that host large-scale mining projects with Chinese investment, and both recommendations were accepted by China.
Recommendations on extraterritorial obligations of Chinese overseas projects also appear in the concluding observations on the third periodic report of China by the CESCR, in 2023. Concluding observations are meant to provide authoritative guidance on how to interpret the international conventions. So, it is a key opportunity for civil society organisations to influence the process. An example of how this can be done is the Chinese-financed coal-fired power plant in Boké, Guinea.
Relevant recommendations were also made by CESCR in its concluding observations for the fifth periodic report of Peru. These relate to the need to review and adjust the environmental regulatory framework, including by ensuring public participation. They also relate to the need to ensure that natural resource investments comply with the ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and are monitored by transparent and independent mechanisms.
Public participation refers to a variety of procedures and approaches that involve stakeholders and communities affected by, for example, public infrastructure and aid projects. It aims to give citizens a direct voice, ensure local ownership and serve stakeholder needs, and is often a required component of such projects.
The 1998 Aarhus Convention was formulated to ensure access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.
The principle of public participation was introduced in China in the early 2000s, in response to years of increasing environmental degradation and large-scale citizen protests. Civil society participation in environmental and other matters has become increasingly restricted in China since the early 2010s however, and participation is largely achieved through the government’s top-down consultation of citizens. (The Decoding China Dictionary)
Lever C: Pre-emptive action
Las Bambas demonstrates that consultations should not be one-off exercises. A lack of consultation hinders pre-emptive action, to which communities are essential. This is because traditional and local knowledge are key for preventing the (often irreversible) damage of some projects to nature’s benefits to people, particularly to those people more directly dependent on ecosystems.
Lever E: Create, reform and implement laws for right to healthy environment outcomes
The recommendations made to both China and Peru in both the UPR and CESCR point to the key role for legislation that protects nature and human wellbeing. The second step, however, is equally important: to implement and enforce such legislation. For cases like Las Bambas, it is important to draw on legislation in the host country, international treaties ratified by China and the host country, as well as policy statements and any precedent-setting case, either in China or in the host country. A few examples are:
● China’s guidelines for foreign investment cooperation and construction projects, discussed in Module 2. Although not legally binding, they can shed light on the avenues for dialogue that meaningfully engages Chinese stakeholders.
● The landmark ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on La Oroya in March 2024, which concluded that Peru failed to prevent the pollution of air, water and soil, thereby violating the right to a healthy environment.
● Cases of environmental rights abuses and scandals in China, some of which were mentioned in Module 2.
Summary
The right to a healthy environment offers an important lens onto and tool for creating just green transitions. The Defend-biosphere Framework, applied to Las Bambas, reveals the importance of multi-actor and multi-level approaches that take the justice and green dimensions of energy transitions seriously. It offers transferable insights for other contexts.
Understanding Chinese companies and investors (or any other transnational actors) requires attention to how their strategies vary depending on national and regional legal systems and power dynamics. The Las Bambas case in Peru illustrates the importance of considering both “law in books” and “law in action”. While some countries legally recognise the right to a healthy environment, others do not. Civic space and environmental rule of law also vary, with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation more frequent in some contexts.
Utilising this knowledge and the tools presented in this module can help us approach China’s engagement in the Global South in ways that deliver better outcomes for people and nature.
Questions
● What do you understand by “justice” in green transitions?
● How can laws help or hinder just green transitions?
● How can litigation and UN review mechanisms be used together with other strategies to advance the realisation of the right to a healthy environment?
More from this course:
Introduction
Module 1: What is Global China?
Module 2: China’s environmental journey
Further reading
David Bandurski, Katja Drinhausen, Jerker Hellström, Malin Oud and Marina Rudyak, The Decoding China Dictionary
Claudia Ituarte-Lima, Just Pathways to Sustainability: From Environmental Human Rights Defenders to Biosphere Defenders. Environmental Policy and Law
Matthew S Erie, ed. A Casebook on Chinese Outbound Investment: Law, Policy, and Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025 (open access)
Latinoamérica Sustentable (LAS) and Katherine Schmidt, Las Bambas Copper Mine. The People’s Map of Global China
Regional Repository of Chinese Investments in Latin America. Millennium Nucleus on the Impacts of China in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Inter-American Dialogue
