Ms BRANDS KEHRIS thought for the time being, it would take a long time to have a binding new UN treaty or convention at the global level, which did not mean they should not push for it or not start the work and be active. Other ways of doing it included quasi jurisprudence, which was not a court like the European Court for Human Rights, but the treaty bodies. There were the individual complaints procedures, and there had been decisions, including by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Social, Economic Cultural Rights that were relevant, that were based on the fact that States had the obligation to protect, including the right to life. There were many other rights that were also on the line when it came to environmental damage. Those processes and procedures were already dealing with binding norms, with the decisions and also the dialogue. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS mentioned the Universal Periodic Review for all of the member States of the United Nations, including from where people in the room came from, a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council. It provided the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they took to improve the human rights situation in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations. States ultimately had the obligation to implement the rights. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS had mentioned the general comment 36 and right to life that specifically mentioned the positive duty of member States. Going beyond not preventing harm, but the positive duty to intervene. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS mentioned the role of businesses, both on the environment side and the extractive industry and all of the damage that was done by certain kinds of interventions that needed to be addressed. She also addressed the tech side, with the UN guiding principles on Business and Human Rights. These were not binding either, but they were a code that was increasingly getting a buy-in and needed to be developed. States were responsible for making sure that the businesses, even those operating based on their own territory, even when they operated abroad, respected human rights. Human rights and due diligence were something they very much could engage with now before the binding instruments were in place. They would keep working on it. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR and thanked Ms BRANDS KEHRIS. She asked Ms JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Prime Minister of Iceland about the need for more legal binding instruments, the need for standards setting regulation, mentioning the UN resolution, rulings in the European Court of Human Rights, or the High Court in Germany as examples. Ms JAKOBSDÓTTIR said the European Court of Human Rights had already ruled in nearly 300 cases where they were dealing with the right to a healthy, sustainable, clean environment. In Iceland, but also abroad, she said it was really the duty of politicians to take those steps because the courts would be doing that very soon, and the courts in Iceland too. They had a very clear recommendation from the Parliamentary Assembly. As for the presidency, she said they had been really pushing this agenda for the last six months, and many other things, too, and hoped for a positive outcome Ms Rósa Björk BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR thanked the Prime Minister and gave the floor to Ms Fiona O’LOUGHLIN. Ms Fiona O’LOUGHLIN thanked the Chair and the distinguished panel, and the Prime Minister of Iceland and Chairperson of the Icelandic delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly and all of the organisers for doing an absolutely incredible job in preparing for the Summit. She said the tone had really been set in starting the day by having a meeting at the University and having engagement with young people about their opinions and views in terms of the new challenges facing them. She had learned that day that 72% of the world was now living under autocratic rule, even if there was a democracy in their country. Ten years ago, that was only 50%. She was shocked in terms of thinking about where they had come from, where they were now, and where they were going. Even if some people considered that they were living in a democracy, but their rights were taken from them in terms of the type of democracy they were living in, that had to be absolutely central to everything that they were about. She asked how to put respect, empathy and compassion back into the conversations even if they could

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 63 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30