The Philippines too has comprehensive case law on substantive environmental rights. 152 The Supreme Court of the Philippines has recognised the right to environment, holding that it is an issue of ‘“inter-generational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice”’. Importantly, the Supreme Court placed the right to a balanced and healthful ecology on the same footing as civil and political rights, such as the right to life. The Supreme Court has also linked environmental rights with the right to public safety and welfare. 153 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea has commented on the nature of the environment. It has defined the environment broadly as encompassing cultural and social environment. In addition, the Court has held that environmental harms may violate other rights, such as property rights through noise, vibration and fumes. The Supreme Court of Thailand has recognised that ‘[a] person [has] the right to clean air for good health and quality of life, the right to enjoy nature, and the right to be free from the affects of environmental damages’. 154 Neither Australian, New Zealand, nor Malaysian courts have recognised a right to environment,155 though the latter has recognised that environmental harms can violate the right to life and the right to health. 156 B. Right to life In most countries, courts recognise the right to life, though only three NHRIs reported recognition of a link between the right to an environment of a particular quality and the right to life (Philippines, Republic of Korea and Malaysia). C. Problems of standing Commentators writing in the field of environmental law have indicated that limitations imposed on standing are often a major obstacle to participation in environmental matters. There was limited information provided by member NHRIs in their responses to the questionnaire; however the Malaysian, Australian and Indian NHRIs elaborated on some of the obstacles and benefits to standing provisions in their respective countries. In Malaysia, environmental proceedings can only be instituted by the Attorney-General, and the rate of environmental prosecutions is low. 157 Individuals and NGOs have limited standing to take action against projects affecting the environment. 158 Under Australian law, earlier difficulties associated with compelling a government authority to carry out its public statutory duties have been partly overcome by allowing the public ‘open standing’ to enforce environmental laws in some jurisdictions’.159 In India, standing is not an obstacle to bringing actions before Indian courts. The Indian NHRI reports that ‘matters involving the degradation of the environment have often come to the [Supreme] Court in the form of petitions filed in the public interest … due to the lenient view … [of] the Court towards … locus standi and … “proof of injury”’. Public interest litigation is an 152 Ibid 158-9. Ibid 157-9. 154 Ibid 180-1. 155 Ibid 96, 124, 140. 156 Ibid 125. 157 Ibid 131. 158 Ibid 131-2. 159 Ibid 104. 153 - 43 -