Inde! given the language of paras 71 and 72 of the section on “Obligation of States to respect! protect and fulfil children’s rights” – which refer to “retrogressive measures” and the obligation of states to use “the maximum extent of their available resources and! where ne! within the framework of international cooperation” – it seems clear that the Committee regards the right to a clean! healthy and sustainable environment as being similar to ESC rights under the Convention.

That is subject to the second sentence of Article

Regard to economic! social and cultural rights! States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and! where ne! within the framework of international co-operation”. (Worryingly some b2b email list of the language of the Committee specifically could be understood to subject all of “children’s rights in relation to the environment” to these qualifications – something that could be understood to weaken the obligations impos by civil and political rights relat the environment in a way that is not suggest by the wording of Article 4 (see! e.g.! CRC GC No.19 on public budgeting for the realization of children’s rights! para 25: “States parties have the obligation to immiately realize civil and political rights”).

It is clear from elsewhere

The GC that the Committee views states parties as oblig to respect! protect effective email collection tactics with examples and fulfil the right (see! e.g.! para 68). It is thus evident from the GC as a whole that the right to a clean! healthy and sustainable environment under the CRC must be understood as imposing a range of immiate and progressive obligations.

Interestingly! the Committee appears to read in a rather This in china numbers the context vaguely conceptualis limitation on the state’s obligation with regard to rights relat to the environment – and  which of course does not include a general limitations clause.