Nor did the GC’s approach fully follow Kenya’s recommendation In response to the concept note that! “[u]ndertaking a child rights perspective requires broadening the perspective from the immiate present to the distant future. Children’s rights should be read by States in line with environmental principles of sustainable. Development as well as inter and intra-generational equity.” Finally! it is worth noting that the Committee did not respond to. The point made by GC that it should explain the source and the foundation contain in. The Convention on which the principle of intergenerational equity and the interests of future generations are bas.

The gaps and ambiguities highlight

Here suggest that the Committee’s reluctance to engage meaningfully with the issue of future generations is likely to impact on the GC’s ability to contribute meaningfully to addressing the complexities pos by trying to address the intergenerational industry email list dimensions of environmental harm affecting child right-holders in the present as well as future child rights-bearers and other human rights-bearers who are not yet born. This is unfortunate given that there can be no doubt that the Committee will have to address these issues in its work on the environment in future.

The formal launch of the GC will take place

September with events plann globally. There is no doubt that its contents lower reggio emilia map strongly reflect children’s concerns around the environment and that it will be deploy as an advocacy tool at the national and international levels. The extent to which the GC will push forward children’s enjoyment of their rights in the context of environmental Germany in its comments harm in practice remains china numbers to be seen! but the GC will certainly have an impact in that arena. At this early stage in its analysis! it also seems set to make a significant contribution to contemporary debates and developments in IHRL beyond child rights.