In From Rights to Wrongs I took aim at the current Labour government’s plans to ride roughshod over the human rights of anyone objecting to national infrastructure projects. I suggested that there is some inconsistency in a government led by a former human rights lawyer being so happy to trample over human rights. There is, however, another aspect to this exercise in hypocrisy.

Last month the BBC website published an article with the title “International law ‘at heart’ of Starmer’s foreign policy, says Hermer”. And while the heading referred to foreign policy, the content of the article very much suggested (as it should) that the government’s respect for international law also extends to how it deals with domestic issues:

He [Hermer] continued: “Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is.

“It’s important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.

“And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.”

The Aarhus Convention (to which the UK is a signatory) seems to be something to which the UK government only pays lip service when it comes to the environmental impact of its rushed proposals to impose massive renewable energy programmes on communities up and down the country. That Convention, which dates back to June 1998, purports to be a convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

Article 6 (which deals with public participation in decisions on specific activities) confirms (via its paragraph 1(a)) that it applies to the activities proposed in Annex I. Unfortunately Annex I seems to be massively out of date, given the glaring absence of renewable energy infrastructure projects from the annex. In referring to the enrgy sector, it refers to mineral oil and gas refineries; installations for gasification and liquefaction; thermal power stations; coke ovens; and nuclear power stations (including their dismantling and decommissioning, reprocessing of nuclear fuel etc). It also cpvers production and processing of metals; mineral and chemical industries; waste management and waste-water treatment plants; various industrial plants; transport links including roads, railways, waterways and ports; groundwater extraction etc, including dams; extraction of petroleum and natural gas, including pipelines and storage connected therewith; quarries and opencast mining; agricultural processing and so on.

The absence of renewable energy projects seems to constitute a glaring omission. Is this because in 1998 large-scale renewable energy projects were barely a glint in the eye of legislators? Is it because they were always intended to have a free pass (as I fear may be the case with the Scottish Ecocide Bill)?

Fortunately, a couple of paragraphs within the Annex suggest that renewable energy developments should perhaps be caught by the Treaty nevertheless. Paragraph 17 of the Annex covers “Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km.” And paragraph 20 covers “Any activity not covered by paragraphs 1-19 above where public participation is provided for under an environmental impact assessment procedure in accordance with national legislation.”

Having come to power only in July 2024, Sir Keir Starmer’s government can’t really be blamed for the fact that last year the Compliance Committee to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) its “First progress review of the implementation of decision VII/8s on compliance by United Kingdom with its obligations under the Convention” in terms which were less than satisfactory. However, the final paragraph of that review required action, and it insisted on it by 1^st October 2024:

The Committee reminds the Party concerned that all measures necessary to implement decision VII/8s must be completed by, and reported upon, by no later than 1 October 2024, as that will be the final opportunity for the Party concerned to demonstrate to the Committee that it has fully met the requirements of decision VII/8s.

That date has been and gone almost ten months ago. Given the UK government’s apparent determination to comply with all forms of law, including international law, one might have expected to discover what its proposals are to correct the UK’s shortcomings with regard to compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Yet, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the best it has managed is a Call for Evidence which ran from 30^th September 2024 to 9^th December 2024:

The UK is one of 47 Parties to the Aarhus Convention, an international treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Convention sets out obligations on Parties to make provisions for the public to access environmental information, to participate in environmental decision-making and to access justice when challenging environmental decisions. One of the Convention’s core aims is to ensure access to justice in environmental matters. The Convention’s monitoring body, the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee, has found the UK to be non-compliant with the Convention and has made several recommendations about matters on which the UK must take action to bring its policies into compliance with the Convention.

The government is committed to ensuring that the UK upholds its international law obligations under the Aarhus Convention. In publishing this call for evidence, the Government aims to gather views on the Compliance Committee’s recommendations regarding access to justice to determine the best way to reach compliance. The government is seeking views on whether the recommendations should be implemented in England and Wales in light of the potential implications, or whether there are suitable alternatives which could better deliver the desired effect of bringing the UK into compliance.

As is the way of these things, the Call for Evidence document runs to 42 pages. I have been unable to discover the outcome of this process. So much for the claim that “The government is committed to ensuring that the UK upholds its international law obligations under the Aarhus Convention.”

Meanwhile, the same lack of urgency appears to apply north of the border at Holyrood (where the Scottish government has responsibility for ensuring compliance). The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee held a session on 12^th November 2024 as to what should be done to ensure compliance. It concluded that “The Committee will consider the evidence it has heard at today’s session in private and agree on next steps.” Since then the issue appears to have been kicked into the long grass, with silence prevailing.

It’s all a bit of a mystery. A Scottish government that wishes to get back into the EU fold, happily ignoring a Treaty that is very dear to the European Commission. A UK government that claims to be committed to complying with all forms of law quietly ignoring a finding of breach of an international treaty, a finding that is almost a year old. One might almost think that the interests of renewable energy companies are more important than compliance with international law. The “green blob”, it appears, trumps the public’s legal rights.