Dr. Orla Kelleher:

As regards the added value of a substantive constitutional environmental right and what exists so far, the Supreme Court stated in the Climate Case Ireland ruling that there are other constitutional rights that might be relevant in an environmental context, such as the existing constitutional right to life and bodily integrity. However, I and other scholars have argued that ultimately this is contingent on how broadly those rights are understood and construed in an environmental context. For that reason, it would be preferable to have a substantive environmental right because it would have a potentially broader scope and could apply on a precautionary basis. It could be engaged when the environment is endangered but before humans are at risk of harm. I stress that it is only individuals who may litigate the right to life or bodily integrity. NGOs are not currently entitled to do so. An important potential added value of having a constitutional environmental right would be that an NGO would be able to take a case in the public interest. That could be an added value.