Interview with Dr Stellina Jolly: Human Rights, Climate Mobility and the Role of NHRIs
Dr. Stellina Jolly is a Senior Associate Professor at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University (SAARC), New Delhi, and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries, University of Johannesburg. She is also an affiliate Scholar at Raoul Wallenberg institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Her research has been published in leading journals including the Journal of Private International Law and Transnational Environmental Law.
The focus of today’s discussion is on her recent research, a Monitoring Toolkit for National Human Rights Institutions or NHRIs. This Toolkit is designed to support NHRIs in monitoring human rights compliance within climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Drawing from a regional Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis conducted by the Asia Pacific Forum (APF), it provides practical guidance, best practices, and tools aligned with international human rights standards to help address displacement and vulnerability linked to climate impacts.
Q1: What is the purpose of the toolkit, and what does it aim to achieve?
A: The toolkit was developed to provide guidance to South Asian National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) to integrate human rights considerations into their monitoring of climate change adaptation and mitigation, particularly where climate mobility affects vulnerable communities.
It serves three main purposes. First, it encourages NHRIs to recognise the importance of the issue of climate change as fundamentally a human rights issue. Second, it provides a methodology to identify gaps in how NHRIs function. Third, it offers practical guidance, including tools, checklists and standard operating procedures, to strengthen their monitoring, advocacy, reporting and investigative functions.
This strengthens NHRI capabilities at an implementation level. For example, climate events such as floods and droughts can violate a host of human rights, but simply recognising these violations is not enough. NHRIs require clear-cut strategies for complaint handling, investigations, institutional coordination and policy reform.
Ultimately, the toolkit seeks to move climate change governance away from a purely technical approach towards a people-centric approach that promotes accountability and participation.
Q2: Why is there an urgent need to integrate human rights into climate change mitigation strategies, especially in South Asia?
A: South Asia is home to roughly one-quarter of humanity and is particularly vulnerable to climate change. My earlier research on climate mobility revealed a significant legal lacuna in existing climate responses, while subsequent interdisciplinary research highlighted the lived experiences of communities affected by climate mobility.
Further, as elucidated by UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres, climate change has the unique ability to act as a “crisis multiplier”. This is most aptly seen in South Asia due to its diverse geography and complex socio-economic conditions that has created a web of interconnected vulnerabilities. The statistics and data also show that more than 200 million people are going to be affected by the melting Himalayan snow and rising sea levels. On top of that, more than half of South Asia’s population has been affected by at least one natural disaster. A World Bank report further suggests that by 2050, South Asia is likely to have 40 million climate migrants.
Climate change is therefore not merely a future threat; it is a current existential threat and its consequences are already affecting rights to life, health, housing and other fundamental rights. It further amplifies the vulnerabilities of marginalised groups, including women and indigenous communities.
Courts in South Asia have increasingly recognised the connection between human vulnerability and human rights protection as seen in the case of Asghar Laghari in Pakistan and the case of MK Ranjitsinh in India. The Supreme Court of India has declared that there is a right not to be adversely affected by climate change. However, though NHRIs have a mandate to protect human rights, they have not sufficiently integrated climate change into their work. Therefore, this urgency stems from a need to fix this institutional gap.
Q3: Current climate change laws focus on mitigation and state obligations that ignore the societal and human implications of climate change. Can existing climate change laws such as the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement adapt to better reflect a human rights-based approach or are they fundamentally incompatible?
A: The toolkit does not take the position that the existing climate change framework is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. Although the international climate regime has been very slow to acknowledge the societal and human rights implications of climate change, this has begun to change. The Paris Agreement, for example, expressly acknowledges the relationship between climate change and human rights, albeit only in its preamble.
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change has categorically rejected the argument that the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement constitute a specialised legal regime that excludes the application of human rights law. Human rights obligations must therefore inform states’ climate-related obligations when it comes to climate change treaties and customary international law.
That same ICJ advisory opinion discusses a broad range of substantive rights that are violated as a result of climate change, including rights to life, health, housing and water, while disproportionately affecting migrants, women, children and indigenous communities. Procedural principles such as non-discrimination, access to justice, transparency and the rule of law are equally relevant.
The central problem is therefore not simply recognition at the international level, but implementation domestically. Human rights principles already recognised internationally must be translated into national institutions and practices. The toolkit seeks to strengthen this domestic connection between climate governance and human rights.
Q4: The toolkit emphasises proper engagement with vulnerable communities and especially highlights gender concerns. How important is gender-related discussion in ensuring proper monitoring of rights violations in the context of climate change activities?
A: As climate change operates as a crisis multiplier, in South Asia this multiplier interacts with existing layers of inequality and vulnerability. Women may already experience unequal access to land, property, financial resources, education, healthcare and political decision-making. These inequalities can increase their exposure to climate-related harm and displacement.
For example, climate disasters can bring about agricultural impact in the form of water scarcity and food security. This can disproportionately increase women’s workloads since statistics suggest that young girls are the first to be withdrawn from school to collect water. Furthermore, women may experience greater caregiving responsibilities and nutritional insecurity.
Since gendered vulnerability exposes women to a disproportionate impact of climate change, a formal rights-based approach that is gender-neutral in nature does not solve the entire magnitude of the issue. It might establish whether disaster relief or adaptation programmes exist without revealing who can actually access those programmes, who participates in decision-making and who remains excluded.
NHRIs should consequently collect gender-segregated data and engage directly with affected communities. Gender considerations must also extend to climate solutions themselves. Renewable energy and adaptation projects can cause relocation or displacement, and women may be excluded from consultation processes because of social norms or inadequate representation.
In connecting with civil societies and local agents, NHRIs must use an intersectional approach. The experiences of rural and urban women, for example, may differ significantly, while caste, poverty and ethnicity can create additional layers of vulnerability. The toolkit therefore advises NHRIs to move beyond merely documenting violations towards understanding how different vulnerabilities interact and ensuring affected groups meaningfully participate in climate policymaking.
Q5: Though NHRIs are often seen as reactive institutions since they focus on monitoring and investigating after they receive complaints, the toolkit envisages NHRIs becoming more proactive. Does this fundamentally influence the way we view the role of NHRIs?
A: The toolkit does advocate for a reconceptualisation of NHRIs—from primarily reactive institutions towards proactive institutions capable of prevention, accountability and systemic change which is extremely important in the context of climate change.
This is particularly important because climate-related harm differs from many conventional human rights violations that NHRIs usually deal with. Whereas an incident such as police brutality may be discrete and identifiable, climate change is gradual and cumulative, although often scientifically foreseeable. Human rights protection must therefore focus not only on responding after violations occur, but also on anticipating, regulating impact and reducing harm.
This does not require NHRIs to abandon or fundamentally restructure their existing mandates. Rather than waiting until climate disasters cause potentially irreversible harm, NHRIs can collect evidence, coordinate with civil society and local organisations, undertake thematic studies and collaborate with legislators and affected communities. Evidence gathered through coordination with legislators, civil society and affected communities can then inform climate legislation and regulatory reform. This collaboration allows for a greater understanding of best practices, reporting mechanisms and engagements.
A more proactive approach therefore does not diminish their independence; it broadens their influence and allows human rights principles to be incorporated into climate governance before harm occurs. This expands their role from a reactionary institution to a proactive one that engages with these issues from a more human-centric and participatory angle.
Q6: What can NHRIs continue to drive change in the event that governments are resistant to change and are unwilling to buy in, especially since NHRIs constantly push for national policies?
A: NHRIs face significant constraints, including political interference, limited independence, financial restrictions and the fact that their powers are generally recommendatory rather than binding.
Their influence must therefore come from sustained, evidence-based engagement. One major challenge in climate mobility is the lack of granular data. Through partnerships with academics, civil society and grassroots organisations, NHRIs can produce research that captures not only broad trends but also impacts differentiated by gender, caste, ethnicity and other characteristics.
They can then use media, public reporting, international human rights mechanisms and online platforms to disseminate this evidence and strengthen public engagement. These functions generally fall within their existing mandates and do not require entirely new powers.
Consistent evidence gathering, public engagement and policy recommendations can place increasing pressure on governments. With further media engagement and recommendations supported by data, it becomes very difficult for governments to continuously resist what NHRIs advocate for. While NHRIs cannot compel governments to adopt particular policies, sustained, consistent credible advocacy can make continued governmental resistance more difficult.
Q7: How can NHRIs leverage on their international network to respond to increasing cross-border climate displacement?
A: Most climate mobility in South Asia is currently internal, but cross-border movement is likely to become increasingly important, particularly given the region’s porous borders. The current climate mobility narrative is centred around national security, immigration rules and border control, which is a state-centric approach. This exposes a significant gap in the international human rights framework.
NHRIs cannot simply assume extraterritorial powers. However, as a starting point, they are extremely well-placed to coordinate with grassroots civil society and local agencies to procure evidence-based data on climate mobility and the vulnerabilities experienced by affected communities.
Second, based on this very data, they can advocate for migration and displacement policies that respect human rights, including access to healthcare and education. This is done through the amplification and understanding of the lived experiences of coastal communities, women, indigenous peoples and people living in informal settlements through consultations and monitoring.
Greater regional cooperation between NHRIs is particularly important. They can undertake joint studies, exchange best practices and collaborate through national and international networks, which is comfortably part of their current mandate. Through this consistent coordination, NHRIs’ sustained advocacy can influence governments to develop climate mobility policies grounded in human rights. The toolkit provides specific guidelines for how this coordination, stakeholder consultation and online engagement can take place despite financial constraints.
Even where immediate policy reform does not occur, placing these issues in the public domain and generating sustained dialogue is itself an important starting point.
Q8: How would you measure the toolkit’s success over the next ten years?
A: The toolkit should be understood as a starting point and a “living document”. Following its development, officials from NHRIs across five jurisdictions participated in training, provided positive feedback and have agreed to incorporate this toolkit in their functioning, but it remains too early to assess its long-term impact.
First, NHRIs should institutionally integrate climate change into their mandates, treating it not simply as an environmental issue but as a core human rights concern.
Second, they should develop greater technical capacity, including evidence-based data collection, expertise and partnerships with affected communities and civil society.
Third, their engagement with marginalised communities should deepen, providing affected groups with meaningful opportunities to participate and have their experiences reflected in institutional decision-making.
Climate change discussions currently tend to focus on legislatures, executives and courts, while the role of NHRIs, particularly in South Asia, remains comparatively invisible. The Philippine Commission on Human Rights provides an example of what NHRIs can achieve through its extensive national inquiry into the responsibility of major carbon emitters.
In ten years, if the general public can similarly recognise South Asian NHRIs as institutions they can turn to when climate change threatens their human rights, that would represent a significant measure of the toolkit’s success.
To view the full interview, click here.
