See 12 IHRL breakout room discussion

- Is it possible to balance human-centrism and eco-centrism in international law?
    - Possible resource diversion in addressing human rights vs ‘eco’ rights
    - Perhaps one tension is because in the various treaties, environment is not intrinsically valued but rather valued as something to protect for the sake of human mental health / standard of living
    - Are they necessarily in conflict? eco centrism can server human centrism
- Whether protection of the nature and non-human beings through the human right to a healthy environment is sufficient? 
    - No
        - ‘Protecting the environment to an extent that doesn’t harm us’ might be too low a standard
        - We have other areas of law e.g. crim/tort
    - Yes 
        - Perhaps because the right is so new we just need to develop it through jurisprudence 
- Is the recognition of the rights of, and/or special obligations to, the nature and non-human species normatively necessary and practically possible?
    - Normatively neccessary?
        - 
    - Practically possible?
        - I guess why not right I mean there was the new UN resolution for the right
        - But at the same time this presupposes monitoring institutions (costs) that must be in place, that are independent of e.g. big corporations who could potentially affect government interests in contributing to such international policing
- What changes are necessary for the legal recognition and realization of environmental human rights and the rights of the nature and non-human beings?
    - Identify the duty bearer, and the victim 
    - Have more climate lawyers expanding the case law ! NGOs! Increase complainants !