Carmichael Mines and Human Rights Violation in Australia Assessment Answer

I. Introduction

A. Background and Context of the Carmichael Coal Mines Project

Carmichael Coal Mines, also known as Adani Mines, is an Australian mega project proposed in 2010. This Adani Project in Australia is funded by investors from India. Adani Enterprises, owned by an Indian businessman Guitam Adani established its large-scale coal mining project in Queensland as an Australian Adani Subsidiary in 2011. This coal mine project was divided into two types of thermal coal, i.e., higher and good quality coal imported from China and lower quality coal imported from India. This mining project includes a specific vertical structure known as a pit-to-port structure that refers to the process of onsite extractive coal mining operations. Moreover, apart from the extraction of the coal, this project involves the implantation of a plant for coal extraction in Australia and expanding the route of railways for the transmission of the coal for over two hundred kilometres to from the port of Abbot Point of Central Queensland Coast to the port of North Queensland Coast for the actual transmission of the coal from Australia to India. ^[1] However, it was assumed that the extensive burning of the coal by the Adani mines would result in the emission of harmful gases, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The Carmichael coal mine project got the approval to produce 60 million thermal coal per year; however, in 2018, Adani struggled to gain appropriate funds; therefore, its production fell by 10 million per year. However, at the time of approval of the proposal, it was estimated that the company's lifecycle would be 60 years, with an average production of 2.3 billion tonnes of thermal coal. ^[2] Apart from the greenhouse emission project, the Adani project poses several environmental and societal threats. The establishment of the coal mine poses a threat to the native Aboriginals who have their habitation near the coal mines. Moreover, UNESCO has also expressed its concern with the establishment of the coal mine, stating that the coal mine will impact the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is listed as a world heritage site. In addition to these impacts, the coal project is supposed to affect the area's climate. It will also possess an impact on the groundwater. It will eventually drain the water resources of a wider area. However, the major question is laid down on the infringement of human rights of the Australian Indigenous people. Hence, the project was strongly contradicted by the Wangan and Jaganlingou people. However, the Australian court rejected the plea of Aboriginals against the Adani project. Hence, this Carmichael Coal Mine project poses two major challenges: deterioration of the fossil fuel resources that give rise to legal consequences and the legal challenges possessed by the locals.

B. Importance of Examining Human Rights Violations in Extractive Industries

Human Rights are certain principles designed to provide equality to everyone. The basic rights that every individual possesses are known as human rights. Such as the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion, right to education, justice against the inhuman treatment of others. Human rights are important because they protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and certain laws guide businesses to respect the rights of all the individual. ^[3] Industries possess a significant influence over the rights of the individual surrounding them. Therefore, the United Nations Human Rights Council has established a certain set of rules for the protection of the human rights being violated by the act of the MNCs. This set of rules is known as the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs). ^[4] These UNGPs regulate the activities of businesses and violation of human rights, which can violate certain environmental norms, labour laws, and societal norms. The extractive industries, including all the businesses that operate in the mining sector, are carrying forward the work of exploration. Hence, these industries pose a serious threat to human rights, such as environmental risk, labour risk, economic and social disruption, security issues, and land acquisition. The other risks include threats to the rights of the indigenous people reduction of the occurrence of bribery and corruption; the cumulative impact this can range from geographical impact on the smaller communities as well as the supplier and government.

Lastly, the importance of examining human rights in the extractive industries is to protect the right of sufferers to get access to the remedy or justice. These human rights can be examined by the extractive industry and protected by the community development process. The extractive industries can work on the development model and try to ensure that the indigenous people are given resettlement, investment and compensation. This community development should be followed for everyone, regardless of gender and minorities. Next, the extractive industries should try to employ the people affected. Industries can opt for other means, such as training programs and transparency, and should adhere to the appropriate licensing measures. Lastly, the extractive industries should try to promote the various government agendas and ensure that the country's natural resources, such as land, water, and minerals, are protected. Therefore, exacting human rights is very important for the extractive industries so that it does not violate any societal norms, protects the rights of the indigenous people, provides habitation to the people, and does not violate government norms. Moreover, it is also analysed after the examination of human rights that the company does not exploit any ^[5] human or environmental resources.

C. Objective and Scope of Research Paper

This research paper aims to analyse the human rights violation associated with the Carmichael coal mines in Australia. This research paper will analyse the different sorts of human, social, environmental, and economic rights of the individual and the operational impact of the Adani mines on these factors. Moreover, the paper will discuss the various regulatory framework guiding the operation of the various industries, especially extractive industries in Australia. Furthermore, the paper will contain a detailed analysis of the impact of the Adani mines on human rights and the various legal remedies available to the sufferers. The paper will also contain various recommendations to improve human rights in the mining sector and then will briefly discuss the key findings of the research paper.

II. Legal and Regulatory Framework for Mining Activities in Australia

A. Overview of the federal and state laws and regulations governing mining activities in Australia

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories: Queensland, New south wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and Northern and Australian Capital Territory. The Australian legal system is divided into three parts: the federal government, state or territory government, and local government. However, mining is majorly a concept under state laws however it is affected by both federal and local laws. Therefore, mining activities in Australia are affected by the federal government's different regulations, such as taxation, foreign investment, competition law. Other regulations include trade and customs, native title, international agreements and national environmental laws. However, the state government is responsible for the land acquisition by the mining industries, granting them the title for mineral exploration and mining activity. Next, the state government is held liable for regulating environmental and occupational safety and collecting taxes or royalties on the minerals so extracted by the mining industries. The local government is responsible for ensuring the welfare of the community surrounding any mining activity. It is usually responsible for the act of road and shelter displacement. Mining exploration and other activities related to mining in Western Australia are regulated under the provisions of the Mining Act 1978 . ^[6] Under this, a regulatory body, The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS), is responsible for assessing the impact of mining activities on the environment. These regulations of South Australia are further regulated by the Mining Regulations Act 2020. ^[7] Moreover, the Offshore Minerals Act 2003 regulate the mining process in Western Australia. It allows the occupier of the land to extract and acquire mineral deposits only if the exploration activity is permitted. ^[8] Mining in the reserved areas is regulated by the act of National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1972 ^[9] , the Wilderness Protection Act of 1993 , ^[10] and the Aboriginals Heritage Act of 1988. Some other regulations that govern mining activities are the Opal Mining Act of 1995 ^[11] and the Opal Mining Regulations Act of 2012 ^[12] . Another act that deals with the land of the indigenous people and their land being used for mining is governed by the Native Title Act of 1993 . ^[13] Under this act, the native individuals have the right to negotiate the terms of the agreement relating to the land being used for mining purposes. The right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over their land is also protected under the Native Titles Act. Apart from these statutory legislations, the right to extract minerals in Queensland is guided by the act of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act of 2004. ^[14]

B. Analysis of the Key Legal and Regulatory Framework Governing the Carmichael Coal Mine Project

Various statutory frameworks that govern the Carmichael mine Coal mine projects are The Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) , ^[15] The Environmental Protection Act 1994 ^[16] (EPA) , The State Development and Public Works Organization Act 1971 (SDPWOA) ^[17] and The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) ^[18] . The MRA aims to protect mineral resources from exploitation rather than dealing with environmental degradation. However, EPBC works in almost opposite directions of the MRA. It focuses more on Environmental protection rather than mineral protection. MRA's objective is to promote various projects relating to mining. Moreover, it increases the financial returns to the state by providing aid to the mining projects and their smooth administration. Next, the Carmichael coal mine project is regulated by the SDWPA, under which it has to undergo various assessments and should certify that it adheres to the environmental impact assessment. Every large-scale mining project has to undergo an assessment and should follow public notifications. Next, the EPBC guides or governs the most uncertain large scaled project that may pose potential harm to the ecosystem. This act involves a technique or system of proper monitoring, assessment and management of natural resources, and next it involves a participatory objective ^[19] setting according to which further decisions are made. This environmental risk and its assessment is the law under the commonwealth which is regulated by a bilateral agreement where the state has agreed with the commonwealth to assess the risk to the environment under the EPA. The commonwealth law of the EPBC Act regulates the use of water resources and their deterioration. Adani mines are one of the largest mining projects regulated by well-farmed laws, demonstrated by the role played by various laws in approving the mining project. This includes the role of various environmental and energy laws, international law related to the rights of the indigenous people, and foreign investment laws. The most important essential for the set-up of the mining industry is the acquisition of licenses and permits. Permits related to health safety, water utilisation of electricity, and environmental permit. All these are mandatory permits required for the set of any mining industry and are, therefore, acquired in Queensland according to the norms of the Mineral Resources Act of 1989. Therefore, the mining industry in Queensland has to acquire five permits: a Prospecting permit, an exploration permit, a Mineral development license, Mining Lease, and a Water monitoring permit. However, the Carmichael coal mine project is a foreign project means which involves investors from different nations. Therefore, the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) advises the Australian Treasury on the proposal of foreign investors. Adani Mines being a foreign investment plan, has to surpass the acquisition and approval process of the utilisation of the Australian land by the FIRB.

III. Business and Human Rights Framework in Australia

A. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The United Nations Guiding Principles, also known as the UNGP on Business and Human Rights, are a set of standards that apply globally, and they provide a regulatory framework for companies, stakeholders and governments as well in order to help address the issues related to the negative impacts of business activities on the aspect of human rights. The UNGP not only addresses issues related to these negative impacts but also helps set out preventive measures which companies, stakeholders and governments can follow to ensure that they are less impacted. The United Nations Guiding Principles were developed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2011. These guiding principles were set based on 3 fundamental principles. They are as follows:

1. The duty of the state to protect the interests of people based on Human Rights: The UNGP has set the framework in a manner in which the state governments, national governments and the appropriate governments are of the duty to protect the interests of all their citizens from Human Rights violations and the abuse of power committed by businesses leading to violation of Human Rights at all costs. ^[20]
2. The obligations on corporates to abide by the principles of International Human Rights: The UNGP has set out its framework in a manner where it seeks accountability from corporates to abide by the principles of Human Rights set by the United Nations Human Rights Council in all activities performed by them in order to ensure that they do not contribute or cause any deviation or abuse of the rights of Human beings.
3. Duty of the state to ensure remedies for grievances: As per the regulatory framework set by the UNGC, it makes it mandatory for the machineries of a state and a nation to provide remedies to people who have been grieved by the violations of statutes under the Human Rights framework. These remedies include judicial and non-judicial alternatives so that people’s justice is restored and the companies that abuse their undue influence are held accountable for their practices.

The framework set by UNGP has been widely accepted and endorsed by a lot of governments all over the world. ^[21] Not just governments, companies and civil society organisations have endorsed these principles and have positively contributed to and promoted the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights all over the world.

B. An Overview of the Business and Human Rights Framework in Australia

Australia, as a country, too has taken necessary steps towards contributing and positively endorsing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by implementing the Human Rights framework, which aligns with the motive of addressing and preventing the negative impacts of businesses on Human Rights. The key aspects of the Australian adoption of the business and human rights framework are:

• National Development Plan: Back in 2014, the Government of Australia committed to preparing a strong National Action Plan whose primary focus will be on Businesses and aspects related to Human Rights. The National Action Plan of Australia was launched in the year 2020 and contains principles that act as a guide to Australian businesses that operate domestically and also to those set up overseas.
• Modern Act of Slavery: The legislation of Modern Slavery was introduced in Australia in 2018. This legislation obliges companies with the responsibility to report the practices and risks that are associated with the aspect of modern slavery within their operations and their supply chains. This act applies to businesses that earn an annual revenue which is equal to or more than 100 Million Australian Dollars. Apart from actions of reporting practices and risks relating to modern slavery, the businesses are also required to disclose all the necessary steps that they are taking from their end to mitigate these identified risks. ^[22] The act also establishes the role of an Anti-slavery commissioner whose responsibility is to ensure that offences related to slavery are detected and prevented at the earliest instance and also to offer required support to the victims of such unscrupulous practices.
• Transparency Initiative for Extractive Industries: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a global initiative that provides transparency in the mining, oil and gas sectors. This initiative has got a lot of member countries a part to this initiative, including Australia. The motive behind this initiative is to ensure that all information related to financial transactions made by extraction-related companies is transparent and that all information related to these transactions is to be disclosed to the government. ^[23]
• Due diligence to Human Rights: The Human Rights due diligence is another initiative which the Australian government adopted. Here the Human Rights Commission of Australia has developed a framework on human rights due diligence, which works with the intention to identify, prevent and help in the mitigation of issues related to human rights violations and the risks that are involved with respect to the abuse of Human rights in operations and supply chain departments of the organisation. ^[24]
• Access to Remedy: The judicial machinery of Australia has actively been involved in many cases related to business and human rights, including the classic case where a lawsuit was filed against the ANZ bank in 2016, where the bank allegedly financed a Cambodian sugar plant. ^[25] The sanctioning of loans to the Cambodian Sugar plant led to the grabbing of land and forced evictions of people, which amounts to human abuse caused by businesses. Although, as of now, there is no dedicated framework that looks after the victims of Human Rights abuse and violations caused by corporates in order for them to seek remedies to ensure justice prevails.

C. Analysis of application of the business and human rights framework in the Carmichael Coal mine project Australia

Due to concerns over its potential impact on the environment and human rights, especially on the rights of the local Indigenous people of Australia, the Carmichael Coal Mine project has been the epicentre of a great deal of controversy. Concerning the aspect of the framework governing business and human rights, several objections have been raised against the Carmichael Coal Mine Project. As discussed earlier, the business and human rights framework are of the idea where businesses have to be responsible and accountable in their actions and ensure that they do not violate human rights. Not only this, but the framework also sets statutory obligations on businesses to come forward and address concerns related to adverse impacts on the subject of human rights, which may be an outcome of their activities. ^[26]

The key issue identified in the Carmichael Coal Mine Project is the potential impact that it is having on the rights and interests of Indigenous people of Australia. The project is situated on land where indigenous tribes such as Wangan and Jagalingou have traditionally owned, used and resided for ages. Objections that are being raised against the Carmichael Coal Mine Project with respect to violations of human rights were that the project might have a significant and adverse impact on the rights of these indigenous people who reside in the area where the project is intended to be carried out. These rights the right to free, prior and informed consent, right to culture, and the right to self-determination.

Another significant issue which was identified to be a possible impact of the Coal Mine Project was the potential impact it may have on the environment. There are several negative impacts on the environment caused by coal mining. Impacts such as emission of greenhouse gases and water pollution can be caused during the process of coal mining, which could possibly have a direct effect on the Great Barrier Reef, which happens to be a site that is an important ecosystem as well as a known world heritage site. ^[27] With respect to the framework based on business and human rights, the company responsible for performing the Carmichael Coal Mine Project (which is Adani) is obliged by the statutory responsibility to respect the rights of the indigenous people and to come forward and address issues related to adverse human rights that may arise as a result from the project. Addressing issues as per the regulatory framework on business and human rights include engaging in fruitful confrontation and consultation with the people who belong to the Wangan and Jagalingou community by obtaining their free prior and informed consent by ensuring that they are also given fair compensation for the impacts caused by the Carmichael Coal Mine Project on their lands and livelihoods.

It is also the responsibility of Adani to address the issues related to the potential impacts of the Carmichael Coal Mine project on the environment. Issues like pollution, emission of greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts that the project may have on the Green Barrier Reef should be discussed with the indigenous community at the site where the project is being carried out. In case the impact is severe in a manner that has caused a significant loss or damage to the indigenous community, the company should also be offering fair compensation to make up for the losses incurred by the latter. ^[28]

IV. Human Rights Impact on Carmichael Coal Mine Project

A. Analysis of human rights impacts of Carmichael coal mine project on Indigenous communities, water sources, the great barrier reef and climate change

Human Rights Impacts

The Carmichael coal mine project is said to have potential human rights impacts on Indigenous communities, including their right to culture, self-determination, and free, prior and informed consent.

1. The first issue is that the project impacts the Wangan and Jagalingou communities. It impacts the cultural rights of the people belonging to these indigenous communities. As per the speculations, it is possible that the project could destroy sacred sites that are culturally connected to these communities. The destruction of these sites can have a significant impact on the ability of these communities to keep their cultural traditions and practices, which might cause long-term impacts on their economic and social well-being.
2. The project directly impacts the indigenous people’s right to self-determination. This right is abused because the project causes the displacement of the indigenous people from their traditional lands of origin to another place. This migration could result in the indigenous community to lose their cultural identity and cause their health and mental well-being to decline soon as the place where they are originally situated helps them maintain and continue their cultural practices.
3. Another issue is that the Carmichael Coal Mine project impacts the Wangan and Jagalingou people's right to free, prior and informed consent. This right is provided under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which empowers Indigenous people to actively participate in decision-making processes that could possibly affect their lands and livelihood. The people from the indigenous communities have raised issues stating that they were neither consulted nor made part of the project's consultation process, which impacted the legitimacy of the project and the right empowered to them under the UN declaration. ^[29]

Impacts on Water sources in the area

The Carmichael Coal Mine project is said to have significant impacts on impacts on the water sources around the area where the project is being carried out. The mine is located in close quarters with the Galilee Basin, a region where most of the work is relied upon heavily by the groundwater. The project is said to have direct and indirect impacts on the groundwater as well as the surface water available in the area. The key concerns related to water sources are discussed as follows:

1. The first concern is the impact that the project has on grounds water resources. In the process of mining, excessive amounts of water are used; this is the case with the Carmichael Coal Mine Project. The project could potentially have an impact on the availability of water used by the local communities for household activities, drinking and agricultural activities. Further, there is also a possibility that the process of mining could contaminate the water available in the area, which will directly affect the health of the indigenous communities residing in the area.
2. The second concern involving the impacts of the project on water sources is that it can affect the quality of surface water available in the region. As mentioned above, the mine project is being carried out in an area close to the Great Artesian Basin, which serves as an important water source in the region. This project could cause a significant impact on the surface water sources in the area through the discharge of wastewater during the mining process, causing a disturbance and contamination of the surface water system. Not only just contamination is the issue here, but the discharge of waste water can also cause harm to aquatic life and ecosystems.
3. The third problem is that the Carmichael Coal Mine Project directly impacts the Great Barrier Reef, which happens to be a site of World Heritage and an import ecosystem. This mine is located close to the coastal area, and there are objections raised against it because there are concerns that the project can impact the quality of water in the region, which, in the end, affects the health of the Reefs. ^[30]

Impacts on Climate

As per speculations, the project can be a cause of climate change. This climate change can be caused due to the extraction and combustion of coal in the process of which a great deal of greenhouse gases are emitted. The project aims to produce at least 60 million tons of coal annually, which will be used in power plants, causing carbon emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has emphasised that there is a need for carbon emissions to reduce to tackle issues caused by climate change. The IPCC has set the need for a rapid transition wherein fossil fuels’ use must be limited to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over an above the pre-industrial levels. ^[31]

B. Examination of Company's Human Rights Due Diligence Process

The company behind the Coal Mine Project has its own human rights due diligence body which identifies, prevents, mitigates and accounts for the risk of human rights associated with the project. The company has created an outline report related to the risks involved and its mitigating approach with respect to this project, and this report is available on the company website. As per the analysis of the report, the following are the processes involved:

1. Assessment of impact on Human Rights: The Adani group has conducted an impact assessment which will help identify potential human rights risks associated with the coal mine project. Under this assessment, a range of issues such as the rights of workers, rights of indigenous communities and rights of water and health were covered.
2. Policy Development: The company has developed a human rights policy which guides the approach to human rights issues and ensures that the company respects human rights in every project it undertakes.
3. Grievance mechanism: Adani has set up a mechanism that allows stakeholders to raise concerns about the project’s impact on human rights. The mechanism is designed well enough to be accessible, transparent and effective.
4. Training and Development: Adani has provided T&D to its employees and contractors on human rights issues to ensure that they are responsible enough to identify, avoid and address potential risks related to human rights.
5. Monitoring and Reporting: Adani has high standards committing to monitoring and reporting the performance and effectiveness of the human rights due diligence process at regular intervals. This process will be useful in identifying risks and errors and help timely overcome them. ^[32]

The Human rights due diligence process for the Carmichael Coal Mine Project undertaken by the Adani group appears to be comprehensive and aligns with fair practices. However, the company has faced a lot of criticism regarding its consultation with the indigenous communities and measures taken by it to protect the environment. It is important to also take note and consider the track record of the company with respect to human rights and environmental issues.

C. Company’s effectiveness in addressing the project's impacts

Adani has taken numerous steps to address and mitigate human rights risks associated with the project as part of its human rights due diligence process. They are as follows:

1. Adani has engaged in consultation with the indigenous communities and has committed to respecting their rights by obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.
2. Adani has implemented a measures of mitigation to address the human rights risks associated with the project. These measures include developing a policy on human rights, establishing a grievance mechanism and providing Training on Human rights issues.
3. Adani commits to undertake assessments of the environment and implement steps to mitigate the impacts of the project on the environment. These measures include implementing measures to minimise greenhouse emissions and plans for water management.
4. Adani has consulted its stakeholders, including civil society organisations and the United Nations, to seek advice on human rights due diligence and areas of improvement. ^[33]

V. Human rights violation and legal remedies

A. Analysis of the potential human rights violations associated with the Carmichael Coal Mine Project

As it was mentioned above, the Carmichael Coal Mine project is subjected to harm the ecological and social environment of the country. The primary concern associated with this project is that it will take away the legal rights of the indigenous groups, especially those communities who are the traditional owners of the land, specifically the Wangan & Jagalingou people (W&J). ^[34] Other major concerns are directly linked to the fact that the environmental impact will destroy the rights of the Australian people. Therefore, the aggrieved parties and communities are actively protesting against the Adani project. ^[35] As a whole, there are three legal implications in the ongoing project.

Before assessing the company's legal challenges and how they have responded, it should be noted that the Adani group aims to keep the project ongoing in the country. Therefore, the first legal implication of the coal project was put up by the Australian Conservative Foundation (ACF) in 2016. ^[36] In this, the protection of the Great Barrier Reef was the major concern of the activist organisation. In pursuance of this, the ACF challenged the decision of the federal government, Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who approved the project. The ACF believed that the approval did not consider the negative consequences of the climate change effect and was not consistent with the rightful obligation to protect the Great Barrier Reef. ^[37]

Here it is important to note that State and Federal law has given prerequisites for any foreign or domestic company to initiate a coal mine project. According to these prerequisites, the companies should have a proper mining license under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 ^[38] and should conform with the bye-laws presented in the Environmental Protection Act 1994 ^[39] and Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. ^[40]

The second challenge revolved around the ill-treatment of the indigenous groups. In this, the disregard of the traditional landowners, i.e., W&J, has resulted in the violation of human rights. This involves the ignorance of their needs and lack of consent from the community. There has been integration of agreements for the use of the land before the project started. These were referred to as the Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA), which were proposed by the Adani group at three different times. ^[41] These agreements were voted against because they failed to recognise the needs of the people, and the community felt that the project would lead to environmental degradation. However, after several attempts, a settlement on the ILUA was made by the indigenous community. In this settlement, a constant abuse of power was agreed upon because of the relentless domination by the government. ^[42] This shows that the Australian government supported the multinational company’s prospect of displacing the rights and protection of W&J. Apart from this, division in the local community surfaced because the mining project provided employment opportunities. Therefore, there was a division in the interests and demands of the group. ^[43] This division introduced two contrary perspectives that the indigenous community was facing. From one perspective, the preservation of ancestral land on which their life was dependent became a necessary attribute because that land managed all the sources of maintaining the minimum standard of living. Hence, the risk of pollution and quality degradation would affect their means of living. The other contrary perspective revolved around the fact the project would include the participation of the locals, and these employment opportunities would financially help their living conditions as well. Through these two perspectives, the multinational company was able to create a division that affected their unity. 

Furthermore, the native title rights were established through the case of Mabo v Queensland. ^[44] , which gave legal rights and claims to those people who were originally associated with the territory or the land. In other words, the doctrine of ‘Terra Nullis’ was emphasised, which regulated that the sovereignty of the landowners would remain and that the state would not claim the uncultivated or unsettled land. Furthermore, the government enacted the Native Title Act 1993 ^[45] to recognise and manifest equitable rights of the backward communities. This aspect of native title rights has been violated since the integration of the current project. In response to this, the aggrieved parties sought to report the mismanagement and improper treatment of the traditional landowners to the United Nations Special Rapporteur. ^[46]

The third legal challenge was related to the Abbot Point Port expansion. It is reiterated here that the multinational company applied to construct a link between the coal terminal of Abbot Point and Galilee Basin before the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF). The opponents claimed that this contravened the environmental laws because this construction would degrade the water resources. When the mining companies choose any territory or build a plan for easy commuting of coals, they should not abstain from recognising the repercussions on the environment. ^[47] This was the primary concern of the opposing parties. The legal remedy sought by the Whitsunday Residents Against Dumping (WRAD) was to file a judicial review before the Supreme Court of Queensland so that the NAIF withdraws the application for construction.

It can be summarised from the above-mentioned legal challenges that climate change increasing environmental concerns, forceful displacement of the native and indigenous community and the ill-treatment of water resources has led to a major dispute. Along with this, support of the federal and state government to the coal mining project of Adani enterprises has created a discrepancy in the civil rights of the indigenous communities as well as the non-indigenous people of Australia.

1. Potential legal remedies for the human rights violation: Criminal Liability, Civil Liability and International Human Rights Law

The coal mining project of the Adani enterprises in Australia aims to produce approximately 40 to 60 million tonnes of thermal coal per year. The target of this project is to make the globe’s largest mine. ^[48] However, this repercussion will produce approximately 5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions after burning it. In the territory of Australia, this will specifically impact the Great Barrier Reef and subsequently will contribute to the already increasing global warming. This will further put a risk on the sustainable development of future generations. Therefore, the approval given by the federal and state government of the country shows that the ignorance of the environmental harm and the degradation in the ecology has given rise to green criminology. The criminal perspective of collaboration between the Australian government and the Adani Groups for the purpose of economic benefits also concludes that state-corporate crime has prevailed. ^[49] In order to combat corporate-state crime, the burden of criminal liability is given to the Australian government, which has ignored the potential risk of gaining monetary advantage. At this time, the judiciary can support the aggrieved parties and discontinue or desist the ongoing project. In fact, the appeal of the Australian Conservation Foundation challenged the ignorance of the law, and as a result, the Federal Court arrived at the conclusion that the lack of risk assessment was a legal error of the government. ^[50]

Moreover, civil liability is put on the enterprises associated with the mining project because of harming the Great Barrier Reef. As a legal remedy, efforts were taken by the conservationist group in the case of Mackay Conservation Group v Commonwealth of Australia, 2015 emphasised the importance of environmental harm done by corporations. Additionally, in this case, the activist conservation group appealed before the court to seek judicial review of the approval of the coal mining project by the Minister of Environment. ^[51] The three main contentions of the Mckay Group were that the Minister failed to assess the global greenhouse gas emissions impact on the environment. The second contention included that the Minister did not assess the background of the mine operators who were already contravening the environment-related legislation of India as well as Australia. ^[52] Lastly, the contention dealt with the ignorance of conservation advisory reports. Therefore, the court held that the rest of the third contention was valid, and the preceding two contentions focused on the Adani Group’s failure to be consistent with the law of the land and the law of the business.

Here it should be noted that the contravention of human rights has also taken place. In this, the fundamental rights of indigenous communities and the activities associated with the integration of the mining project were the subjects of collusion and mass contravention of human rights law. ^[53] This is because the native title rights were disregarded, and the indigenous land was approved to be used by the multinational company. Hence, the legal remedy for W&J was already available in the Native Title Act 1993, although the applicability of this legislation was also ignored. Additionally, it is important to note that according to the Human Rights Act of 2019, ^[54] cultural rights and preservation of human rights are available. The legal mechanism hugely impacts the fundamental nature of laws because the indigenous community’s only source of livelihood is their traditional/ancestral land. Apart from this, there is also the contravention of international human rights for non-indigenous people. ^[55] The civil and criminal perspectives presented in the sections mentioned above establish that, as a whole, the corporation cannot comprehend the impact of climate change and sustainable development. 

VI. Recommendations

These suggestions are presented to enhance the legal and regulatory framework for mining activities in Australia. These mining activities help gain economic advantages but simultaneously contain an adversary effect on human rights, the environment and sustainable development as a whole. Therefore, the rights entitlement should be properly submitted and legally applicable to the indigenous community. This coincides with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to provide free consent before involving any mining projects. ^[56] The involvement of mining companies with the local communities should increase for a smoother project construction process. This way, several opportunities can be given to the local civilians to express their concerns, making the mining process reliable and subject to constructive criticism. This can also increase the mutual dependency between the local community and the corporations.

Furthermore, the business and human rights framework can also be managed better. ^[57] This can be done by emphasising assessing the environmental and social impact of any project commenced by domestic or foreign companies. The company's risk analysis and background check should be done before giving permits. This also requires the projects and the steps that the different government departments take to be transparent so that the scope of ignorance on any perspective is lost.

VII. Conclusion

In summary, the relationship between the Carmichael Coal Mining Project and Australian ecology and sociology has been discussed in this research to contemplate the legal issues with proper solutions. Primarily, this research presented an in-depth analysis of the Carmichael Coal Mine Project initiated by the Adani Enterprise and how its associated activities have resulted in the contravention of human rights. The MNCs have a prerequisite code of principles to comply with according to the UNGP, but this project has deliberately ignored the fundamental rights of W&J and sustenance of the society. While discussing the legal and regulatory framework, the execution of legislation was not monitored. Hence, it is important to conclude that the federal and state government supported the mining activities by distributing the mining permit. The government overlooked the legal validity of MRA, EPA, SDPWOA and EPBC because even though the advisory reports indicated the adversary effects of the mining project, no adherence was given to regulate and monitor the activities. As mentioned in the subsequent sections, the ignorance of the law by the government resulted in a social imbalance of the indigenous rights of W&J.

Bibliography

Journal

Ana Blazey. Analysing the Impacts of Neoliberal Development on an Indigenous Community: Adani Enterprises versus Australian Traditional Owners the Wangan and Jagalingou peoples. Voices from the Darker Side of, (2021) 91.URL: https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/86691/86553.pdf#page=96

Andreas Rasche and Sandra Waddock, “The UN guiding principles on business and human rights implications for corporate social responsibility research” (2021) 6:2 BHRJ < https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal/article/abs/un-guiding-principles-on-business-and-human-rights-implications-for-corporate-social-responsibility-research/8149DA364E95FE534D39144A45ECBDC0 >

Bennett Freeman, Maria B. Pica, and Christopher N. Camponovo, “A new approach to corporate responsibility: the voluntary principles on security and human rights’”(2001) 24:423 HICLR < https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review >

Brynn O’BRIEN. Extraterritorial detention contracting in Australia and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1(02), (2016), 333–340. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2016.12

Cameron Amos, Tom Swann. (2015). Carmichael in context. URL: http://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Amos-2015-Carmichael-in-context-.pdf

Cassotta, Sandra, Vladimir Pacheco Cueva, and Malayna Raftopoulos, "Australia: Regulatory, human rights and economic challenges and opportunities of large-scale mining projects: A case study of the carmichael coal mine." (2020) EPL < https://www.academia.edu/download/66695727/AustraliaRegulatoryHumanRights._.pdf >

Catherine Howlett and Rebecca Lawrence, “Accumulating Minerals and Dispossessing Indigenous Australians: Native Title Recognition as Settler-Colonialism” (2019) 51(3) A 818. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12516

Claire Konkes, Cynthia Nixon, Libby Lester and Kathleen Williams, “Coal versus coral: Australian climate change politics sees the Great Barrier Reef in court” (2022) 28:2 QR 132. https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2022.10

Claire Konkes, “Green Lawfare: Environmental Public Interest Litigation and Mediatized Environmental Conflict” (2018) 12:2 EC 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1371054

Dr. Julia Dehm, “Coal Mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian Climate litigation: reflections on Gloucester resources limited v. Minister for planning and Environment” (2021) 26:2, 244-273 < https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1813380 > 

Dr Julia Dehm. Coal mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian climate litigation: Reflections on Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 26(2), (2020), 244–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x

Enrico Benzoni, Alessandro Cojutti, Dario Lorenzin, Gian Luigi Adani,Umberto Baccarani, Alessandro Favero, Aron Zompicchiati, Fabrizio Bresadola & Alessandro Uzzau. “Liver resective surgery: a multivariate analysis of postoperative outcome and complication.” (2006) Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 392(1), 45–54. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-006-0084-y

Jacqueline Peel and Rebekkah Markey-Towler, “Recipe for Success?: Lessons for Strategic Climate Litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell Cases” (2021) 22 GLJ 1484. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.83

Jeremy Pearce. An application of the ‘foundational principles’ of the second pillar of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights to the ranger mine, in the Northern Territory of Australia. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 14(1), (2020), 86-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2020.104243

John Gerard Ruggie. Business and Human Rights: The Evolving International Agenda. American Journal of International Law, 101(4), (2007) 819–840. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/s0002930000037738

Julia Dehm, “Coal mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian climate litigation: Reflections on Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment." (2020) 26(2) AJHR 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1813380

Kalpalata Dutta. “UNGP: Importance of Policy Coherence in Addressing Resource Conflicts.” (2020) Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 5(4), 299–303. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00134-0

Kate Galloway, “Courts of the Conqueror: Adani and the shortcomings of Native Title Law” (2020) 91:1 AQ 14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26845357

Luke Smyth, “Adani's Carmichael mine, international law and the definition of consent” (2016) NTN 6. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.644848313529382

Margaret Gleeson, “Aurizon’s change of heart adds pressure to Adani” (2018) 1169 GLW 7. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.416160171087359

Margaret Gleeson, “Push to approve Adani coalmine” (2019) 1215 GLW 9. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.283897654906522

Mathieu Blondeel, “Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the USA, China, India and Australia.” (2018) Climatic Change. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2135-5

Matthew J. Currell, Adrian D. Werner, Chris McGrath, John A. Webb and Michael Berkman, “Problems with the application of hydrogeological science to the regulation of Australian mining projects: Carmichael Mine and Doongmabulla Springs” (2017) 548 JH 674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.031

Mitchell Hobbs, Hannah Della Bosca, David Schlosberg & Chao Sun. “Turf wars: Using social media network analysis to examine the suspected astroturfing campaign for the Adani Carmichael Coal mine on Twitter.” (2020) Journal of Public Affairs. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2057

Olivia Hasler, “State- corporate crime and ecocide: a critical study of the Carmichael coal mines” (2019) UOT < https://eprints.utas.edu.au/32371/1/Hasler_whole_thesis.pdf >

POLICY, A. S. ADANI GREEN ENERGY LIMITED. POLICY, (n.d) 4, 6. URL: https://www.adanigreenenergy.com/-/media/Project/GreenEnergy/Corporate-Governance/Policy/Anti-Slavery-Policy.pdf

Pratheek Maddhi Reddy and Armin Rosecranz, “Challenging the proposed Carmichael Mine before the UN” (2018) 48:1 EPL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-180047

R.M. Colvin “Social identity in the energy transition: an analysis of the “Stop Adani Convoy” to explore social-political conflict in Australia.” (2020) Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101492. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101492

Revel K. Pointon and Renee A. Rossini, “Legal Mechanisms to Protect Great Artesian Basin Springs: Successes and Shortfalls” (2020) 126 PRSQ 249. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.626775905809784

Roman Stutzer, Adrian Rinscheid, Thiago D. Oliveira, Pedro Mendes Loureiro, Aya Kachi & Mert Duygan. “Black coal, thin ice: the discursive legitimisation of Australian coal in the age of climate change.” (2021) Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1). URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00827-5

Ruchira Taldukdar, “Indigenous peoples demand 'water, forests, land' before coal” (2021) 1323 GLW 12. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.137300697637994

Ruggie, John, and Palais Des Nations, "Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework." (2011) Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. URL: https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/005fa82771ff9a01fafbbf345570f2d44e247426.pdf

Sandra Cassotta, Vladimir Pacheco Cueva and Malayna Raftopoulos, “A case study of the Carmichael Coal Mine from the perspectives of climate change mitigation and socio-economic factors” (2021) 17:1 LEAD 57. https://lead-journal.org/content/a1704.pdf

Stephen M Young, “The material costs of claiming International Human Rights: Australia, Adani and the Wangan and Jagalingou” (2019) 20:2 MJIL 598. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.590646574540134

Legislation

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Cth 1999.

Environmental Protection Act, Qld 1994.

Human Rights Act, Qld 2019.

Mineral Resources Act, Qld 1989.

Mining Act, 1978

Mining Regulation Act 2020

National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972

Native Title Act, Cth 1993.

Offshore Minerals Act, 2003

Opal Mining Act, 1955

Opal Mining Regulation Act, 2012

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, 2004.

The State Development and Public Works Organization Act, 1971

Wilderness Protection Act, 1993

Cases

Mabo v Queensland , 1992 175 CLR 1

Mackay Conservation Group v Commonwealth of Australia, 2015 NSD 33

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] FCA 768.

Books

George K. Foster, Indigenous participation in resource development: the promise and limitations of international safeguards (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115797.00022

Olivia Hasler, Illegal Mining: Organized Crime, Corruption, and Ecocide in a Resource-Scarce World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46327-4_18

Website

 Business for Social Responsibility, “10 Human rights priorities for the extractive sector” < https://www.bsr.org/en/primers/10-human-rights-priorities-for-the-extractives-sector >

^[1] Olivia Hasler, “State- corporate crime and ecocide: a critical study of the Carmichael coal mines” (2019) UOT < https://eprints.utas.edu.au/32371/1/Hasler_whole_thesis.pdf >

^[2] Dr. Julia Dehm, “Coal Mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian Climate Litigation: reflections on Gloucester resources limited v. Minister for Planning and Environment" (2021) 26:2, 244-273 < https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1813380 > 

^[3] Bennett Freeman, Maria B. Pica, and Christopher N. Camponovo, "A new approach to corporate responsibility: the voluntary principles on security and human rights"(2001) 24:423 HICLR < https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review >

^[4] Andreas Rasche and Sandra Waddock, “The UN guiding principles on business and human rights implications for corporate social responsibility research” (2021) 6:2 BHRJ < https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal/article/abs/un-guiding-principles-on-business-and-human-rights-implications-for-corporate-social-responsibility-research/8149DA364E95FE534D39144A45ECBDC0 >

^[5] Business for Social Responsibility, “10 Human rights priorities for the extractive sector” < https://www.bsr.org/en/primers/10-human-rights-priorities-for-the-extractives-sector >

^[6] Mining Act, 1978

^[7] Mining Regulation Act, 2020

^[8] Offshore Minerals Act, 2003

^[9] National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972

^[10] Wilderness Protection Act, 1993

^[11] Opal Mining Act, 1955

^[12] Opal Mining Regulation Act, 2012

^[13] Native Title Act, 1993

^[14] Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, 2004.

^[15] Mineral Resources Act, 1989

^[16] The Environmental Protection Act, 1994

^[17] The State Development and Public Works Organization Act, 1971

^[18] The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999

^[19] Cassotta, Sandra, Vladimir Pacheco Cueva, and Malayna Raftopoulos, "Australia: Regulatory, human rights and economic challenges and opportunities of large-scale mining projects: A case study of the Carmichael coal mine." (2020) EPL < https://www.academia.edu/download/66695727/AustraliaRegulatoryHumanRights._.pdf >

^[20] Brynn O'Brien, "Extraterritorial detention contracting in Australia and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights." (2016) Business and Human Rights Journal, 1(02), 333–340. DOI: < http://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2016.12 >

^[21] John Gerard Ruggie, “Business and Human Rights: The Evolving International Agenda.” (2007) American Journal of International Law, 101(4), 819–840. DOI: < http://doi.org/10.1017/s0002930000037738 >

^[22] Jeremy Pearce, “An application of the ‘foundational principles’ of the second pillar of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights to the ranger mine, in the Northern Territory of Australia.” (2020) International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 14(1), 86-101. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2020.104243 > 

^[23] Ruggie, John, and Palais Des Nations, "Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework." (2011) Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. URL: < https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/005fa82771ff9a01fafbbf345570f2d44e247426.pdf >

^[24] Dr Julia Dehm, “Coal mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian climate litigation: Reflections on Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment.” (2020) Australian Journal of Human Rights, 26(2), 244–273. DOI:< https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x >

^[25] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] FCA 768.

^[26] Mitchell Hobbs, Hannah Della Bosca, David Schlosberg & Chao Sun, “Turf wars: Using social media network analysis to examine the suspected astroturfing campaign for the Adani Carmichael Coal mine on Twitter.” (2020) Journal of Public Affairs. DOI: < http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2057 >

^[27] Roman Stutzer, Adrian Rinscheid, Thiago D. Oliveira, Pedro Mendes Loureiro, Aya Kachi & Mert Duygan, “Black coal, thin ice: the discursive legitimisation of Australian coal in the age of climate change.” (2021) Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1). URL: < https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00827-5 >

^[28] Mathieu Blondeel, “Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the USA, China, India and Australia.” (2018) Climatic Change. DOI:< http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2135-5 > 

^[29] Enrico Benzoni, Alessandro Cojutti, Dario Lorenzin, Gian Luigi Adani,Umberto Baccarani, Alessandro Favero, Aron Zompicchiati, Fabrizio Bresadola & Alessandro Uzzau, “Liver resection surgery: a multivariate analysis of postoperative outcome and complication." (2007) Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 392(1), 45–54. DOI: < http://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-006-0084-y > 

^[30] Ana Blazey, “Analysing the Impacts of Neoliberal Development on an Indigenous Community: Adani Enterprises versus Australian Traditional Owners the Wangan and Jagalingou peoples.” (2021) Voices from the Darker Side of, 91. URL: < https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/86691/86553.pdf#page=96 >

^[31] R.M. Colvin, “Social identity in the energy transition: an analysis of the “Stop Adani Convoy” to explore social-political conflict in Australia.” (2020) Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101492. DOI: < http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101492 > 

^[32] POLICY, “A. S. ADANI GREEN ENERGY LIMITED. POLICY” (n.d), 4, 6. URL:< https://www.adanigreenenergy.com/-/media/Project/GreenEnergy/Corporate-Governance/Policy/Anti-Slavery-Policy.pdf >

^[33] Cameron Amos, Tom Swann, “Carmichael in context.” (2015) URL: < http://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Amos-2015-Carmichael-in-context-.pdf >

^[34] Ruchira Taldukdar, “Indigenous peoples demand 'water, forests, land' before coal” (2021) 1323 GLW 12. < https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.137300697637994 > 

^[35] Luke Smyth, “Adani's Carmichael mine, international law and the definition of consent” (2016) NTN 6. < https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.644848313529382 >

^[36] Margaret Gleeson, “Push to approve Adani coalmine” (2019) 1215 GLW 9. < https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.283897654906522 > 

^[37] Claire Konkes, Cynthia Nixon, Libby Lester and Kathleen Williams, “Coal versus coral: Australian climate change politics sees the Great Barrier Reef in court” (2022) 28:2 QR 132. < https://doi.org/10.1017/qre.2022.10 >

^[38] Mineral Resources Act, Qld 1989.

^[39] Environmental Protection Act, Qld 1994.

^[40] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Cth 1999.

^[41] Stephen M Young, “The material costs of claiming International Human Rights: Australia, Adani and the Wangan and Jagalingou” (2019) 20:2 MJIL 598. < https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.590646574540134 >

^[42] Pratheek Maddhi Reddy and Armin Rosecranz, “Challenging the proposed Carmichael Mine before the UN” (2018) 48:1 EPL. DOI:< https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-180047 >

^[43] Julia Dehm, "Coal mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian climate litigation: Reflections on Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment." (2020) 26(2) AJHR 244. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1813380 >

^[44] Mabo v Queensland , 1992 175 CLR 1.

^[45] Native Title Act, Cth 1993.

^[46] Margaret Gleeson, “Aurizon’s change of heart adds pressure to Adani” (2018) 1169 GLW 7. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.416160171087359

^[47] Matthew J. Currell, Adrian D. Werner, Chris McGrath, John A. Webb and Michael Berkman, “Problems with the application of hydrogeological science to regulation of Australian mining projects: Carmichael Mine and Doongmabulla Springs” (2017) 548 JH 674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.031

^[48] Olivia Hasler, Illegal Mining: Organised Crime, Corruption, and Ecocide in a Resource-Scarce World (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46327-4_18

^[49] Jacqueline Peel and Rebekkah Markey-Towler, “Recipe for Success?: Lessons for Strategic Climate Litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell Cases” (2021) 22 GLJ 1484. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.83

^[50] Sandra Cassotta, Vladimir Pacheco Cueva and Malayna Raftopoulos, "A case study of the Carmichael Coal Mine from the perspectives of climate change mitigation and socio-economic factors" (2021) 17:1 LEAD 57. https://lead-journal.org/content/a1704.pdf

^[51] Mackay Conservation Group v Commonwealth of Australia, 2015 NSD 33.

^[52] Claire Konkes, “Green Lawfare: Environmental Public Interest Litigation and Mediatized Environmental Conflict” (2018) 12:2 EC 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1371054

^[53] Revel K. Pointon and Renee A. Rossini, “Legal Mechanisms to Protect Great Artesian Basin Springs: Successes and Shortfalls” (2020) 126 PRSQ 249. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.626775905809784

^[54] Human Rights Act, Qld 2019.

^[55] Kate Galloway, “Courts of the Conqueror: Adani and the shortcomings of Native Title Law” (2020) 91:1 AQ 14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26845357

^[56] George K. Foster, Indigenous participation in resource development: the promise and limitations of international safeguards (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115797.00022

^[57] Catherine Howlett and Rebecca Lawrence, “Accumulating Minerals and Dispossessing Indigenous Australians: Native Title Recognition as Settler-Colonialism” (2019) 51(3) A 818. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12516

You Might Also Like:-

Law, Human Rights & Global Governance Assignment Help

Corporate Social Responsibility & Human Rights in Australia

Australian Human Rights Commission Act Assignment Sample

Looking For Complete Assignment Sample Get It On WhatsApp