Earlier this year, Ombudsman Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon gave his views on proposals to make the environment a fundamental human right in Malta’s Constitution. His reflections regarding the PN’s proposal were cautious, if not outright sceptical, as he highlighted the legal and cultural challenges of translating good intentions into enforceable rights.

Earlier in 2025, Ombudsman Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon gave his views to The Malta Independent on proposals to make the environment a fundamental human right in Malta’s Constitution. His reflections regarding the PN’s proposal were cautious, if not outright sceptical, highlighting the legal and cultural challenges of translating good intentions into enforceable rights.

Zammit McKeon warned that the proposal risked becoming a “Pandora’s Box” of constitutional and legal complexities. Definitional clarity, he argued, is the first hurdle: what precisely do we mean by the “right to the environment”? Without clear parameters, almost any environmental dispute—from air quality concerns to planning decisions—could be framed as a constitutional breach, potentially overwhelming the courts with cases that lack clear legal standards.

He also noted that Malta’s Constitution already addresses environmental concerns in the Declaration of Principles (Chapter 2), though these are not legally enforceable. A more pragmatic approach, he suggested, would be to strengthen these provisions—for example, by acknowledging the negative effects of climate change—so that they more effectively guide legislation without overstretching constitutional protections.

The real difficulty lies in Chapter 4, which enshrines fundamental rights and freedoms. Amending it to include the environment would not only require rare political consensus but would also radically expand the scope of judicial enforcement. As Zammit McKeon observed, Maltese society may not yet be ready to reopen Chapter 4, a sensitive part of the Constitution that has been carefully guarded. Still, he did not dismiss the idea outright. He stressed that human rights are in continuous evolution, shaped by urgency and necessity. But he also underlined that progress requires more than rhetoric—it demands cultural change, sound policy, and practical enforcement mechanisms. Without these foundations, an environmental right risks becoming symbolic rather than meaningful.

In short, Zammit McKeon’s comments earlier this year remind us that while protecting the environment is a moral and political imperative, elevating it to a constitutional right may be premature. The danger is not in ambition, but in creating rights that cannot be enforced rights that inspire on paper but fall short in practice.