ABSTRACT
This chapter explores where there is the language of human rights essentially individualistic. If so, is it coherent to deploy that language to express the aspirations of whole peoples. Should people not use other normative language for such claims. The chapter discusses the view that 'first' and 'second generation' rights, at any rate, are individualistic, and compares them with the 'third generation rights' that we are interested in. It concentrates on the sort of goods that are involved in these 'third generation' claims; they will distinguish between public goods (in the economists' sense) and what is called 'communal goods'. The chapter also argues that communal goods, though they may be important, should not be regarded as the subject-matter of individual rights. It asks whether it is sensible to talk of group rights. Clearly, a better understanding of the dynamics of global environmental injustice and human rights problems remains a challenge to future research.
