There are strict procedural duties, including prior assessment of environmental impacts, access to participation in decision-making, and judicial remedies, which states must follow in deciding how to strike a balance between environmental protection and other societal interests, such as economic development. Second, it defers to the substantive decisions that result from these procedures, as long as the decisions do not reduce human rights below minimum standards. 

From the above standard, an observable pattern of state obligations can be drawn, which are;

1. State obligations to a citizen;

2. State obligations to communities/ groups; and

3. State obligations to other states.

However, not all human rights infringements violate legal obligations. Some human rights may carry ethical or moral implications without necessarily imposing corresponding legal duties. While climate change interferes with the enjoyment of rights recognized in human rights treaties, this interference does not always equate to a legal violation.

Climate change is a technical and environmental challenge, but applying a human rights lens illuminates its disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities. States that incorporate environmental rights into their frameworks often feel compelled to meet international standards, such as those outlined in the Paris Agreement.

The State is primarily responsible for regulating private actions to prevent environmental damage. African states, in particular, often take this responsibility seriously. For example, Article 42 of the Kenyan Constitution guarantees every Kenyan the right to a clean and healthy environment and mandates the legislature to protect this right for future generations. Article 70 ensures the government faces penalties if it fails to meet these obligations.

In Martin Osano Rabera v. The County Council of Nakuru, the Environmental and Land Court clearly highlighted that due to the Municipal Council of Nakuru not regulating a dumpsite, they violated the petitioners' right to a clean and healthy environment. Another element of the state’s duty owed to a private citizen is the regulation of private actors. But that is not all; the state should also pass legislative laws to protect this right. In theory, the Kenyan government seems to have taken steps to ensure that, at least from their end, they have legislative measures in place to protect the citizens from the effects of climate change. The fundamental problem remains to be the enforceability of the Climate Change Act.

Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has demonstrated that civil rights obligate governments to protect citizens from environmental harm. In Oneryildiz v. Turkey, the Turkish government was held liable for violating the right to life due to its failure to regulate a methane waste site, which later exploded. Similarly, the court emphasized that governments should take active steps to prevent threats to the right to life and must require everyone involved to take practical measures to ensure the protection of people’s lives to prevent endangering lives.

Marginalized groups disproportionately feel the effects of climate change. Societies that rely on their immediate environment for food, shelter, and clothing are especially vulnerable to displacement, which could even result in cultural erosion or, in extreme cases, genocide. Human rights treaties and national constitutions obligate states to protect these communities.

In Social and Economic Rights Action Center & the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria (Ogoniland case), the African Commission found Nigeria liable for environmental degradation caused by oil extraction. The Commission emphasized that states must take reasonable measures to prevent pollution, promote conservation, and ensure sustainable development. Massive environmental degradation depriving a people of subsistence was deemed a violation of the right to self-determination.

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has established procedural requirements for governments before interfering with rights, such as:

• Genuine consultations with those affected;

• Timely and full disclosure of information about proposed measures;

• Reasonable notice of proposed actions;

• Legal recourse and remedies for those affected; and

• Access to legal assistance.

The CESCR has also stated that failure to meet "minimum essential levels" of a right—such as access to clean water—constitutes a violation of core obligations, even if the state cites resource constraints.

Climate change is not confined to national borders, which requires countries to assume obligations to one another. While human rights obligations are traditionally vertical (state-to-individual), combating climate change also requires diagonal obligations (state-to-state).

The OHCHR Report concludes that climate change "has obvious implications for the enjoyment of human rights," but tracing specific state actions to adverse climate effects is legally complex. For instance, in the 2005 Inuit petition, the Inuit community argued that climate change affects the Inuit right to health:

• As sea ice disappears and local weather conditions change, the fish and game on which the Inuit rely for nutrition disappear, and new diseases move northward.

• The quality and quantity of drinking water diminishes.

• The dramatic changes in the circumstances of their lives damage the Inuits' mental health. 

Despite the factual and legal support the petition provided for its assertions, the Inter-American Commission said that it was not possible to process the complaint 'at present' In explanation, the Commission stated that "the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration.  In March 2007, the Commission held a hearing on the connections between climate change and human rights, but it has taken no further action since then.

To ensure compliance, Kenya should:

1. Adhere to the Paris Agreement, particularly its goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

2. Implement domestic conservation laws, such as the Environmental Management and Coordination Act and Climate Change Act.

3. Promote public awareness and adopt greener policies in homes and businesses.

4. Encourage active citizenry to hold both the government and private actors accountable through strategic litigation.