Environmental Justice in Transition: Regina Paulose on Truth, Water, and Rights

In cooperation with Iran Human Rights

Audio File of Podcast Episode Weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking with Regina M. Paulose, an international criminal law attorney and editor of Blue Crimes and International Criminal Law, and Green Crimes and International Criminal Law. Her work sits at the intersection of environmental destruction, corruption, and human rights—making her one of the leading voices on how law can confront ecological collapse. We spoke because Iran’s water crisis is not just technical or environmental—it is a question of justice. Decades of dam building, river diversions, and systemic corruption have devastated communities and ecosystems. In any transitional period, the challenge will not only be repairing the damage, but also holding accountable those who profited while people lost their homes, land, and water rights. With Regina, we explored what a Truth Commission on Water and the Environment might look like for Iran, and how international law and people-led justice movements could bring long-overdue recognition and accountability to these hidden crimes. ​​Nik Kowsar: Hi Regina, thanks for joining us.

Regina Paulose: Hi Nik, how are you?

​​Nik Kowsar: Awesome, thanks. I was just telling a colleague from the Middle East that water is really what connects us—it makes up more than 70% of our bodies, and yet we often forget how vital it is. Reading your work over the years has reminded me of that, and honestly, I felt a little jealous. You’ve been such a prolific writer on these issues. Some of your themes overlap with what I’ve written, and I thought, “If only I had worked harder, maybe I’d have written that myself!” So pardon my jealousy—but I’m grateful to have you with us on this topic. Going through your articles on water and human rights, I noticed you focused on the crises in southwestern Iran. That really struck me, because I’ve worked on these issues for years. What’s your take on what has happened in that region, especially with all those dams imposed on the people and the land?

Regina Paulose: It’s a very difficult situation. Information coming out of Iran is limited and often suppressed, so activists and experts can’t speak freely. But what we do know points to a gathering storm. Climate change challenges are severe, and on top of that there’s systemic corruption—the IRGC and water mafias dominate decisions with no regard for long-term impacts. One of the biggest problems I see is the lack of engagement with communities. Farmers and local residents have deep knowledge of their lands, but they’re rarely consulted on projects that directly affect them. The result is a storm of overlapping problems: ecological damage, land instability, declining biodiversity, and even dams that fail to generate the electricity they promised. It’s unsustainable, and we see the evidence in recurring droughts and failing infrastructure.

Nik Kowsar: Exactly. Since the creation of the EPA in the U.S., large projects must go through environmental impact assessments. Building a major dam here has become, frankly, damn hard. But in Iran, the opposite has happened. Since the 1990s, nearly 650 dams have been built—150 of them large dams—without independent environmental assessments. Some even lack permits from Iran’s Department of Environment.

So my question is: in other countries, how are officials held accountable for breaking environmental laws? And in Iran, we have Article 50 of the Constitution, which looks good on paper but is ignored. What legal mechanisms exist elsewhere that Iran could learn from?

Regina Paulose: What you’re asking about is a challenge we see around the world. In the United States, for example, there are multiple avenues for accountability—litigation in state and federal courts, and oversight from agencies like the EPA. The difference, though, is that the rule of law is generally respected, which makes those mechanisms effective. In India, there are even specialized “Green Courts” that hear environmental cases. They review whether environmental impact assessments were done properly, whether communities were consulted, and whether the process met legal standards. That’s an innovative model, but enforcement often falls short—judgments are issued but not carried out. In much of Asia, environmental assessments often serve as little more than rubber stamps. The same companies that build the dams draft the assessments, governments approve them, and corruption circulates through kickbacks. The process becomes a closed loop that ignores environmental or community concerns.

For Iran, the starting point has to be respect for the rule of law and real access to justice. Without that, none of the laws on the books—including Article 50 of the Constitution or international commitments—carry any meaning. Right now, defenders who protest are silenced, prosecuted in sham trials, and even jailed. We saw this during the Khuzestan water protests. So two immediate issues need to be addressed: first, Iran must take the rule of law and access to justice seriously; and second, as a party to the UN Convention against Corruption, it must finally act against entrenched corruption in the water sector. If those foundations are built, and if farmers and local communities are integrated into environmental decision-making, we could see meaningful change. But without those steps, accountability will remain impossible.

Nik Kowsar: That’s so true. What troubles me is that many people who profited from destructive dam projects in Iran—the so-called water mafia—later moved abroad, investing their money in Europe or Canada. They knew their projects lacked assessments and harmed people, but they still made millions. Politicians in democratic countries rarely question how that money was made. Is there any precedent for holding such individuals accountable once they’ve fled?

Regina Paulose: The scenario you describe is, to my knowledge, largely unexplored. We’ve seen accountability efforts in cases of mass atrocities, but rarely in situations where individuals or companies have profited from environmental destruction and then fled abroad. This is an area that urgently needs more attention.

Communities in particular need to begin thinking about reparations—how to seek redress for the loss of their land, livelihoods, and environment at the hands of those who knowingly caused harm. For many people, these issues are inseparable: corruption, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses all overlap.

To move forward, we first need greater awareness of how this system works—how profits are made from destructive projects and then laundered into safe havens abroad. The connection between corruption and environmental devastation is still not discussed nearly enough, and it must become part of the legal and justice agenda.

Nik Kowsar: Inside Iran, I’ve seen how the state and its contractors also bribe journalists to promote propaganda about dams. People are taught to believe dams are solutions, not problems. If there were a future Truth Commission on water and the environment, how could both the bribers and those who took bribes be held accountable?

Regina Paulose: I think, given the history of how the Islamic Republic has responded—or failed to respond—to atrocities of any kind, a people-led Truth Commission is essential. It would clarify what has happened, identify those responsible, and create a record that the state has always tried to suppress. Too often, we focus narrowly on human victims and ignore environmental destruction, when in reality it impacts everyone—people, wildlife, and entire ecosystems. The consequences are severe, and as you’ve noted in your own writing, Iran will likely face waves of “water refugees” forced to leave their homes as resources disappear.

A truth commission on water and the environment—whether people-led or eventually backed by state institutions—could reshape how society understands these issues. It would also counter the propaganda pushed by PR firms and government-paid media, who rewrite narratives and whitewash ecological damage. We’ve seen how important these independent initiatives can be: the Iran Tribunal created a record of mass atrocities, even when the state refused accountability.

There are also precedents at the international level. One example is the World Commission on Dams, an independent body that in 2000 produced a landmark report on dam construction and rights. That report is now outdated, but it remains a model of how independent commissions can evaluate global practices. It may be time for the international community to convene a new body of that kind, updated to reflect the right to a healthy environment and other norms developed since 2000. A revived independent commission, combined with a people-centered truth process, could provide powerful tools for accountability and justice in cases like Iran’s—and for communities worldwide harmed by destructive megaprojects.

Nik Kowsar: That leads to the regional dimension. Iran isn’t alone in this. Turkey’s GAP project on the Tigris and Euphrates devastated downstream communities in Syria and Iraq. Iran itself is blocking rivers into Iraqi Kurdistan. This is happening worldwide, and it risks destabilizing entire civilizations. What role should the human rights community play in forcing institutions like the UN to take this seriously?

Regina Paulose: I think that’s a great question, and one I’ve been reflecting on recently. As you know, I just finished publishing Blue Crimes and International Criminal Law with a group of scholars, where we asked: what do we do about all the crimes tied to water and the oceans? One chapter, by my colleague Ronald Rogo, examines a dam project in Africa whose impact on Indigenous communities is so devastating that he argues it amounts to genocide.

What this shows is the urgent need for stronger international mechanisms. The UN, for instance, should establish a thematic mandate specifically on water rights and water protection. That would elevate water as a permanent issue of human rights and justice. At the very least, existing mandates—on climate migration, Indigenous peoples, and the environment—should integrate water more directly.

We’re already seeing the risks of ignoring this. Take China’s massive dam project in Tibet, projected to be even larger than the Three Gorges. Scientists still don’t fully understand the Himalayan ecosystem, yet the potential repercussions across the region are enormous.

This is why raising awareness remains essential. Too often, important analyses—like the ones you’ve written—don’t reach the broader public or policymakers. At the same time, people-led initiatives, such as the recent “rights of nature” tribunals, show that civil society can push these issues into public debate, even if their long-term impact hasn’t been fully studied.

International law also has a role to play. Just recently, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on climate justice. Water deserves the same level of attention. There were even discussions in Iraq at one point about bringing a case against Iran before the ICJ over river diversions, although that never materialized. Still, these are avenues that must be explored.

The reality is that we don’t have decades to wait. Poor governance and environmental degradation are already causing enormous suffering, threatening food supplies and displacing populations. This isn’t a distant problem—it’s a crisis of right now.

Nik Kowsar: Absolutely. In Syria, the 2006–2009 drought, worsened by Turkey’s upstream dams, forced mass migration. Yet the focus is always on climate change, never on upstream state actions. Reduced flows of the Tigris and Euphrates fueled instability in Iraq and even helped ISIS gain ground. How can states be held accountable if they reject international norms?

Regina Paulose: I think the key question is: what does accountability actually look like? Not everyone will agree that building a dam is “criminal.” Some will argue it was just bad science, or that planners couldn’t have predicted droughts. That’s why each project has to be examined on its own terms—who made the decision, what knowledge was available, and what the actual impacts were.

Personally, I don’t see dams as useful in Iran today. In drought conditions, they don’t work. Decommissioning and restoring rivers would be far more effective. We’ve seen this in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where tribes successfully pushed for the removal of dams on the Klamath River. Salmon populations are returning, ecosystems are reviving, and livelihoods are being restored. That’s accountability through litigation and repair, but it never rose to the level of criminal responsibility.

So the question is always context-specific. In Turkey, for example, if communities supported dam projects, then who exactly should be held accountable? We can’t impose a one-size-fits-all solution where everyone goes to jail. Instead, we need to ask: what do the affected people want? Do they want prosecutions? Do they want reparations? Or do they want ecological restoration? Defining accountability means centering those voices.

Nik Kowsar: I agree. Justice shouldn’t mean executions or vengeance. After Iran’s 1979 revolution, executions of officials didn’t solve anything. True justice should mean mitigation, repair, and learning from mistakes. In Iran’s case, experts warned as early as 1988 that aquifer recharge—not dams—was the sustainable solution. Our ancestors managed groundwater for 3,000 years, but leaders ignored that wisdom in favor of flashy, destructive projects. Thank you, Regina, for answering such tough questions. These are conversations we need to keep having.

Regina Paulose: Thank you, Nik. I appreciate the difficult questions, because they push us to think beyond the basics. I look forward to continuing this dialogue.