II. SURVEYING THE STATE OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: MUCH BARK WITH LITTLE BITE?

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston

In the three years since last surveyed in the Quarterly,1 EU environmental law has continued to justify its reputation as one of the most fast-moving fields of EU law, with a large number of highly significant legislative and jurisprudential developments. This review selects some of the most important areas of development in the field in recent years: in particular, the EU's new environmental action programme for 2013–20, EU climate and energy law, environmental governance and enforcement, and integration of environmental concerns into other EU policy areas.

Author(s):  
Daniel Butt

This chapter examines the limitations of both command-and-control and market-based legal mechanisms in the pursuit of environmental justice. If the environment is to be protected to at least a minimally acceptable degree, approaches that focus on the coercive force of the state must be complemented by the development of an “ecological ethos,” whereby groups and individuals are motivated to act with non-self-interested concern for the environment. The need for this ethos means that the state is dependent on the cooperation of a wide range of non-state actors. Recent work on environmental governance emphasizes the delegation of aspects of governing to such actors and supports efforts to increase popular participation in governmental processes. The chapter therefore advocates a governance approach that seeks to rectify some of the limitations of state-led environmental law, while encouraging popular participation in a way that can encourage the development of an ecological ethos among the citizenry.


Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston ◽  
Zizhen Wang ◽  
Edwin Alblas ◽  
Micheál Callaghan ◽  
Julie Foulon ◽  
...  

AbstractEuropean environmental governance has radically transformed over the past two decades. While traditionally enforcement of environmental law has been the responsibility of public authorities (public authorities of the EU Member States, themselves policed by the European Commission), this paradigm has now taken a democratic turn. Led by changes in international environmental law and in particular the UNECE Aarhus Convention (UNECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention), signed on June 25, 1998.), EU law now gives important legal rights to members of the public and environmental non-governmental organisations (“ENGOs”) to become involved in environmental governance, by means of accessing environmental information, participating in environmental decision-making and bringing legal proceedings. While doctrinal legal and regulatory scholarship on this embrace of “bottom-up” private environmental governance is now substantial, there has been relatively little quantitative research in the field. This article represents a first step in mapping this evolution of environmental governance laws in the EU. We employ a leximetrics methodology, coding over 6000 environmental governance laws from three levels of legal sources (international, EU and national), to provide the first systematic data showing the transformation of European environmental governance regimes. We develop the Nature Governance Index (“NGI”) to measure how the enforcement tools deployed in international, EU and national law have changed over time, from the birth of the EU’s flagship nature conservation law, the 1992 Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). At the national level, we focus on three EU Member States (France, Ireland and the Netherlands) to enable a fine-grained measurement of the changes in national nature governance laws over time. This article introduces our unique datasets and the NGI, describes the process used to collect the datasets and its limitations, and compares the evolution in laws at the international, EU and national levels over the 23-year period from 1992–2015. Our findings provide strong empirical confirmation of the democratic turn in European environmental governance, while revealing the significant divergences between legal systems that remain absent express harmonisation of the Aarhus Convention’s principles in EU law. Our data also set the foundations for future quantitative legal research, enabling deeper analysis of the relationships between the different levels of multilevel environmental governance.


Author(s):  
Marauhn Thilo

This chapter assesses the role of the state in international environmental law. The starting point is the Westphalian notion of states' unimpaired freedom of action, increasingly revealed as a ‘myth’. The chapter then considers ideas of contemporary statehood—an element of a global system of environmental governance. Contemporary statehood and its relevance for international environmental law can best be illuminated by focusing on the roles assumed by states as authors, addressees, and guardians of international law. Finally, the chapter discusses the changing role of states in light of ongoing transformations in the international legal system, including the growing plurality of actors, norms, and institutions, as well as the growth of inter-linked networks of states and other actors.


2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 1129-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston

The period since the last survey published in this journal has been marked by much activity, but also some frustration, in the area of EU environmental policy.1 The present survey comes as the EU nears the end of its Sixth Environmental Action Programme (EAP) setting out the EU's environmental policy directions from 2002 to 2012, where it identified four priority areas for this period: climate change; nature and biodiversity; environment and health; and natural resources and waste.2 While progress has been made in each of these fields, significant setbacks have also occurred and, in a number of important areas, the state of the EU environment continues to deteriorate.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-341
Author(s):  
James Harrison

There was a concern following the 2016 Brexit referendum that environmental standards in the United Kingdom (UK) may be lowered unless action was taken to address gaps in environmental governance that would be caused by leaving the European Union (EU). Debates over the nature of those gaps and how to fill them have continued over the years since the referendum and it is only recently that the emerging picture of post-Brexit environmental governance in Scotland has been revealed, allowing a preliminary study of the future for environmental standards in the jurisdiction. This article aims to provide an overview and analysis of recent legal developments which are likely to influence the future of environmental law in Scotland, including the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the incorporation of environmental principles into Scots law, new powers to align Scottish environmental standards with EU law, and the new institutional framework to oversee compliance with environmental law in Scotland. The article considers the impact that these new arrangements will have on the development of Scottish environmental law and in particular the implications for Scottish institutions in deciding whether to promote ongoing continuity with EU law, promote convergence with other parts of the UK, or strike out on their own path of environmental law reform.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Fisher

This chapter examines the roles of sciences in environmental law and the challenges created by the sciences/environmental law interface. It begins with a discussion of three roles played by the sciences in different areas of environmental law. First, the sciences can help identify environmental problems, their causes, and their possible solutions. Second, the sciences are a key component of the practice of environmental law and regulation. Third, the sciences play a symbolic role in the process of legitimizing environmental action by the state. The chapter goes on to consider the challenges involved in the interrelationship between the sciences and environmental law, the different ways in which science has been ‘contained’ as a response to those challenges, and how this leads to a failure of communities to take collective epistemic responsibility and legal culture seriously. It also explores the issue of kettling the sciences in environmental law.


2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene L. Heuser

AbstractThe current legal situation in the European Union does not provide a sufficiently effective framework to protect our soils against damages. The existing legislation covers some aspects of chemical and biological soil protection, e.g. in the sewage sludge directive, the Water Framework Directive, the IPPC Directive, the Habitats Directive as well as in waste management law, but it remains fragmented and focuses on safeguarding the soils as side effects. Furthermore, the requirements for the prevention of soil compaction, erosion, sealing and other physical threats of the soil are hardly considered by EU law. A turning point was marked by the 6th Environmental Action Programme with the intention to develop a specific EU strategy for soil protection (which is due to be published soon). According to reflections de lege ferenda (which could have a stimulating effect in this process), principles and instruments of EU soil protection law could be developed as elements of a targeted policy. The combination of regulative and non-regulative instruments, particularly consisting of those of planning, of direct and indirect behaviour control, of company organisation and of private law, could lead to a more effective protection of the soils. A closer look at these possible EU instruments might be interesting for the development of legal regimes of soil protection at the national and international level as well. These general considerations should be evaluated with regard to the EU competences and the principle of subsidiarity.


Author(s):  
Thilo Marauhn

Since the early days of modern public international law, the state has been the most important subject thereof. However, today, it is neither the sole, nor necessarily the primary, actor in international (environmental) relations. In recent years, the role of the state and, notably, the ability of the state to address environmental risks and threats, have increasingly come to be scrutinised. While states' standard setting remains important, commentators have argued that the ability and willingness of states to implement and enforce such standards have major weaknesses. Nevertheless, the state remains a truly important actor in international relations. It forms part of international governance, which has become multilevel governance. This article discusses the changing role of the state in international environmental governance. It examines states as authors, addressees, and guardians of international environmental law. The article also considers the over-estimation of Westphalian concepts of sovereignty, international environmental agreements, international environmental obligations, statehood as an element of a global system of environmental governance, and the role of the state in the transformation of the international legal system.


1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Ackermann ◽  
Gordon Hughes ◽  
Clyde Hertzman ◽  
Laszlo Somlyody ◽  
Kristalina Georgieva ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-672
Author(s):  
Josef Weinzierl

AbstractQuite a few recent ECJ judgments touch on various elements of territorial rule. Thereby, they raise the profile of the main question this Article asks: Which territorial claims does the EU make? To provide an answer, the present Article discusses and categorizes the individual elements of territoriality in the EU’s architecture. The influence of EU law on national territorial rule on the one hand and the emergence of territorial governance elements at the European level on the other provide the main pillars of the inquiry. Once combined, these features not only help to improve our understanding of the EU’s distinctly supranational conception of territoriality. What is more, the discussion raises several important legitimacy questions. As a consequence, the Article calls for the development of a theoretical model to evaluate and justify territoriality in a political community beyond the state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document