How to Represent the Silent Environment? An Update on Germany’s Struggle to Implement Article 9 (3) of the Aarhus Convention

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-389
Author(s):  
Amelie Ohler ◽  
Marjan Peeters ◽  
Mariolina Eliantonio
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Legal Change ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Judicial Protection

Abstract With Germany’s signature to the Aarhus Convention in 1998, the country committed to strengthening the legal position of environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (eNGOs). Since, traditionally, in Germany, “public interest litigation” was legally impossible, the country had to consider fundamental changes to its system of judicial review. More than 20 years later, the German implementation of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention (ac) has seen several amendments, but is still cause for controversy. Despite Germany’s prolonged efforts to adapt its legislation, there are, currently, two admitted complaints concerning Germany’s system of legal standing of eNGOs waiting for a (final) decision by the ac Compliance Committee, while several cjeu judgments have clarified the much-needed interpretation of Article 9(3) ac particularly also in view of the notion of effective judicial protection. These developments, together with scholarly criticism, indicate a need for further legal change in the German approach.

scholarly journals Rights education and children’s collective self-advocacy through public interest litigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Grover
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Human Rights Education ◽  
Educational Tool ◽  
Self Advocacy ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Raising Awareness

If human rights education of schoolchildren addresses advocacy at all, it is mostly or exclusively in terms of civic participation, which perhaps includes civil protest. This approach implicitly discourages young people from considering engaging with the courts as an additional or alternative vehicle in seeking a remedy for violations of their fundamental human rights. Human rights education is incomplete when it fails to address the child’s right to legal standing in the effort to seek justice; for instance, as part of a child collective that is significantly adversely and directly impacted by particular government actions. Exemplars of children acquiring legal standing and pursuing their rights through the courts can serve as a useful educational tool in raising awareness of the potential for child public interest advocacy through the courts. One such exemplar, the youth-led class action environmental protection case Juliana et al. v the United States et al., is discussed.  

scholarly journals THE NEO-JURISPRUDENCE OF PIL IN SUPERIOR COURTS OF PAKISTAN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRE AND POST LAWYERS’ MOVEMENT WORKING OF SUPERIOR COURTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44
Author(s):  
Hatim Aziz Solangi
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Proactive Approach ◽  
The People ◽  
Before And After

The dynamics of the superior judiciary in Pakistan have undergone a drastic transformation in its approach and working in post 2007 emergency followed by a landmark movement of civil and legal fraternity for restoration of constitutional supremacy. The neo-jurisprudence is being applauded and criticized at the same time.  The excessive use of Suo-motto and public interest litigation at one hand and frequent judicial review of executive and legislative action on other have been the main source of contention between judiciary and other two pillars of state, legislature and executive. The Superior Court is being recognized as the ultimate savior of fundamental rights and guardian of the constitution as well as rights of the people. At the other extreme, the criticism like activist judiciary; disrespect for popular will and making rather interpreting law are most commonly attributed to Superior Judiciary. The study is qualitative in nature and presents a comparative analysis of trends in Superior Court before and after Lawyers’ movement. The study also aims in justifying the proactive approach especially in providing social justice on failure of state organs to respond to the exigency of time.

scholarly journals China's Evolution from Socialist Legality: The Expansion in the Role of Judges and the Redress of Grievances

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
Zia Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Administrative Reforms ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Judicial Administration ◽  
New Framework

The Chinese state implemented a conscious transfer to a market economy after 1977 when the Four Modernisations were inaugurated and the new Constitution promulgated in 1982 raised the possibility for the separation of powers. The new framework introduced judicial review into the structure of the legal system that was to provide redress of grievances from mal administration. The transition to a new leadership in 2011 allowed the National Peoples Congress to enact administrative reforms, and further amendments to the Chinese Constitution in 2018 have promulgated the Judges Law. The judicial reforms promote the values of an independent judiciary and there is an effective machinery of justice which promotes judicial review. This paper argues that the centralisation of power by the Communist Party does not preclude the functioning of judicial administration that conforms to rule of law and an emerging trend of public interest litigation and participatory justice.

Part VI Rights—Structure and Scope, Ch.37 Public Interest Litigation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divan Shyam
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Character

This chapter examines public interest litigation (PIL) and its place in Indian constitutional law. The chapter begins with an overview of PIL as an instrument for dealing with public grievances such as flagrant human rights violations by the State, or for vindicating the public policies embodied in statutes or constitutional provisions. It then discusses the evolution of PIL in India and four distinct factors that contributed to its growth. It also explores how courts efficiently deploy judicial resources and decide genuine disputes of a legal character by recognising only those persons with locus standi, or legal standing. Finally, it describes a range of procedural innovations that distinguish PIL from conventional litigation and explains how the growth of PIL affected traditional notions of justiciability. It shows how the phenomenon of PIL has shaped both the nature of rights-based claims within Indian constitutional law as well as the role of the Supreme Court within Indian democracy.

scholarly journals Public Interest Litigation: Economic Implications (A Critical Appraisal of Reko DIQ Case)

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 63-71
Author(s):  
Dr. Barkat Ali ◽  
Dr. Hafiz Aziz-ur-Rehman
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
Judicial Intervention ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is, indeed, a constitutional mandate for preserving socio-economic and legal justice in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Pakistan). Such PIL objectives are focused  through the protection of fundamental rights of public importance under provisions of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973(Constitution, 1973). Though the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) has been vigilant while exercising judicial review powers as modus operendi for PIL, sometimes it is engaged, however, in the disguise of protection of fundamental rights, in the domain of other branches of the government. Even, such involvement has been extended to the matters of economic policies, which as a general principle of judicial review jurisprudence should be retrenched from judicial review jurisdiction. This trend has not only distorted the PIL objectives, it has influenced the socio-economic development which eventually affects the fundamental rights. Economic policies being of technical nature needs to be decided and supervised by the bodies concerned instead of the judicial intervention which is not appropriate. Judicial overlook of this fact may cause serious economic implications as it has occurred in the Reko Diq matter as decided in the case of Maulana v. Government (2013). The appraisal of exercising of PIL jurisdiction in this case demonstrates that 'judicial capital' is of no use, in the economic matters, and expanding its political capital in such matters eventually influences public interest. So, it is concluded that the matter relating to economic policies should be considered non-justiciable, and be denied from taking judicial cognizance.

scholarly journals Public interest litigation and the civil society factor

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-528
Author(s):  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article explores civil society organisations’ (CSOs) participation in judicial review proceedings. This became contentious when the Ministry of Justice announced that it intended to reform the judicial review process, and suggested changes to the law on standing and third-party interventions. Ultimately, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 did not amend the law in these areas, but has arguably made it more difficult for CSOs to engage in public interest litigation. Attempts to restrict the access of CSOs to judicial review need to be seen in the context of the shifting relationship between CSOs and the state, and differing perspectives on their function. If CSOs are to continue to take part in judicial review cases they need to justify their presence in terms of their expertise and on the ground knowledge. It is argued that deliberative, dignitarian and more general theories about the nature of civil society may well establish a basis for CSOs’ continued presence in judicial review litigation.

The Zhenhua Case: the emergence of civil environmental public interest litigation in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-128
Author(s):  
Wenjun Yan
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Air Pollution Control ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
First Time ◽  
Restoration Cost

Abstract In 2015, the All-China Environment Federation v Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Corporation Limited case was the first civil environmental public interest litigation (CEPIL) against air pollution in China. Constituting a milestone in the field of air pollution control in China, this case (i) confirms the eligibility of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to file civil public interest litigations; (ii) discusses remedies for the ecological destruction caused by air pollution; (iii) assesses the ecological and environmental damage using the ‘virtual restoration cost’ method; and (iv) uses public apology as an innovative way for Zhenhua to assume liability. By applying and interpreting several important rules under the Environmental Protection Law of China (EPLC) for the first time, this case sets an example for future CEPILs against air pollution in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document