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

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.

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

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.

I Will Kill You and Nothing Will Happen: Extra-Judicial Killings in Nigeria and Public Interest Litigation

Public interest litigation is a mechanism of intervention in a matter that concerns the public. It could be about human rights, government policy, or some other issue that could present a challenge to public life. Public interest litigation is important because it presents hope to the powerless and offers justice where there might not previously have been the opportunity. The aim of public interest litigation is to recognise injustice and give a voice to the concerns of members of society who might not have the means to articulate them. In Nigeria there is a high tendency for people of low socioeconomic status to experience police brutality, or even become victims of extra-judicial killing. In this article, it was argued that although public interest litigation is a good strategy to engage the injustice of extra-judicial killings, the recurrence shows that the solution lies more in addressing a systemic problem.

Application of Internet and Big Data Technology to Give Full Play to the Function of Procuratorial Civil Public Interest Litigation in China

The procuratorial civil public interest litigation system is a kind of legal system, which will realize certain legal functions. As an important way for procuratorial organs to exercise their functions and powers, procuratorial civil public interest litigation system in China has many functions: on the one hand, it has the core function of protecting social public interests; on the other hand, it has the main function of enforcing laws, forming public policies and promoting social governance; and it has the guiding function of providing reference for similar reforms. How to fully give play to the function of procuratorial civil public interest litigation, the big data is an important means. Procuratorial organs should make full use of the information of data platform, and enhance the joint efforts of public welfare protection, and set up the thinking of handling cases with information and improve application ability, so as to plug in "wisdom wings" for the procuratorial civil public interest litigation.

A positivist approach to rights of nature in the European Union

A growing number of jurisdictions throughout the world have recognized some type of legal rights of nature. This jurisprudential trend has thus far made few inroads in Europe. However, its apparent absence is misleading. In this article we argue that, explicit or not, nature as protected by European Union (EU) law already has certain legal rights in the Hohfeldian sense because other entities have legal obligations towards it. Moreover, we argue that recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU can be interpreted to support our claim that nature, as protected by EU law, already enjoys some legal rights that cannot be trumped by mere utilitarian interests, and that these rights can in turn be recognized and applied by national courts. We further suggest that public interest litigation can contribute to developing rights for nature in Europe, even absent any explicit recognition of these rights in EU law or in national legislation.

Multinational Company Litigation

Jason Brickhill and Zanele Mbuyisa review the current state of play in South Africa in terms of the imposition of civil liability on multinationals for human rights abuses. They outline the rules on jurisdiction over claims by foreign claimants and corporations and potential causes of action under common law, statute, and the Constitution. Specific consideration is given to the potential influence on the development of South African law of recent English law decisions on parent company liability. By reference to the goldminers’ silicosis and the Kabwe lead poisoning cases, they highlight the value to victims of the relatively recent developments of class actions in South Africa and the rules on discovery and damages. In terms of access to justice, they consider the receptiveness of the judiciary to public interest litigation and the key provisions relating to prescription and costs and funding, including by litigation funders.