FUNDAMENTALS OF FORMATION OF MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL STATE IN UKRAINE

The paper addresses the social, economic, environmental and legal bases of the modern Environmental state formation and prospects of this state's construction in Ukraine on the grounds of realization of the state policy. Peculiarities of realization of separate principles of the state policy, capable of promoting the formation of the environmental state, are considered. Based on the analysis of the formation of such states in some countries, the paper studies the ways to improve the legal framework for the formation of an environmentally friendly society, environmental partnership, as the main way to build an environmental state, and to ensure parity of environmental, economic and social needs in the context of sustaina-ble development. Particular attention is paid to the formation of the ecological paradigm as the basis for environmental legal consciousness of the whole society. This will allow the revision of values in relation to nature and recognize nature at the level of the Constitution of Ukraine as the basic social value. Attention is also paid to the structure, forms, methods, and content of environmental partnership, which can influence various factors in the formation of environmental state. It is proved that the main form of environmental partnership in modern conditions is a public-private partnership and that the latter is able to ensure the implementation of the effective environmental projects in the areas of natural resources restoration, waste management, eco-tourism etc. According to the structure, the environmental partnership is proposed to be considered as a set of institutional, regulatory, functional and communicative subsystems, possible content of which is also revealed. On the basis of the conducted research, the independent scientific conclusions and judgments on the analysed subjects are suggested and the ways of perfection of the current legislation of Ukraine on the outlined questions are offered. Keywords: ecological democracy, environmental paradigm, environmental legal awareness, environmental policy, the principle of environmental partnership, environmental legislation.

4. Democracy and Political Obligation

This chapter examines the claim that democracy is the ideal form of political obligation. It first traces the historical evolution of the term ‘democracy’ before discussing the debate between advocates of the protective theory and the participatory theory of democracy, asking whether it is possible to reconcile elitism with democracy and whether participatory democracy is politically realistic. The chapter proceeds to explain why democracy is viewed as the major grounding for political obligation, with emphasis on the problem of majority rule and what to do with the minority consequences of majoritarianism. It documents the contemporary malaise experienced by democracy and seeks to explain its perceived weaknesses as a form of rule. Finally, the chapter describes the new directions that democratic theory has taken in recent years, focusing on four theories: associative democracy, cosmopolitan democracy, deliberative democracy, and ecological democracy.

Grounding Ecological Democracy: Semiotics and the Communicative Networks of Nature

Developments in biosemiotics and democratic theory enable renewed appreciation of the possibilities for ecological democracy. Semiotics is the study of sign processes in meaning-making and communication. Signs and meanings exist in all living systems, and all living systems are therefore semiotic systems. Ecological communication can involve abiotic and biotic communication, including human language, facilitating an integration of politics and ecology in the form of ecological democracy encompassing communicative networks in nature and human society.

Økologisk demokrati og naturens iboende verdi

Vi står overfor en planetær miljø- og klimakrise, med alvorlige, gjennomgripende, langvarige og irreversible konsekvenser for både menneske og natur. Det skyldes særlig at politiske, rettslige og økonomiske systemer som har vokst frem i løpet av de siste 250 år – slik som det liberale demokratiet og den globale kapitalismen – behandler naturen antroposentrisk, materialistisk og instrumentelt. For bedre å håndtere dagens miljø- og klimakrise, bør disse utdaterte systemene reformeres ut fra tanken om et økologisk demokrati, herunder en grønn konstitusjonalisme og naturens moralske trumf. Norges første klimasøksmål illustrerer viktigheten av en slik systemisk grønning. Rettsaken fant sted i 2017 og kom opp igjen for rettsapparatet i 2019, hvor staten hevdes å bryte miljøparagrafen (§ 112) i sin egen grunnlov. Søksmålets grønning innebærer en positiv rettsliggjøring, hvis natursynet i Grunnlovens miljøparagraf forstås økosentrisk (klodesentrert) fremfor antroposentrisk (menneskesentrert). Da styrker klimasøksmålet økologiske medborgeres konstitusjonelle rettssikkerhet og demokratiske deltagelseslikhet. Viktigst er imidlertid at planetens eksistensielle tålegrense og naturens moralske trumf anerkjennes. Nøkkelord: Miljøkrise, klimasøksmål, økologisk demokrati, økologisk medborgerskap, grønn konstitusjonalisme, naturens moralske trumf, positiv rettsliggjøring English Summary: Ecological democracy and the inherent value of nature: Climate litigation in the age of the environmental crisis We are facing a planetary environmental and climate crisis, with severe, pervasive, long-lasting, and irreversible impacts for both humans and nature. This is due to political, legal, and economic systems having emerged during the last 250 years – especially liberal democracy and global capitalism – treat nature anthropocentrically, materialistically, and instrumentally. To better handle today’s environmental and climate crisis, these outdated systems should be reformed in light of the idea of ecological democracy, hereunder green constitutionalism and nature’s moral trump. Norway’s first climate lawsuit illustrates the importance of such a systemic greening. This trial took place in 2017 and reappeared for the court in 2019, in which the state is accused for having broken the environmental paragraph (§ 112) in its own constitution. This lawsuit’s greening implies a positive juridification, if the perception of nature in the Constitution’s environmental paragraph is ecocentric (earth-centered) rather than anthropocentric (human-centered). Then, the climate lawsuit strengthens ecological co-citizens’ constitutionally rule of law and democratic participation equality. Most importantly, it recognizes the planet’s existential limits and nature’s moral trump. Keywords: Environmental crisis, climate lawsuit, ecological democracy, ecological citizenship, green constitutionalism, nature’s moral trump, positive legalization