Environment and the Law: The Normative Force of Context and Constitutional Challenges

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-389
Author(s):  
Ceri Warnock
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Normative Force ◽  
Legal Infrastructure

Abstract The inherent structural features of environmental problems cause environmental law to be written in a particular way and have led to the creation of novel adjudicative institutions, such as specialist environment courts and tribunals. But they also force us to view core constitutional principles, such as the rule of law and separation of powers, from different perspectives. By placing greater weight on certain components of these principles and lessening the force of others, solving environmental problems through law is rebalancing legal thought. Using New Zealand as a case study, this article explores how the legal infrastructure might respond to this contextual force by ensuring decision-making institutions operate with integrity and reflect public reasoned thoughtfulness, so fostering the rule of law within this unusual legal landscape.

Judicial Controls Over the Bureaucracy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calliope Spanou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Building Process

Judicial control over the bureaucracy is a means to defend the rule of law and important principles of democratic governance. It refers to the power of the courts to consider whether the actions of public authorities respect the limits prescribed by law. Regimes of judicial control vary in legal and administrative systems. Two major traditions can be mainly distinguished. The first characterizes continental Europe. It assigns judicial review to specialized administrative courts and involves a special branch of law, that is, administrative law. The second relies on ordinary courts and characterizes the Anglo-American system of common law. The two traditions also differ regarding the role of the courts and particularly their possibility to shape rules (common law tradition) or to apply rules (continental tradition). The expansion of state activities, including economic and social regulation and welfare service provision, has blurred the old politics–administration distinction since more and more decisions are delegated by parliaments to the administration, endowing it with wide discretionary powers. These developments have added a new meaning to the implementation of the rule of law. When the content of decisions is bound by a legal rule, legal compliance is more straightforward than when there is a margin of appreciation and choice. Circumscribing administrative discretion passes first and foremost from regulating the process of decision-making. Procedural standards have indeed been an area of primary concern for courts. Increasingly, nevertheless, substantive aspects of the administrative decision-making process and even service provision come under judicial scrutiny. Its extent inevitably differs from one legal system to another. The intensity of judicial review and its impact on (a) administrative operation and (b) policy decisions raise critical questions: how is it possible to achieve a balance between managerial flexibility, efficiency, and responsibility on the one hand and legal accountability on the other? To what extent may the courts substitute their own judgment for that of policymakers and the administrative or expert opinion underlying the decision under examination? How far do they go in scrutinizing policymaking and implementation? Judicial control involves constraining as well as constructive effects on the administration. It may contribute to an institution-building process (e.g., strengthening of Weberian-type features, increasing formalization, etc.) and to the agenda-building process, and it may influence policymaking. In certain contexts, courts even tend to become political actors. The reverse side is that they may step into matters of management and policymaking for which they are not prepared or institutionally responsible. This points to potential tensions between the administration (the executive) and the judiciary but also underlines the limitations of judicial control. Delicate issues regarding the separation of powers may emerge. Furthermore, cost, delays, the degree of administrative compliance with judicial decisions, and the ability of courts to integrate into their reasoning issues of efficiency and effectiveness constitute growing challenges to judicial control.

scholarly journals Retreating to Justiciability

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Cave
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Philosophical Concept ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Moral Questions

This paper examines Canadian case law to assess how judges determine whether morally charged questions are justiciable. The author applies Robert Cover’s philosophical concept of “responsibility mitigation mechanisms” to argue that judges may define justiciability narrowly to avoid complex moral questions. Using Charter litigation as a case study, the author explores whether the justiciability of moral or political questions can be subjective and how that subjectivity may have significant implications for the scope and limits of rights, the separation of powers and the rule of law in Canada.

Harmonisasi terhadap Peraturan Daerah No. 14 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengelolaan Pelestarian Kawasan Konservasi Laut Daerah dalam Perlindungan Pulau Pariwisata Kabupaten Indramayu

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 142
Author(s):  
Saiful Kholik ◽  
Imas Khaeriyah
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Conservation Area ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Inconsistency Regional Regulation No.14 of 2006 about marine conservation area of the island of Biawak, Gososng, which Cendekian provides protection but in fact failed to provide protection as evidenced by dredging island sandbar and cendekian conducted PT.Pertamina UP VI Balongan INDRAMAYU. The problem in this research How Formulation Policy Act No. 10 Year 2009 on the Indonesian Tourism with the Indramayu Regional Regulation No. 14 of 2006 regarding marine conservation area of the island of Biawak, Gososng, Cendekian And How Harmonization Act No. 10 of 2009 with the Indramayu Regional Regulation No. 14 of 2006 regarding formulation Act No. 10 Year 2009 on the Indonesian Tourism with the Indramayu Regional Regulation No. 14 of 2006 about marine conservation area of the island of Biawak, Gososng, Cendekian, the purpose of this research to understand and analyze the extent to which policy The findings of the community or field of law local governments about the environmental damage done by companies or individuals are not equal accordance with regional regulations in force, nor the Law in force so that the function of law in society indramayu not fit the mandate to establish a change and justice based Formulation public corporate criminal liability.Inskonsitensi happens to local regulation No.14 of 2006 makes no harmonized with the regulations of each other so that the impact of this inskonsistensi makes the sector particularly environmental law enforcement get uncertainties that result in coastal communities Indramayau.Conclusion Harmonization of regulations of the center and regions delivering the policy formulation of the rule of law area to comply with the regulations above in order to avoid inconsistency, the occurrence of this inconsistency resulted in the rule of law and justice for the indramayu, suggestion that the government should was nearly revise regulations related area, especially the government must dare to take action to give effect to the perpetrator deterrent effect rule-based running as well as possible.

Crisis of the Rule of Law in Europe: The Cases of Hungary, Poland and Spain

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-398
Author(s):  
David Parra Gómez
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
Aggressive Interference

Democracy is an instrument at the service of a noble purpose: to ensure the freedom and equality of all citizens by guaranteeing the civil, political and social rights contained in constitutional texts. Among the great principles on which this instrument rests is the division of powers, which consists, substantially, in the fact that power is not concentrated, but that the various functions of the State are exercised by different bodies, which, moreover, control each other. Well, the increasingly aggressive interference of the Executive and, to a lesser extent, the Legislative in material spheres that should be reserved exclusively for the Judiciary, violates this principle and, for this reason, distorts the idea of democracy, an alarming trend that, for some time now, are observed in European Union countries such as Hungary, Poland and Spain. Preventing the alarming degradation of European democracy, of which these three countries are an example, requires not only more than necessary institutional reforms to ensure respect for these principles and prevent the arbitrariness of the public authorities, but also a media network and an education system that explains and promotes these values and principles, that is, one that makes citizens aware of and defend constitutionalism. Keywords: Rule of law; Democracy; Separation of powers; judicial independence; Europe.

scholarly journals Connecting Reproductive Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law: Lessons from Poland in Times of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 1072-1097
Author(s):  
Atina Krajewska
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Reproductive Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Abortion Law ◽  
Polish Society ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Litmus Test ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article examines the relationship between reproductive rights, democracy, and the rule of law in transitional societies. As a case study, it examines the development of abortion law in Poland. The article makes three primary claims. First, it argues that the relationship between reproductive rights and the rule of law in Poland came clearly into view through the abortion judgment K 1/20, handed down by the Constitutional Tribunal in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. The judgment and the context in which it was issued and published are interpreted as reflections of deep-lying processes and problems in Polish society. Consequently, second, the article argues that analysis of the history of reproductive rights in recent decades in Poland reveals weak institutionalization of the rule of law. This is manifest in the ways in which different professional groups, especially doctors and lawyers, have addressed questions regarding abortion law. Therefore, third, the article argues that any assessment of the rule of law should take into account how powerful professional actors and organizations interact with the law. The Polish case study shows that reproductive rights should be seen as important parts of a “litmus test,” which we can use to examine the efficacy of democratic transitions and the quality of the democracies in which such transitions result.

scholarly journals The constitutionality of default arbitration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Asher Gabriel Emanuel
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Public Provision ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Essential State ◽  
State Functions ◽  
Commercial Disputes

<p>A proposed Bilateral Arbitration Treaty would subject international commercial disputes between enterprises in signatory states’ jurisdictions to arbitration unless the parties agreed to the contrary. This marks a substantial departure from conventional understandings of arbitration as based on the consent of the parties. More importantly, the policy would modify the jurisdiction of the courts, removing a large number of disputes to offshore tribunals subject to minimal judicial oversight. This paper explores the constitutional propriety of such a policy, with particular attention paid to the principles of the separation of powers, the rule of law, public provision of essential State functions, open justice, and democracy. These constitutional principles would be subverted if the policy were to operate within the existing regulatory framework for arbitration. The paper makes recommendations for possible modifications to the policy that would make it a better fit with the constitution.</p>

scholarly journals Presidential Signing Statements and the Rule of Law as an “Unstructured Institution"

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Signing Statements ◽  
History Of ◽  
Entire History ◽  
The Government ◽  
Signing Statement

The George W. Bush administration's use of signing statements embodied a disturbingly thin and formalist view of the rule of law that goes hand-in-hand with its vision of the separation of powers. Its signing statement practice was notable both for the extremity of the constitutional vision that these statements typically asserted—especially with regard to the so-called "unitary executive”—and with regard to their sheer volume, unmatched in the entire history of the executive. To understand the latter phenomenon, the Bush signing statements need to be understood not just as an expression of a constitutional philosophy, but also as an effort to institutionalize through faux law a highly presidential ethos as a fundamental element of the spirit with which the government conducts business.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document