How Much Should the Polluter Pay? Indian Courts and the Valuation of Environmental Damage

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Law Pub Date : 2023-06-21 DOI:10.1093/jel/eqad021
Sroyon Mukherjee
{"title":"How Much Should the Polluter Pay? Indian Courts and the Valuation of Environmental Damage","authors":"Sroyon Mukherjee","doi":"10.1093/jel/eqad021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On the face of it, the polluter pays principle (PPP) simply prescribes that the costs of pollution should be borne by those who were responsible for causing it. In practice, implementing the PPP raises a number of complex questions. In this article, I focus on one such key question, as interpreted by higher courts in India: how much should the polluter pay? I propose—and then apply—a three-part choice framework for analysing judicial interpretations of the PPP. Indian case law on the subject is often presumed to be relatively coherent and consistent. However, a methodical application of the aforementioned framework reveals three distinct strands in the approaches taken by Indian courts, thus contributing to a more in-depth and systematic understanding of the PPP jurisprudence. I also identify certain gaps and inconsistencies in these approaches, and suggest ways in which they can be resolved, making the application of the set principle more consistent, logical and effective.","PeriodicalId":46437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqad021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract On the face of it, the polluter pays principle (PPP) simply prescribes that the costs of pollution should be borne by those who were responsible for causing it. In practice, implementing the PPP raises a number of complex questions. In this article, I focus on one such key question, as interpreted by higher courts in India: how much should the polluter pay? I propose—and then apply—a three-part choice framework for analysing judicial interpretations of the PPP. Indian case law on the subject is often presumed to be relatively coherent and consistent. However, a methodical application of the aforementioned framework reveals three distinct strands in the approaches taken by Indian courts, thus contributing to a more in-depth and systematic understanding of the PPP jurisprudence. I also identify certain gaps and inconsistencies in these approaches, and suggest ways in which they can be resolved, making the application of the set principle more consistent, logical and effective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
污染者该付多少钱?印度法院与环境损害评估
从表面上看,污染者付费原则(PPP)简单地规定了污染成本应由造成污染的责任人承担。在实践中,PPP的实施引发了一系列复杂的问题。在这篇文章中,我关注的是印度高等法院解释的一个关键问题:污染者应该支付多少钱?我提出并应用了一个由三部分组成的选择框架来分析PPP的司法解释。印度关于这一问题的判例法通常被认为是相对连贯和一致的。然而,对上述框架的系统应用揭示了印度法院采取的方法中的三个不同方面,从而有助于更深入和系统地理解PPP法理。我还指出了这些方法中的某些差距和不一致之处,并提出了解决这些问题的方法,使集合原则的应用更加一致、合乎逻辑和有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Condensing essential information into just three issues a year, the Journal of Environmental Law has become an authoritative source of informed analysis for all those who have any dealings in this vital field of legal study. It exists primarily for academics and legal practitioners, but should also prove accessible for all other groups concerned with the environment, from scientists to planners. The journal offers major articles on a wide variety of topics, refereed and written to the highest standards, providing innovative and authoritative appraisals of current and emerging concepts, policies, and practice. It includes: -An analysis section, providing detailed analysis of current case law and legislative and policy developments -An annual review of significant UK, European Court of Justice, and international law cases -A substantial book reviews section
期刊最新文献
Environmental Challenges to UK Public Authorities: The Impact of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 The Obligations of the States in Respect of Climate Change Before the International Court of Justice Uncharted Interplay and Troubled Implementation: Managing Hydropower’s Environmental Impacts under the EU Water Framework and Environmental Liability Directives Protecting the Habitats of Endangered Species Through Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: Lessons Learned from Peafowl Versus the Dam ClientEarth v Shell plc and the (Un)Suitability of UK Company Law and Litigation to Pursue Climate-Related Goals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1