Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU Environmental Liability and Environmental Crime Directives as Implemented by Scotland and the Rest of the United Kingdom

Mitchell Lennan
{"title":"Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU Environmental Liability and Environmental Crime Directives as Implemented by Scotland and the Rest of the United Kingdom","authors":"Mitchell Lennan","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1920123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses critically the effectiveness of two EU Directives: Directive 2004/35/CE on Environmental Liability (ELD), and Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (ECD). As the effectiveness of these directives can only be judged through their implementation within a member state’s jurisdiction, this article focuses on the United Kingdom—a now former member of the EU. A comparison is made between the implementation of these two directives in two discrete legal systems in the United Kingdom: that of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK), that is, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This article begins by establishing the roots of the ELD’s weaknesses by examining how the ELD has been transposed in the rUK and Scotland. It then turns to whether these weaknesses have been addressed by the implementation of the ECD. Finally, the effectiveness of the ECD regime is assessed by examining how both Scotland and the rUK deal with wildlife crime. This article ultimately concludes that despite implementing the two regimes through separate legal systems, both face similar shortcomings that limit their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1920123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract This article analyses critically the effectiveness of two EU Directives: Directive 2004/35/CE on Environmental Liability (ELD), and Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (ECD). As the effectiveness of these directives can only be judged through their implementation within a member state’s jurisdiction, this article focuses on the United Kingdom—a now former member of the EU. A comparison is made between the implementation of these two directives in two discrete legal systems in the United Kingdom: that of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK), that is, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This article begins by establishing the roots of the ELD’s weaknesses by examining how the ELD has been transposed in the rUK and Scotland. It then turns to whether these weaknesses have been addressed by the implementation of the ECD. Finally, the effectiveness of the ECD regime is assessed by examining how both Scotland and the rUK deal with wildlife crime. This article ultimately concludes that despite implementing the two regimes through separate legal systems, both face similar shortcomings that limit their effectiveness.
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
评估苏格兰和英国其他地区实施的欧盟环境责任和环境犯罪指令的有效性
摘要本文批判性地分析了两个欧盟指令的有效性:关于环境责任的指令2004/35/CE (ELD)和关于通过刑法保护环境的指令2008/99/EC (ECD)。由于这些指令的有效性只能通过其在成员国管辖范围内的实施来判断,因此本文主要关注英国——现在是欧盟的前成员国。比较了这两个指令在联合王国两个独立的法律体系中的实施情况:苏格兰的法律体系和联合王国(rUK)的其余部分,即英格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰。本文首先通过研究ELD如何在英国和苏格兰被转移来确定ELD弱点的根源。然后是这些弱点是否已通过实施幼儿发展计划得到解决。最后,通过检查苏格兰和英国如何处理野生动物犯罪来评估ECD制度的有效性。本文最终得出的结论是,尽管通过不同的法律体系实施这两种制度,但它们都面临着限制其有效性的类似缺点。
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
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