Pub Date : 2023-12-14DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340107
Zunaida Moosa Wadiwala
Academic research into international climate change litigation has shown that the courts yield significant power in bringing about an awareness of climate impacts as well as firmly entrenching rights and responsibilities for claimants and defendants. In April 2022, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report noted in some detail how climate litigation is shaping climate governance. This article considers these statements within the framework of how courts have drawn on fundamental constitutional rights even without an exclusive reliance on the right to a healthy environment within the jurisdiction of South African climate litigation. The objective of this study is to investigate this claim by analysing the available legal mechanisms in South Africa and what legal strategies have been used in climate litigation to determine how South African climate litigation has shaped climate governance in comparison to climate litigation from the Netherlands. The core analysis examines firstly what the litigation is seeking to achieve, secondly which legal mechanisms and avenues were relied upon and thirdly, how this resonates between different jurisdictions. The key results will contribute to an understanding of the contribution that South African and Dutch climate litigation lends to global climate governance, the extent to which litigation relies on entrenched fundamental rights; it further tracks how, if at all, transnational climate governance litigation has developed in this respect.
{"title":"Rights-Based Climate Litigation in South Africa and the Netherlands","authors":"Zunaida Moosa Wadiwala","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340107","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Academic research into international climate change litigation has shown that the courts yield significant power in bringing about an awareness of climate impacts as well as firmly entrenching rights and responsibilities for claimants and defendants. In April 2022, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report noted in some detail how climate litigation is shaping climate governance. This article considers these statements within the framework of how courts have drawn on fundamental constitutional rights even without an exclusive reliance on the right to a healthy environment within the jurisdiction of South African climate litigation. The objective of this study is to investigate this claim by analysing the available legal mechanisms in South Africa and what legal strategies have been used in climate litigation to determine how South African climate litigation has shaped climate governance in comparison to climate litigation from the Netherlands. The core analysis examines firstly what the litigation is seeking to achieve, secondly which legal mechanisms and avenues were relied upon and thirdly, how this resonates between different jurisdictions. The key results will contribute to an understanding of the contribution that South African and Dutch climate litigation lends to global climate governance, the extent to which litigation relies on entrenched fundamental rights; it further tracks how, if at all, transnational climate governance litigation has developed in this respect.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139003061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-14DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340104
Gastón Medici-Colombo, María Valeria Berros
This article analyses the climate litigation scenario in Argentina. Based on the Sabin Center Database, we conducted an in-depth study of all the proceeding documents of the identified cases. We found that, in Argentina, a significant number of climate cases exists compared to other jurisdictions in the region and in the Global South as a whole. These cases show civil society actors suing public and corporate actors due to the deployment of ‘climate-disruptive’ projects or the failed protection of climate-relevant ecosystems. Plaintiffs use a variety of judicial avenues and grounds from different regulatory levels. That said, the case law study leads us to conclude that climate litigation is still incipient in Argentina. Climate change is a very novel legal issue for Argentinean litigants and courts, with lawsuits only developing actual climate argumentation very recently and with not even one judgment, let alone a landmark decision, addressing climate concerns. That is a notable difference from other jurisdictions in the region. Furthermore, we anticipate that climate litigation will continue to grow in Argentina, given weak political opportunities for climate action and stronger legal opportunities provided by broad judicial avenues, a multiplicity of grounds that can be used in climate arguments, and innovative environmental legal approaches developed by the Supreme Court.
{"title":"Climate Litigation in Argentina: A Critical and Prospective Analysis","authors":"Gastón Medici-Colombo, María Valeria Berros","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340104","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article analyses the climate litigation scenario in Argentina. Based on the Sabin Center Database, we conducted an in-depth study of all the proceeding documents of the identified cases. We found that, in Argentina, a significant number of climate cases exists compared to other jurisdictions in the region and in the Global South as a whole. These cases show civil society actors suing public and corporate actors due to the deployment of ‘climate-disruptive’ projects or the failed protection of climate-relevant ecosystems. Plaintiffs use a variety of judicial avenues and grounds from different regulatory levels. That said, the case law study leads us to conclude that climate litigation is still incipient in Argentina. Climate change is a very novel legal issue for Argentinean litigants and courts, with lawsuits only developing actual climate argumentation very recently and with not even one judgment, let alone a landmark decision, addressing climate concerns. That is a notable difference from other jurisdictions in the region. Furthermore, we anticipate that climate litigation will continue to grow in Argentina, given weak political opportunities for climate action and stronger legal opportunities provided by broad judicial avenues, a multiplicity of grounds that can be used in climate arguments, and innovative environmental legal approaches developed by the Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"2009 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139002039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340099
Zhenzhen Rong
In response to unprecedented global biodiversity loss, the obligation of restoration has been integrated into the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, or Convention). As a Party to the CBD, China has implemented restoration commitments through the ‘National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2011–2030)’. This article focuses on how such commitments have been translated into the Chinese legal framework and environmental litigation, and how environmental litigation can advance ecological restoration. There exist restoration obligations of governments and individuals. When they fail to fulfil their restoration obligations or cause damage to ecosystems, their wrong actions or inactions can be corrected through restoration orders imposed by Chinese courts, namely primary restoration orders and alternative restoration orders. Also, some weaknesses exist due to relying on forcing defendants to pay to restore damaged ecosystems, including that alternative restoration funds could be misappropriated, and the current legal mechanisms could incentivize a ‘license to trash’ style culture.
{"title":"Using Environmental Litigation to Advance Ecological Restoration under the Convention on Biological Diversity in China","authors":"Zhenzhen Rong","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340099","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In response to unprecedented global biodiversity loss, the obligation of restoration has been integrated into the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, or Convention). As a Party to the CBD, China has implemented restoration commitments through the ‘National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2011–2030)’. This article focuses on how such commitments have been translated into the Chinese legal framework and environmental litigation, and how environmental litigation can advance ecological restoration. There exist restoration obligations of governments and individuals. When they fail to fulfil their restoration obligations or cause damage to ecosystems, their wrong actions or inactions can be corrected through restoration orders imposed by Chinese courts, namely primary restoration orders and alternative restoration orders. Also, some weaknesses exist due to relying on forcing defendants to pay to restore damaged ecosystems, including that alternative restoration funds could be misappropriated, and the current legal mechanisms could incentivize a ‘license to trash’ style culture.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46057936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340095
O. Spijkers
{"title":"United Nations General Assembly Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change","authors":"O. Spijkers","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340095","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42967695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340094
Rowena Cantley-Smith
{"title":"Recent Developments in the United Nations","authors":"Rowena Cantley-Smith","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340094","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42856073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340096
S. Alam
Trade has an important and lasting impact on biodiversity conservation. This is especially true for two of the most unique mega-diverse ecosystems in the world: Australia and China. Not only does trade perpetuate unsustainable economic practices that exacerbate biodiversity loss, but it also has a direct influence on the ability for both Australia and China to implement effective policies aimed at biodiversity conservation. This article will explore the nexus between biodiversity conservation and international trade through the lens of the Australia – China trade relationship. To explore this issue, this article will first discuss the ideological foundations of the WTO, viz, a rules-based system aimed at promoting trade liberalisation. Whilst the WTO does not specifically regulate biodiversity, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) does contain several provisions as general exceptions which enable Members to reconcile competing priorities of trade liberalisation on one hand, and sustainable development on the other. This article will then explore the trade and biodiversity nexus present within the China and Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA). Whilst ChAFTA contains several innovations which can improve biodiversity conservation, the Agreement also contains provisions which inhibit transparency and the ability for environmental non-government organisations to submit amicus curiae briefs in ISDS arbitration. Through a comparative analysis of other bilateral trade treaties, this article advocates for an approach which addresses these issues, including addressing systemic concerns regarding global biodiversity conservation.
{"title":"Lifting the Tide on Biodiversity Conservation through Trade and Investment: Biodiversity Conservation under ChAFTA and the WTO","authors":"S. Alam","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340096","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Trade has an important and lasting impact on biodiversity conservation. This is especially true for two of the most unique mega-diverse ecosystems in the world: Australia and China. Not only does trade perpetuate unsustainable economic practices that exacerbate biodiversity loss, but it also has a direct influence on the ability for both Australia and China to implement effective policies aimed at biodiversity conservation. This article will explore the nexus between biodiversity conservation and international trade through the lens of the Australia – China trade relationship. To explore this issue, this article will first discuss the ideological foundations of the WTO, viz, a rules-based system aimed at promoting trade liberalisation. Whilst the WTO does not specifically regulate biodiversity, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) does contain several provisions as general exceptions which enable Members to reconcile competing priorities of trade liberalisation on one hand, and sustainable development on the other. This article will then explore the trade and biodiversity nexus present within the China and Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA). Whilst ChAFTA contains several innovations which can improve biodiversity conservation, the Agreement also contains provisions which inhibit transparency and the ability for environmental non-government organisations to submit amicus curiae briefs in ISDS arbitration. Through a comparative analysis of other bilateral trade treaties, this article advocates for an approach which addresses these issues, including addressing systemic concerns regarding global biodiversity conservation.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45276316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340100
Paul J. Govind
Biodiversity offsetting is firmly established as an integral part of environmental law regimes across the world. Whether offsets are appropriate for a particular development is determined through the application of a mitigation hierarchy. Whilst a rich vein of scholarship exists dealing with the operation of the mitigation hierarchy in principle, the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy has received comparatively small coverage. From a legal perspective this prompts questions relating to the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy as part of the planning law process. This article critically examines the issue in the context of laws regulating biodiversity loss in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The article contributes to filling this gap through a critical analysis and evaluation of the statutory regime and specific examples of relevant case law in NSW where development applications have been rejected on the basis, broadly speaking, of failing to demonstrate adherence to the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy. The primary findings presented by the article maintain that the extent to which decision-makers can influence and enhance biodiversity protection through implementation of the mitigation hierarchy is inherently limited due to the underlying rationale and values of planning law. While the decisions carry value in terms of showing what might be reasonably expected from developers in terms of demonstrating how their development applications adhere to the mitigation hierarchy, change that has broader application and can be applied in a more objective manner must be provided through legislative or regulatory change. The experience of NSW can offer some lessons for the implementation of biodiversity offsets in different jurisdictions considering the recent 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) on the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
{"title":"Implementing Biodiversity Offsetting in Alignment with the Mitigation Hierarchy – the Experience of Land Use Planning Law in New South Wales","authors":"Paul J. Govind","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340100","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Biodiversity offsetting is firmly established as an integral part of environmental law regimes across the world. Whether offsets are appropriate for a particular development is determined through the application of a mitigation hierarchy. Whilst a rich vein of scholarship exists dealing with the operation of the mitigation hierarchy in principle, the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy has received comparatively small coverage. From a legal perspective this prompts questions relating to the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy as part of the planning law process. This article critically examines the issue in the context of laws regulating biodiversity loss in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The article contributes to filling this gap through a critical analysis and evaluation of the statutory regime and specific examples of relevant case law in NSW where development applications have been rejected on the basis, broadly speaking, of failing to demonstrate adherence to the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy. The primary findings presented by the article maintain that the extent to which decision-makers can influence and enhance biodiversity protection through implementation of the mitigation hierarchy is inherently limited due to the underlying rationale and values of planning law. While the decisions carry value in terms of showing what might be reasonably expected from developers in terms of demonstrating how their development applications adhere to the mitigation hierarchy, change that has broader application and can be applied in a more objective manner must be provided through legislative or regulatory change. The experience of NSW can offer some lessons for the implementation of biodiversity offsets in different jurisdictions considering the recent 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) on the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49668139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340093
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue: Strengthening Australia-China Biodiversity Dialogue in a Changing World","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340093","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48759364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340098
Yitong Chen
The rapid advancement of biotechnology in the late 20th century promoted bioprospecting in Antarctica and has been a regular topic of discussion in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) since 2002. However, there still needs to be an explicit regulatory framework in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). Meanwhile, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) posed competitive governance mandates on regulating bioprospecting in the Antarctic Treaty Area and challenging the legitimacy of ATS. China’s increasing Antarctic presence is also reflected in its bioprospecting activities. However, its enthusiasm for bioprospecting remains inconsistent with its approach towards the ATS through reluctant contribution on regulation. This article will analyze the discussions on bioprospecting in the ATCM as contained within the ACTM meeting documents. Then, this article will analyze how China should actively pursue legitimate bioprospecting interests in the Antarctic from three aspects, which include improving domestic laws and regulations on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing activities, speedy enactment of Antarctic legislation, and leading the establishment of regulations on Antarctic bioprospecting in the ATCM. It concludes with an outlook on bioprospecting regulation and China’s role in future prospects.
{"title":"China’s Role of Bioprospecting in Antarctica and Future Prospects","authors":"Yitong Chen","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340098","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The rapid advancement of biotechnology in the late 20th century promoted bioprospecting in Antarctica and has been a regular topic of discussion in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) since 2002. However, there still needs to be an explicit regulatory framework in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). Meanwhile, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) posed competitive governance mandates on regulating bioprospecting in the Antarctic Treaty Area and challenging the legitimacy of ATS. China’s increasing Antarctic presence is also reflected in its bioprospecting activities. However, its enthusiasm for bioprospecting remains inconsistent with its approach towards the ATS through reluctant contribution on regulation. This article will analyze the discussions on bioprospecting in the ATCM as contained within the ACTM meeting documents. Then, this article will analyze how China should actively pursue legitimate bioprospecting interests in the Antarctic from three aspects, which include improving domestic laws and regulations on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing activities, speedy enactment of Antarctic legislation, and leading the establishment of regulations on Antarctic bioprospecting in the ATCM. It concludes with an outlook on bioprospecting regulation and China’s role in future prospects.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43938258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-21DOI: 10.1163/24686042-12340097
Ethan Beringen
The negotiations for a new international legally binding instrument to conserve and sustainably utilise marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) have been the subject of much analysis and commentary since their commencement. Yet there is still relatively little consideration of what can be learnt about state behaviour from the BBNJ negotiations. This article engages in an analysis of Australia’s behaviour as a case study of the often-overlooked category of middle power states. Hence, this article is envisioned as an exploratory study into middle powers in international environmental negotiations, with the goal of prompting further exploration of both the BBNJ negotiations specifically, as well as the role of different kinds of states in the creation of international environmental law. The overarching question being asked here is “How has Australia’s middle power identity informed its behaviour at the BBNJ negotiations?”
{"title":"How Australia’s Middle Power Identity Has Informed Its Behaviour at the BBNJ Negotiations","authors":"Ethan Beringen","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340097","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The negotiations for a new international legally binding instrument to conserve and sustainably utilise marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) have been the subject of much analysis and commentary since their commencement. Yet there is still relatively little consideration of what can be learnt about state behaviour from the BBNJ negotiations. This article engages in an analysis of Australia’s behaviour as a case study of the often-overlooked category of middle power states. Hence, this article is envisioned as an exploratory study into middle powers in international environmental negotiations, with the goal of prompting further exploration of both the BBNJ negotiations specifically, as well as the role of different kinds of states in the creation of international environmental law. The overarching question being asked here is “How has Australia’s middle power identity informed its behaviour at the BBNJ negotiations?”","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42898834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：