It is now commonplace for courts to remark that standing to seek judicial review is 'context-sensitive'. The questions of how the courts adapt standing to context, and whether they do so appropriately, have, however, received remarkably little scholarly and judicial attention. This is perhaps because, until recently, there has been relatively little in the case law to spark scholarly interest. Standing, however, is in the midst of a resurgence. This article makes use of a distinction between three types of judicial review case-challenges to (i) favourable targeted, (ii) unfavourable targeted and (iii) non-targeted decisions-as a mode through which to explore the growing body of standing case law. In doing so, it both seeks to further understanding of how courts determine what constitutes a 'sufficient interest' and to highlight areas of the law in need of clarification or reconsideration.
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are uniquely threatened by rising sea levels. Not only does the retreat of their coastlines place them in danger of losing maritime territory; the concurrent possibility of their landmasses becoming either uninhabitable or completely submerged also threatens their very existence. According to one understanding of the law that governs the continuity and extinction of states, political communities that permanently lose 'effectiveness'-typically understood as sufficient governmental control of a relatively determinate territory with a permanent population-must lose their statehood as well. In this article, I provide three reconstructions of effectiveness, each of which rests upon a different normative rationale. My contention is that, regardless of which reconstruction one adopts, the continuity of submerged SIDS is eminently supportable, notwithstanding the arguments frequently made in favour of their formal extinction.
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：