European Union (EU) directives must be transposed into national systems and effectively implemented by all Member States. Differences between national legal systems are an inevitable reality when implementing EU law. Variations in the transposition and implementation of directives can lead to significant differences in the regulatory environment. This article discusses the variations in the transposition and implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden. What all the analysed Member States have in common are efforts to find ways to comply with the stringent requirements of the WFD. As Member States aim to achieve the requirements of the WFD, they simultaneously appear to look for ways to broaden acceptable interpretations of the WFD requirements to accommodate the national context. This article identifies and examines the different instances where such broadening of interpretation of the WFD has taken place in the four Member States.
{"title":"National discretion or broadening acceptable interpretation? A comparative overview of the transposition and implementation of the Water Framework Directive","authors":"Susanna Kaavi, Tiina Paloniitty","doi":"10.1111/reel.12570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12570","url":null,"abstract":"European Union (EU) directives must be transposed into national systems and effectively implemented by all Member States. Differences between national legal systems are an inevitable reality when implementing EU law. Variations in the transposition and implementation of directives can lead to significant differences in the regulatory environment. This article discusses the variations in the transposition and implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden. What all the analysed Member States have in common are efforts to find ways to comply with the stringent requirements of the WFD. As Member States aim to achieve the requirements of the WFD, they simultaneously appear to look for ways to broaden acceptable interpretations of the WFD requirements to accommodate the national context. This article identifies and examines the different instances where such broadening of interpretation of the WFD has taken place in the four Member States.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142258680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marcin Sobota, Eike Albrecht, Katarzyna Tokarczyk‐Dorociak, Bartosz Jawecki
An international dispute between the Republic of Poland and Czechia over the Turów mine has recently resulted in infringement proceedings brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. This case and the judicial and extrajudicial processes surrounding it facilitate an assessment of the procedure provided for in Articles 258 to 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The assessment of this procedure is undertaken both in terms of the achievement of the internal policy objectives of the Member State and in terms of the effectiveness of the implementation of European law. We argue that this procedure (under Articles 258–260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) is effective in both connections, because it provides a wide range of opportunities for both the judicial authorities of the European Union and the Member States themselves to achieve their objectives.
{"title":"The Czech Republic v Poland (Mine de Turów): Politics and implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive","authors":"Marcin Sobota, Eike Albrecht, Katarzyna Tokarczyk‐Dorociak, Bartosz Jawecki","doi":"10.1111/reel.12568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12568","url":null,"abstract":"An international dispute between the Republic of Poland and Czechia over the Turów mine has recently resulted in infringement proceedings brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. This case and the judicial and extrajudicial processes surrounding it facilitate an assessment of the procedure provided for in Articles 258 to 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The assessment of this procedure is undertaken both in terms of the achievement of the internal policy objectives of the Member State and in terms of the effectiveness of the implementation of European law. We argue that this procedure (under Articles 258–260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) is effective in both connections, because it provides a wide range of opportunities for both the judicial authorities of the European Union and the Member States themselves to achieve their objectives.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141937874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union is actively advancing the green and digital transformation of its industries by seeking to integrate disruptive and novel technologies to enhance efficiency in existing production lines. However, the introduction of these technologies, pivotal for this transformation, has encountered challenges within the current regulatory framework. This article systematically examines the legal framework to understand how authorisation procedures, influenced by environmental legislation interpreted in conjunction with the precautionary principle, might hinder the adoption of disruptive and novel technologies. Additionally, the article evaluates the effectiveness of experimentation rules, such as legal sandboxes, in addressing scientific uncertainties linked to these technologies. Despite tensions between innovation policies and environmental regulations, embracing the precautionary principle in decision‐making procedures could facilitate the adoption of sustainable innovations while prioritising long‐term environmental and societal well‐being.
{"title":"The awkward relations between EU innovation policies and environmental law","authors":"Tellervo Ala‐Lahti","doi":"10.1111/reel.12567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12567","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union is actively advancing the green and digital transformation of its industries by seeking to integrate disruptive and novel technologies to enhance efficiency in existing production lines. However, the introduction of these technologies, pivotal for this transformation, has encountered challenges within the current regulatory framework. This article systematically examines the legal framework to understand how authorisation procedures, influenced by environmental legislation interpreted in conjunction with the precautionary principle, might hinder the adoption of disruptive and novel technologies. Additionally, the article evaluates the effectiveness of experimentation rules, such as legal sandboxes, in addressing scientific uncertainties linked to these technologies. Despite tensions between innovation policies and environmental regulations, embracing the precautionary principle in decision‐making procedures could facilitate the adoption of sustainable innovations while prioritising long‐term environmental and societal well‐being.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141745206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The majority of Western European countries have adopted a framework climate law (a climate change act [CCA]) to serve as a comprehensive basis for their climate policy and set economy‐wide climate targets. By contrast, among the new European Union Member States, only Malta and Hungary have adopted such a CCA. In Czechia, Poland and Slovakia, a draft CCA exists, yet their adoption is uncertain. This article therefore focuses on countries of the Visegrad Group (Czechia, Poland and Slovakia) and examines the chances of adopting an effective CCA in these countries, taking into account trends, pressures and needs. The article proposes elements that these climate laws should contain, considering the specific situation in these States.
{"title":"Towards the adoption of climate change acts in the Visegrad Group countries","authors":"Eva Balounová, Tereza Snopková","doi":"10.1111/reel.12566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12566","url":null,"abstract":"The majority of Western European countries have adopted a framework climate law (a climate change act [CCA]) to serve as a comprehensive basis for their climate policy and set economy‐wide climate targets. By contrast, among the new European Union Member States, only Malta and Hungary have adopted such a CCA. In Czechia, Poland and Slovakia, a draft CCA exists, yet their adoption is uncertain. This article therefore focuses on countries of the Visegrad Group (Czechia, Poland and Slovakia) and examines the chances of adopting an effective CCA in these countries, taking into account trends, pressures and needs. The article proposes elements that these climate laws should contain, considering the specific situation in these States.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141585577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The conflict between investment treaties and climate action is escalating due to recent investment arbitration cases challenging States' fossil fuel phase‐out measures as violations of investment treaty obligations. As countries continue to implement climate mitigation and adaptation measures across various industries, this tension is expected to result in a rise in climate‐related investment arbitration claims. The current literature has primarily presented the tension between investment and climate treaties as a vertical conflict, with investment treaties having a chilling effect on States' climate regulation. The common defence for States' regulation has been based on their ‘right to regulate’. It remains unclear whether there exists a horizontal conflict between investment and climate treaties, primarily due to the flexible nature of climate treaty obligations. However, a sovereignty‐based justification fails to recognise the international obligation of climate action and is insufficient for reconciling the conflict. This article delves into the intricate nature of the conflict between States' climate measures and their investment treaty obligations and argues that the conflict exhibits a ‘quasi‐normative’ nature, given the combination of binding climate obligations, permissive implementation methods and normative expectations of ambition. The article suggests that investment treaties should include clearly defined conflict clauses that outline the scope of the conflict between investment and climate treaties and establish specific mechanisms for resolving such conflicts.
{"title":"A quasi‐normative conflict: Resolving the tension between investment treaties and climate action","authors":"Ying Zhu","doi":"10.1111/reel.12565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12565","url":null,"abstract":"The conflict between investment treaties and climate action is escalating due to recent investment arbitration cases challenging States' fossil fuel phase‐out measures as violations of investment treaty obligations. As countries continue to implement climate mitigation and adaptation measures across various industries, this tension is expected to result in a rise in climate‐related investment arbitration claims. The current literature has primarily presented the tension between investment and climate treaties as a vertical conflict, with investment treaties having a chilling effect on States' climate regulation. The common defence for States' regulation has been based on their ‘right to regulate’. It remains unclear whether there exists a horizontal conflict between investment and climate treaties, primarily due to the flexible nature of climate treaty obligations. However, a sovereignty‐based justification fails to recognise the international obligation of climate action and is insufficient for reconciling the conflict. This article delves into the intricate nature of the conflict between States' climate measures and their investment treaty obligations and argues that the conflict exhibits a ‘quasi‐normative’ nature, given the combination of binding climate obligations, permissive implementation methods and normative expectations of ambition. The article suggests that investment treaties should include clearly defined conflict clauses that outline the scope of the conflict between investment and climate treaties and establish specific mechanisms for resolving such conflicts.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141517121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross‐border illegal wildlife trade (IWT) poses significant social, political and economic threats. Despite a 2013 recommendation from the Secretariat of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species to incorporate a human rights perspective in counter‐IWT initiatives, our analysis of official documents spanning 2013–2022 reveals a lack of explicit implementation by international bodies. During the same period, global human rights organisations have given limited attention to the connections between IWT and human rights violations. In this article, we explore how integrating a human rights perspective can enhance the international legal framework and domestic measures against IWT. We conclude that to successfully implement counter‐IWT legislation, a shift in mindset is needed. A human rights approach is not just desirable, but rather necessary, in the interpretation, application and revision of policy interventions, for laws against IWT to be truly effective and equitable.
{"title":"Addressing the international illegal wildlife trade through a human rights approach","authors":"Chad Patrick Osorio, Nadia Bernaz","doi":"10.1111/reel.12563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12563","url":null,"abstract":"Cross‐border illegal wildlife trade (IWT) poses significant social, political and economic threats. Despite a 2013 recommendation from the Secretariat of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species to incorporate a human rights perspective in counter‐IWT initiatives, our analysis of official documents spanning 2013–2022 reveals a lack of explicit implementation by international bodies. During the same period, global human rights organisations have given limited attention to the connections between IWT and human rights violations. In this article, we explore how integrating a human rights perspective can enhance the international legal framework and domestic measures against IWT. We conclude that to successfully implement counter‐IWT legislation, a shift in mindset is needed. A human rights approach is not just desirable, but rather necessary, in the interpretation, application and revision of policy interventions, for laws against IWT to be truly effective and equitable.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141506964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Law in a hyperconnected world: Joining the dots for sustainable futures","authors":"Michelle Lim, Nengye Liu, Stefanie Schacherer","doi":"10.1111/reel.12562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12562","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141506965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the possibilities for data gathered by individuals and communities to demonstrate climate impacts on people's lives in domestic and international climate litigation, as well as the likely procedural constraints that such evidence may encounter. Building on recent decisions of domestic, regional and international courts and bodies, and looking in particular at cases related to climate displacement, we consider the potential for civic evidence to provide valuable testimony in climate litigation, for example, grounding abstract and diffuse harms in personal and locally relevant frames. The article concludes by advancing a research agenda to test, and support or disprove, the argument developed that civic evidence from climate‐affected people could be more robustly deployed in climate litigation and could have a complementary and reinforcing, rather than competing, role alongside institutional evidence.
{"title":"A place for people's knowledge in climate evidence: Exploring civic evidence in climate litigation","authors":"Anna Berti Suman, Amelia Burnette","doi":"10.1111/reel.12552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12552","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the possibilities for data gathered by individuals and communities to demonstrate climate impacts on people's lives in domestic and international climate litigation, as well as the likely procedural constraints that such evidence may encounter. Building on recent decisions of domestic, regional and international courts and bodies, and looking in particular at cases related to climate displacement, we consider the potential for civic evidence to provide valuable testimony in climate litigation, for example, grounding abstract and diffuse harms in personal and locally relevant frames. The article concludes by advancing a research agenda to test, and support or disprove, the argument developed that civic evidence from climate‐affected people could be more robustly deployed in climate litigation and could have a complementary and reinforcing, rather than competing, role alongside institutional evidence.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141195270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the value of climate science in the courtroom is widely acknowledged, few studies have evaluated how judges achieve a scientifically sound grounding for their rulings. Drawing insights from legal culture and science and technology studies, we compare the determination of scientific credibility in leading climate cases in Europe and the United States. Judges on both sides of the Atlantic answer similar questions about scientific facts and commonly use authoritative reports and testimonies from qualified experts. However, while judges in the Netherlands, France and Germany find value in the political mandates of international or national bodies that generate scientific reports, American judges seek to keep scientific expertise from the influence of policy considerations. We make sense of this difference by identifying two competing ideals of expertise, namely the ‘view of everyone’ ideal in Europe and the ‘view from nowhere’ ideal in the United States. Although climate science is often articulated in universalist terms, the cultural embeddedness of adjudication means that the evaluation of credibility varies by jurisdiction.
{"title":"A comparative study of the judicial construction of scientific credibility in climate litigation","authors":"Mingzhe Zhu, Liyuan Fan","doi":"10.1111/reel.12542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12542","url":null,"abstract":"Although the value of climate science in the courtroom is widely acknowledged, few studies have evaluated how judges achieve a scientifically sound grounding for their rulings. Drawing insights from legal culture and science and technology studies, we compare the determination of scientific credibility in leading climate cases in Europe and the United States. Judges on both sides of the Atlantic answer similar questions about scientific facts and commonly use authoritative reports and testimonies from qualified experts. However, while judges in the Netherlands, France and Germany find value in the political mandates of international or national bodies that generate scientific reports, American judges seek to keep scientific expertise from the influence of policy considerations. We make sense of this difference by identifying two competing ideals of expertise, namely the ‘view of everyone’ ideal in Europe and the ‘view from nowhere’ ideal in the United States. Although climate science is often articulated in universalist terms, the cultural embeddedness of adjudication means that the evaluation of credibility varies by jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the role of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in establishing and managing marine protected areas (MPAs) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Agreement under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). The analysis is conducted by discussing Articles 194 and 205–206 of the UNCLOS and Articles 27–28 and 30 of the BBNJ Agreement. It concludes that the interaction between EIA and MPAs in ABNJ is not only desirable but also critical for the success of MPAs. The BBNJ Agreement operationalises the role of EIAs in establishing and managing MPAs under the UNCLOS by (1) granting EIA an important role in assessing the susceptibility of an MPA to the impact of certain human activities and (2) factoring part of indicative criteria for identifying potential MPAs in the list of criteria to be considered for conducting EIA screening.
{"title":"The role of environmental impact assessments in the establishment and management of marine protected areas under the UNCLOS and the BBNJ Agreement","authors":"Wen Duan, Luoyi Shen","doi":"10.1111/reel.12544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12544","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the role of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in establishing and managing marine protected areas (MPAs) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Agreement under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). The analysis is conducted by discussing Articles 194 and 205–206 of the UNCLOS and Articles 27–28 and 30 of the BBNJ Agreement. It concludes that the interaction between EIA and MPAs in ABNJ is not only desirable but also critical for the success of MPAs. The BBNJ Agreement operationalises the role of EIAs in establishing and managing MPAs under the UNCLOS by (1) granting EIA an important role in assessing the susceptibility of an MPA to the impact of certain human activities and (2) factoring part of indicative criteria for identifying potential MPAs in the list of criteria to be considered for conducting EIA screening.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：