公众参与是环境法治的基本要求:对南非政策和实践方法的思考

Jenny Hall, Peter Lukey
{"title":"公众参与是环境法治的基本要求:对南非政策和实践方法的思考","authors":"Jenny Hall, Peter Lukey","doi":"10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n2a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The need for public participation to be embedded in environmental governance has for several decades been accepted in international law. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that public participation facilitates better informed and credible decisions that affect the environment and the people who live in it. However, while acceptance of the need for public participation is widespread, approaches to giving effect to it in practice lie on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum lie 'weak' methods that arguably pay lip service to the principle rather than providing opportunities for meaningful engagement and change. On the other lie 'strong' methods that embrace the full underlying ethos of public participation and provide real potential for those often marginalised from the core of power to influence outcomes and secure environmentally-just decisions. South Africa's approach provides an opportunity to examine both ends of the public participation spectrum. Post-democracy its approach has moved from a limited, exclusive and mechanistic one to an approach that in environmental policy and legislation in many ways exemplifies the upper rungs of Arnstein's well-known ladder of public participation. Nevertheless, a survey of judgments emphasises that legislative efforts aimed at ensuring 'strong' participation methods can become diluted where officials do not consistently embrace the full value and intended purpose of public participation in their decisions. In such instances the courts can play a valuable role in steering practice back to the intended path.","PeriodicalId":36136,"journal":{"name":"African Human Rights Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice\",\"authors\":\"Jenny Hall, Peter Lukey\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n2a4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The need for public participation to be embedded in environmental governance has for several decades been accepted in international law. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that public participation facilitates better informed and credible decisions that affect the environment and the people who live in it. However, while acceptance of the need for public participation is widespread, approaches to giving effect to it in practice lie on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum lie 'weak' methods that arguably pay lip service to the principle rather than providing opportunities for meaningful engagement and change. On the other lie 'strong' methods that embrace the full underlying ethos of public participation and provide real potential for those often marginalised from the core of power to influence outcomes and secure environmentally-just decisions. South Africa's approach provides an opportunity to examine both ends of the public participation spectrum. Post-democracy its approach has moved from a limited, exclusive and mechanistic one to an approach that in environmental policy and legislation in many ways exemplifies the upper rungs of Arnstein's well-known ladder of public participation. Nevertheless, a survey of judgments emphasises that legislative efforts aimed at ensuring 'strong' participation methods can become diluted where officials do not consistently embrace the full value and intended purpose of public participation in their decisions. In such instances the courts can play a valuable role in steering practice back to the intended path.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n2a4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Human Rights Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n2a4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,公众参与环境治理的必要性已被国际法所接受。其原因有很多,包括公众参与有助于做出影响环境和生活在环境中的人们的更加知情和可信的决定。然而,尽管公众参与的必要性已被广泛接受,但在实践中落实公众参与的方法却不尽相同。一端是 "薄弱 "的方法,可以说是对原则的口头承诺,而不是为有意义的参与和变革提供机会。另一种是 "强 "方法,这种方法充分体现了公众参与的基本精神,并为那些往往被边缘化的权力核心提供了真正的潜力,以影响结果并确保做出对环境公正的决策。南非的方法为研究公众参与的两端提供了机会。民主化之后,南非的公众参与方式已经从有限的、排他性的和机械化的方式转变为在环境政策和立法中以多种方式体现阿恩斯坦著名的公众参与阶梯的上层。尽管如此,对判决的调查强调,如果官员在决策中没有始终坚持公众参与的全部价值和预期目的,那么旨在确保 "强有力 "参与方法的立法努力就会被削弱。在这种情况下,法院可以发挥宝贵的作用,引导实践回到预期的轨道上来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice
The need for public participation to be embedded in environmental governance has for several decades been accepted in international law. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that public participation facilitates better informed and credible decisions that affect the environment and the people who live in it. However, while acceptance of the need for public participation is widespread, approaches to giving effect to it in practice lie on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum lie 'weak' methods that arguably pay lip service to the principle rather than providing opportunities for meaningful engagement and change. On the other lie 'strong' methods that embrace the full underlying ethos of public participation and provide real potential for those often marginalised from the core of power to influence outcomes and secure environmentally-just decisions. South Africa's approach provides an opportunity to examine both ends of the public participation spectrum. Post-democracy its approach has moved from a limited, exclusive and mechanistic one to an approach that in environmental policy and legislation in many ways exemplifies the upper rungs of Arnstein's well-known ladder of public participation. Nevertheless, a survey of judgments emphasises that legislative efforts aimed at ensuring 'strong' participation methods can become diluted where officials do not consistently embrace the full value and intended purpose of public participation in their decisions. In such instances the courts can play a valuable role in steering practice back to the intended path.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Human Rights Law Journal
African Human Rights Law Journal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice The right to development in Francophone Africa: Post-colonial agreements, sovereign authority and control over natural resources The prospects of litigation to secure maternal health in Nigeria: Does SERAP v Attorney-General Lagos have any value? Traditional leadership in South Africa: From blood and might usurpation to constitutional accountability The Mariana Trench of transphobia in South Africa: The legislative lacunae in KOS v Minister of Home Affairs
×
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