工业化初期的化学污染与监管选择——法国与英国的比较

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-04-04 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac046
Noga Morag-Levine
{"title":"工业化初期的化学污染与监管选择——法国与英国的比较","authors":"Noga Morag-Levine","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In both Britain and France, pollution from emergent chemical manufacturing during the early industrial era presented a choice between two regulatory approaches. One option, consistent with longstanding restrictions in both countries on the location of malodorous trades, insisted on the separation of chemical plants from (upper-class) residences. The alternative approach allowed polluting firms to operate near residences, subject to incremental technology-based mitigation. By 1810, France issued a decree that conferred on most chemical manufacturers the right to operate inside cities, subject to permitting requirements. For residents of working-class industrial neighborhoods, who never stood a realistic chance of removing polluters, a regulatory regime geared at incremental mitigation held the potential for modest environmental improvement. For wealthy landowners, however, partial technological mitigation was far inferior to the complete relief obtainable through the removal of pollution sources.\n France’s example loomed large over chemical pollution debates in nineteenth-century Britain. Manufacturers hoped the courts would remove locational restrictions on chemical plants, while the near absence of pollution mitigation within working-class areas alarmed liberal reformers. The road to a compromise solution patterned after France’s was impeded in Britain, however, by a deep-seated aversion to uniform, centralized pollution control. This reticence was rooted in common-law-inspired understandings of nuisance law as the sole and inviolable constitutional means for the regulation of land use. By the 1860s, through the combined impact of St. Helens v. Tipping (1865) and the Alkali Act of 1863, Britain moved towards the French approach. Nevertheless, compared with France, British law remained more protective of landowners, more reactive in its implementation, and more willing to vary required mitigation based on sociodemographic factors. Beyond its contribution to comparative environmental history, in revealing the legal-ideological underpinnings of the Franco-British divide over the regulation of early chemical pollution, this Article also seeks to shine a light on the lingering role of legal ideology within contemporary cross-national divisions over the efficacy and legitimacy of centralized technology-based regulatory instruments","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chemical Pollution and Regulatory Choices at the Start of Industrialization: Comparing France and Great Britain\",\"authors\":\"Noga Morag-Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcl/avac046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In both Britain and France, pollution from emergent chemical manufacturing during the early industrial era presented a choice between two regulatory approaches. One option, consistent with longstanding restrictions in both countries on the location of malodorous trades, insisted on the separation of chemical plants from (upper-class) residences. The alternative approach allowed polluting firms to operate near residences, subject to incremental technology-based mitigation. By 1810, France issued a decree that conferred on most chemical manufacturers the right to operate inside cities, subject to permitting requirements. For residents of working-class industrial neighborhoods, who never stood a realistic chance of removing polluters, a regulatory regime geared at incremental mitigation held the potential for modest environmental improvement. For wealthy landowners, however, partial technological mitigation was far inferior to the complete relief obtainable through the removal of pollution sources.\\n France’s example loomed large over chemical pollution debates in nineteenth-century Britain. Manufacturers hoped the courts would remove locational restrictions on chemical plants, while the near absence of pollution mitigation within working-class areas alarmed liberal reformers. The road to a compromise solution patterned after France’s was impeded in Britain, however, by a deep-seated aversion to uniform, centralized pollution control. This reticence was rooted in common-law-inspired understandings of nuisance law as the sole and inviolable constitutional means for the regulation of land use. By the 1860s, through the combined impact of St. Helens v. Tipping (1865) and the Alkali Act of 1863, Britain moved towards the French approach. Nevertheless, compared with France, British law remained more protective of landowners, more reactive in its implementation, and more willing to vary required mitigation based on sociodemographic factors. Beyond its contribution to comparative environmental history, in revealing the legal-ideological underpinnings of the Franco-British divide over the regulation of early chemical pollution, this Article also seeks to shine a light on the lingering role of legal ideology within contemporary cross-national divisions over the efficacy and legitimacy of centralized technology-based regulatory instruments\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac046\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac046","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在英国和法国,早期工业时代新兴化学制造业造成的污染在两种监管方法之间做出了选择。一种选择是,与两国长期以来对恶臭贸易地点的限制一致,坚持将化工厂与(上层)住宅分开。另一种方法允许污染企业在住宅附近经营,但要采取基于技术的渐进缓解措施。到1810年,法国颁布了一项法令,授予大多数化学品制造商在城市内经营的权利,但须符合许可要求。对于工人阶级工业社区的居民来说,他们从来没有真正的机会清除污染者,一个旨在逐步缓解污染的监管制度有可能适度改善环境。然而,对于富裕的土地所有者来说,部分技术缓解远不如通过消除污染源获得的完全缓解。法国的例子在19世纪英国的化学污染辩论中显得尤为突出。制造商希望法院能取消对化工厂的选址限制,而工人阶级地区几乎没有减轻污染的措施,这让自由派改革者感到震惊。然而,英国对统一、集中的污染控制根深蒂固的厌恶阻碍了以法国为模式的妥协解决方案的道路。这种沉默源于普通法对妨害法的理解,妨害法是规范土地使用的唯一且不可侵犯的宪法手段。到了19世纪60年代,通过圣海伦斯诉蒂平案(1865年)和1863年《碱法》的共同影响,英国转向了法国的做法。尽管如此,与法国相比,英国法律仍然更保护土地所有者,在实施过程中更具反应性,并且更愿意根据社会人口因素改变所需的缓解措施。除了对比较环境史的贡献之外,在揭示法英在早期化学污染监管问题上分歧的法律意识形态基础时,这篇文章还试图揭示法律意识形态在当代跨国分歧中对集中技术监管工具的效力和合法性的挥之不去的作用
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
Chemical Pollution and Regulatory Choices at the Start of Industrialization: Comparing France and Great Britain
In both Britain and France, pollution from emergent chemical manufacturing during the early industrial era presented a choice between two regulatory approaches. One option, consistent with longstanding restrictions in both countries on the location of malodorous trades, insisted on the separation of chemical plants from (upper-class) residences. The alternative approach allowed polluting firms to operate near residences, subject to incremental technology-based mitigation. By 1810, France issued a decree that conferred on most chemical manufacturers the right to operate inside cities, subject to permitting requirements. For residents of working-class industrial neighborhoods, who never stood a realistic chance of removing polluters, a regulatory regime geared at incremental mitigation held the potential for modest environmental improvement. For wealthy landowners, however, partial technological mitigation was far inferior to the complete relief obtainable through the removal of pollution sources. France’s example loomed large over chemical pollution debates in nineteenth-century Britain. Manufacturers hoped the courts would remove locational restrictions on chemical plants, while the near absence of pollution mitigation within working-class areas alarmed liberal reformers. The road to a compromise solution patterned after France’s was impeded in Britain, however, by a deep-seated aversion to uniform, centralized pollution control. This reticence was rooted in common-law-inspired understandings of nuisance law as the sole and inviolable constitutional means for the regulation of land use. By the 1860s, through the combined impact of St. Helens v. Tipping (1865) and the Alkali Act of 1863, Britain moved towards the French approach. Nevertheless, compared with France, British law remained more protective of landowners, more reactive in its implementation, and more willing to vary required mitigation based on sociodemographic factors. Beyond its contribution to comparative environmental history, in revealing the legal-ideological underpinnings of the Franco-British divide over the regulation of early chemical pollution, this Article also seeks to shine a light on the lingering role of legal ideology within contemporary cross-national divisions over the efficacy and legitimacy of centralized technology-based regulatory instruments
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
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