让人民说话吧!在飞蝇渔民联合会诉环境事务部长一案之后,抵制公众参与权利的侵蚀

Q3 Social Sciences South African law journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.47348/salj/v139/i4a6
Jenny Hall
{"title":"让人民说话吧!在飞蝇渔民联合会诉环境事务部长一案之后,抵制公众参与权利的侵蚀","authors":"Jenny Hall","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The need for public participation in environmental decisions is accepted in both international and South African law. In the run up to, and just after, the transition to democracy, South Africa was exemplary in many instances in ensuring that participation occurred in a meaningful and broad-based way. In recent years, however, some may question whether the underlying rationale for public participation is still as valued by government, or whether it is being diluted to a mechanistic procedural requirement reminiscent of the past. Disputes about the way in which requirements to give effect to public participation are being implemented have recently surfaced in the courts in respect of several environmental issues. There has been strong public opposition to municipal service delivery regarding waste and water, seismic testing off the South African coast, and law-making activities regarding trout. This article considers the court’s oversight of public participation processes in respect of one of those issues — recent decisions on the introduction of executive regulations. It does so by tracing the particular dynamics regarding the need for public participation in South Africa and assessing the way in which the court has adjudicated public participation disputes in the law-making context. It finds that the court appears to be willing to play its oversight role in a way which is true to the underlying ethos of democratic decision-making in the environmental context, albeit that further opportunities for the court to consider the full range of matters involving participation should be welcomed.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let the people speak! Resisting the erosion of the right to public participation in the wake of The Federation of Fly Fishers v The Minister of Environmental Affairs\",\"authors\":\"Jenny Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The need for public participation in environmental decisions is accepted in both international and South African law. In the run up to, and just after, the transition to democracy, South Africa was exemplary in many instances in ensuring that participation occurred in a meaningful and broad-based way. In recent years, however, some may question whether the underlying rationale for public participation is still as valued by government, or whether it is being diluted to a mechanistic procedural requirement reminiscent of the past. Disputes about the way in which requirements to give effect to public participation are being implemented have recently surfaced in the courts in respect of several environmental issues. There has been strong public opposition to municipal service delivery regarding waste and water, seismic testing off the South African coast, and law-making activities regarding trout. This article considers the court’s oversight of public participation processes in respect of one of those issues — recent decisions on the introduction of executive regulations. It does so by tracing the particular dynamics regarding the need for public participation in South Africa and assessing the way in which the court has adjudicated public participation disputes in the law-making context. It finds that the court appears to be willing to play its oversight role in a way which is true to the underlying ethos of democratic decision-making in the environmental context, albeit that further opportunities for the court to consider the full range of matters involving participation should be welcomed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a6\",\"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":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a6","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

国际法和南非法律都承认公众参与环境决策的必要性。在过渡到民主之前和之后不久,南非在许多情况下在确保以有意义和基础广泛的方式进行参与方面堪称典范。然而,近年来,一些人可能会质疑,公众参与的基本原理是否仍然受到政府的重视,或者它是否正在被淡化为一种让人想起过去的机械程序要求。最近,法院在几个环境问题上出现了关于如何实施公众参与的要求的争议。公众强烈反对有关废物和水的市政服务,反对南非海岸的地震测试,反对有关鳟鱼的立法活动。本文考虑法院在其中一个问题上对公众参与过程的监督- -最近关于引入行政法规的决定。它通过追踪南非需要公众参与的具体动态,并评估法院在立法方面裁决公众参与争端的方式来做到这一点。它认为,法院似乎愿意以一种符合环境背景下民主决策的基本精神的方式发挥其监督作用,尽管应该欢迎法院有更多机会审议涉及参与的所有事项。
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
Let the people speak! Resisting the erosion of the right to public participation in the wake of The Federation of Fly Fishers v The Minister of Environmental Affairs
The need for public participation in environmental decisions is accepted in both international and South African law. In the run up to, and just after, the transition to democracy, South Africa was exemplary in many instances in ensuring that participation occurred in a meaningful and broad-based way. In recent years, however, some may question whether the underlying rationale for public participation is still as valued by government, or whether it is being diluted to a mechanistic procedural requirement reminiscent of the past. Disputes about the way in which requirements to give effect to public participation are being implemented have recently surfaced in the courts in respect of several environmental issues. There has been strong public opposition to municipal service delivery regarding waste and water, seismic testing off the South African coast, and law-making activities regarding trout. This article considers the court’s oversight of public participation processes in respect of one of those issues — recent decisions on the introduction of executive regulations. It does so by tracing the particular dynamics regarding the need for public participation in South Africa and assessing the way in which the court has adjudicated public participation disputes in the law-making context. It finds that the court appears to be willing to play its oversight role in a way which is true to the underlying ethos of democratic decision-making in the environmental context, albeit that further opportunities for the court to consider the full range of matters involving participation should be welcomed.
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
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A legislative framework for shareholder approval of political donations and expenditure by companies in South Africa Reflecting on the tension between the development of the common law and the doctrine of separation of powers in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd Notes: The Krugersdorp gang rapes — Another Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S? Book Review: Tjakie Naudé & Daniel Visser (eds) The Future of the Law of Contract: Essays in Honour of Dale Hutchison (2021) The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
×
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