跨国环境规制与全球环境治理标准的规范化

O. McIntyre
{"title":"跨国环境规制与全球环境治理标准的规范化","authors":"O. McIntyre","doi":"10.1108/JPPEL-01-2018-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThis paper aims to propose a legal characterisation of the recent proliferation, across the broad range of global environmental good governance initiatives and practices, of a diverse mix of regulatory environmental standards, many of which are informal in origin insofar as they are neither State-driven nor State-centred. It examines the novel conception of legal order posited by Twinning and Walker, to determine whether it encompasses the myriad rules and standards emerging in the field of environmental governance. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nSurveying the rapidly developing montage of formal and informal rules and standards associated with global environmental governance, this paper uses the analytical framework provided by scholars of “global administrative law” to reconcile the complementary roles of formal and informal sources of legal rules, and to explain their increasing convergence around a set of good governance principles and standards commonly used in national administrative law systems. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThe paper concludes that the emerging regulatory framework for global environmental governance comprises an almost endless variety of forms of novel transnational regulatory activity, many succeeding in having a profound impact on environmental outcomes. Yet all appear to be founded upon and guided by a discrete set of good governance standards and principles of an administrative law character – including transparency, participation, legality, rationality, proportionality, reviewability and accountability – which serve to enhance the credibility and legitimacy of each regulatory mechanism. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nIt appears that new and informal forms of environmental regulatory activity enjoy a complex symbiotic relationship with formal systems of environmental law. In addition to filling lacunae and addressing deficiencies in such systems, owing, for example, to the transnational character of much of today’s trade, informal regulatory systems are increasingly influencing the evolution of formal legal frameworks and, in so doing, are improving the responsiveness, flexibility and accessibility of this new environmental “legal order”. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nAt a practical level, viewing the wide range of new forms of environmental regulatory activity through the prism of global administrative law (or global environmental law) brings unity to this diverse field and, in so doing, makes available to all the actors involved in this “community of practice” a wealth of established practice and principle which can help to inform the elaboration and interpretation of rules and standards of environmental governance through a process of cross fertilisation of ideas and approaches. \n \n \n \n \nSocial implications \n \n \n \n \nRecognition of the legal character and significant role of the wide range of novel forms of environmental regulatory activity lends further credibility and legitimacy to such mechanisms, which often comprise the only truly relevant and applicable environmental controls or truly accessible mode of redress and accountability. The challenges of realising sustainability are immense and, as one leading commentator has noted, “all normative means are useful to this end”. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThis paper attempts to characterise the legal nature of the range of novel forms of environmental regulation which (can) play such an important role in modifying the behaviour of many of the key environmental actors globally – actors who have largely been unaffected by more formal legal frameworks. For this reason, it seeks to encourage a fundamental shift in the way we think about environmental law and legal authority.","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transnational environmental regulation and the normativisation of global environmental governance standards\",\"authors\":\"O. McIntyre\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JPPEL-01-2018-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper aims to propose a legal characterisation of the recent proliferation, across the broad range of global environmental good governance initiatives and practices, of a diverse mix of regulatory environmental standards, many of which are informal in origin insofar as they are neither State-driven nor State-centred. It examines the novel conception of legal order posited by Twinning and Walker, to determine whether it encompasses the myriad rules and standards emerging in the field of environmental governance. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nSurveying the rapidly developing montage of formal and informal rules and standards associated with global environmental governance, this paper uses the analytical framework provided by scholars of “global administrative law” to reconcile the complementary roles of formal and informal sources of legal rules, and to explain their increasing convergence around a set of good governance principles and standards commonly used in national administrative law systems. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe paper concludes that the emerging regulatory framework for global environmental governance comprises an almost endless variety of forms of novel transnational regulatory activity, many succeeding in having a profound impact on environmental outcomes. Yet all appear to be founded upon and guided by a discrete set of good governance standards and principles of an administrative law character – including transparency, participation, legality, rationality, proportionality, reviewability and accountability – which serve to enhance the credibility and legitimacy of each regulatory mechanism. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nResearch limitations/implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nIt appears that new and informal forms of environmental regulatory activity enjoy a complex symbiotic relationship with formal systems of environmental law. In addition to filling lacunae and addressing deficiencies in such systems, owing, for example, to the transnational character of much of today’s trade, informal regulatory systems are increasingly influencing the evolution of formal legal frameworks and, in so doing, are improving the responsiveness, flexibility and accessibility of this new environmental “legal order”. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPractical implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAt a practical level, viewing the wide range of new forms of environmental regulatory activity through the prism of global administrative law (or global environmental law) brings unity to this diverse field and, in so doing, makes available to all the actors involved in this “community of practice” a wealth of established practice and principle which can help to inform the elaboration and interpretation of rules and standards of environmental governance through a process of cross fertilisation of ideas and approaches. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nSocial implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nRecognition of the legal character and significant role of the wide range of novel forms of environmental regulatory activity lends further credibility and legitimacy to such mechanisms, which often comprise the only truly relevant and applicable environmental controls or truly accessible mode of redress and accountability. The challenges of realising sustainability are immense and, as one leading commentator has noted, “all normative means are useful to this end”. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper attempts to characterise the legal nature of the range of novel forms of environmental regulation which (can) play such an important role in modifying the behaviour of many of the key environmental actors globally – actors who have largely been unaffected by more formal legal frameworks. For this reason, it seeks to encourage a fundamental shift in the way we think about environmental law and legal authority.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-01-2018-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-01-2018-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文旨在对最近在广泛的全球环境善治倡议和实践中扩散的各种各样的监管环境标准提出法律特征,其中许多标准在起源上是非正式的,因为它们既不是国家驱动的,也不是以国家为中心的。它考察了Twinning和Walker提出的法律秩序的新概念,以确定它是否包含了环境治理领域出现的无数规则和标准。本文考察了与全球环境治理相关的正式和非正式规则和标准的快速发展蒙大奇,使用“全球行政法”学者提供的分析框架来协调正式和非正式法律规则来源的互补作用。并解释它们围绕国家行政法律体系中常用的一套善治原则和标准日益趋同。本文的结论是,新兴的全球环境治理监管框架包括几乎无穷无尽的各种形式的新型跨国监管活动,其中许多成功地对环境结果产生了深远的影响。然而,所有这些机制似乎都是建立在一套独立的行政法性质的善政标准和原则的基础上并受其指导的,这些标准和原则包括透明度、参与、合法性、合理性、相称性、可审查性和责任制,这些标准和原则有助于提高每个管理机制的信誉和合法性。新的和非正式形式的环境管制活动似乎与正式的环境法制度有着复杂的共生关系。非正式管制制度除了填补诸如由于当今大部分贸易的跨国性质而造成的这种制度的空白和解决不足之外,还日益影响正式法律框架的演变,从而提高这种新的环境“法律秩序”的反应能力、灵活性和可及性。在实践层面上,通过全球行政法(或全球环境法)的棱镜观察范围广泛的新形式的环境监管活动,使这个多样化的领域统一起来,这样做,向参与“实践共同体”的所有行动者提供丰富的既定实践和原则,这些实践和原则可以通过思想和方法的交叉融合过程,帮助为制定和解释环境治理的规则和标准提供信息。认识到各种新形式的环境管制活动的法律性质和重要作用,使这些机制具有进一步的可信性和合法性,这些机制往往是唯一真正相关和适用的环境控制或真正可获得的补救和问责模式。实现可持续性的挑战是巨大的,正如一位知名评论员所指出的那样,“所有规范性手段都有助于实现这一目标”。原创性/价值本文试图描述一系列新形式环境法规的法律性质,这些法规(可以)在改变全球许多关键环境行动者的行为方面发挥重要作用-这些行动者在很大程度上不受更正式的法律框架的影响。出于这个原因,它试图鼓励我们对环境法和法律权威的看法发生根本性的转变。
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
Transnational environmental regulation and the normativisation of global environmental governance standards
Purpose This paper aims to propose a legal characterisation of the recent proliferation, across the broad range of global environmental good governance initiatives and practices, of a diverse mix of regulatory environmental standards, many of which are informal in origin insofar as they are neither State-driven nor State-centred. It examines the novel conception of legal order posited by Twinning and Walker, to determine whether it encompasses the myriad rules and standards emerging in the field of environmental governance. Design/methodology/approach Surveying the rapidly developing montage of formal and informal rules and standards associated with global environmental governance, this paper uses the analytical framework provided by scholars of “global administrative law” to reconcile the complementary roles of formal and informal sources of legal rules, and to explain their increasing convergence around a set of good governance principles and standards commonly used in national administrative law systems. Findings The paper concludes that the emerging regulatory framework for global environmental governance comprises an almost endless variety of forms of novel transnational regulatory activity, many succeeding in having a profound impact on environmental outcomes. Yet all appear to be founded upon and guided by a discrete set of good governance standards and principles of an administrative law character – including transparency, participation, legality, rationality, proportionality, reviewability and accountability – which serve to enhance the credibility and legitimacy of each regulatory mechanism. Research limitations/implications It appears that new and informal forms of environmental regulatory activity enjoy a complex symbiotic relationship with formal systems of environmental law. In addition to filling lacunae and addressing deficiencies in such systems, owing, for example, to the transnational character of much of today’s trade, informal regulatory systems are increasingly influencing the evolution of formal legal frameworks and, in so doing, are improving the responsiveness, flexibility and accessibility of this new environmental “legal order”. Practical implications At a practical level, viewing the wide range of new forms of environmental regulatory activity through the prism of global administrative law (or global environmental law) brings unity to this diverse field and, in so doing, makes available to all the actors involved in this “community of practice” a wealth of established practice and principle which can help to inform the elaboration and interpretation of rules and standards of environmental governance through a process of cross fertilisation of ideas and approaches. Social implications Recognition of the legal character and significant role of the wide range of novel forms of environmental regulatory activity lends further credibility and legitimacy to such mechanisms, which often comprise the only truly relevant and applicable environmental controls or truly accessible mode of redress and accountability. The challenges of realising sustainability are immense and, as one leading commentator has noted, “all normative means are useful to this end”. Originality/value This paper attempts to characterise the legal nature of the range of novel forms of environmental regulation which (can) play such an important role in modifying the behaviour of many of the key environmental actors globally – actors who have largely been unaffected by more formal legal frameworks. For this reason, it seeks to encourage a fundamental shift in the way we think about environmental law and legal authority.
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
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The absurdity of the modern law of town and village greens Legal framework of sustainable construction procurement to prevent land degradation: comparison between Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand Can community land trust models work in Peru? Researching community-based land tenure models for affordable housing “From the lease’s point of view”: the role of tied leases in shaping the UK pub sector Redeveloping the compact city: the challenges of strata collective sales
×
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