{"title":"非创造性的教训:R(关于地球之友有限公司和其他公司的申请)诉希思罗机场有限公司[2020]UKSC 52","authors":"Joanne Hawkins","doi":"10.1177/14614529211052929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been the subject of ongoing melodrama. In the latest instalment, (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52), the Supreme Court comprehensively reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, rejecting the finding that the decision maker acted unlawfully in designating the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS). This commentary highlights that the Supreme Court judgment signals a missed opportunity to develop a more creative approach to the polycentric and dynamic issue of climate change in the context of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It argues that the decision is, if not wholly unexpected, a disappointing one.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"42 1","pages":"344 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52\",\"authors\":\"Joanne Hawkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614529211052929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been the subject of ongoing melodrama. In the latest instalment, (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52), the Supreme Court comprehensively reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, rejecting the finding that the decision maker acted unlawfully in designating the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS). This commentary highlights that the Supreme Court judgment signals a missed opportunity to develop a more creative approach to the polycentric and dynamic issue of climate change in the context of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It argues that the decision is, if not wholly unexpected, a disappointing one.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"344 - 349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529211052929\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529211052929","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52
Plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been the subject of ongoing melodrama. In the latest instalment, (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52), the Supreme Court comprehensively reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, rejecting the finding that the decision maker acted unlawfully in designating the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS). This commentary highlights that the Supreme Court judgment signals a missed opportunity to develop a more creative approach to the polycentric and dynamic issue of climate change in the context of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It argues that the decision is, if not wholly unexpected, a disappointing one.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
