Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Verity LJ Adams, Sarah Ismail Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-08-23T08:04:30Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241272281
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Goodtime Okara Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-08-10T11:33:59Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241263393
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Gregory E. Frey Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. Managed burning of forests can provide benefits to society including mitigated wildfire risk, improved habitat, and more. However, adverse outcomes of escaped fire or smoke pose risks. I reviewed the evolution of the law regulating forest management burns, explored the current legal architecture, and analyzed the economic incentives for involved actors, in order to identify policy options. Liability standards through most of the twentieth century increasingly placed risk burden on landowners and burners, but increased recognition of the benefits of burns led many States to reverse this trend and limit the liability for a subset of qualified burns. Still, there is broad uncertainty about the liability, which can lead to increased costs for all sides. In view of the societal benefits of burning, States may consider how best to provide legal clarity, how to balance associated risks, and where to place the liability burden. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-08-02T10:26:41Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241270191
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Vic Duarte Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. The Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act (SEPHCA), Canada's most recent attempt at mobilising federal and provincial action, does not go far enough toward depoliticising environmental justice within its borders. Based on a comprehensive review of legislative and academic literature, the current paper argues for the codification of the right to a healthy environment to be enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In doing so, Canada will realise the merits of ecological constitutionalism, meet the standards of the United Nations and the international human rights discourse, and realise its sustainable development goals in light of the triple planetary crisis. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-07-23T10:23:48Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241258710
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Laura Holden Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. Import and export controls ensure plant pests and diseases harmful to food production, the plants across our landscape, and ecosystem services, are not moved during trade. The ‘International Plant Protection Convention’ (IPPC) provides the framework for applying preventive measures where they are technically justified, and stipulates controls are not to be used as arbitrary restrictions on international trade. This article examines the aims of the Brexit trade agreements and reviews their alignment with the IPPC and other World Trade Organisation agreements. It argues that unjustified controls have been applied under the guise of protective requirements (contributing to EU-GB trade disruption) and identifies a divergence at the point of regulatory implementation of these laws and treaties by official bodies on both sides. The article reviews the position of Northern Ireland, which, to avoid a ‘hard border’ on the island of Ireland, remains under the European Union (EU)'s plant health (phytosanitary) regime. Reflecting on legislative options available to bring the application of plant health regulations into alignment with the IPPC (such as dispute resolution), these options remain unused. However, the possibility of utilising ‘import authorisations’ would leave neither Great Britain nor EU Member States exposed to any greater environmental risk than that under the single market. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-06-05T07:33:17Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241259879
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Verity LJ Adams, Sarah Ismail Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-05-29T06:34:56Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241256098
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Anna Hoffmann Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. The opinion focuses on the European Court of Human Right's (ECtHR) recent judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland which was handed down on 9 April 2023. The decision broke new ground by establishing that ‘Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life’. The opinion discusses five key aspects of this voluminous judgment which will likely have an impact far beyond this individual case, including the points made relating to the role of the ECtHR, courts in general and the Convention as a living instrument. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-05-28T06:31:30Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241257112
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Vindhya Gupta, Dhanaji Jadhav, Bindu Ronald Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. Early industrialization of the developed countries has enabled their leadership in technological innovation, including environmentally sound technologies. ESTs are technologies that help prevent, control, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Endorsed as an integral part of climate action, a binding obligation to ensure access for global south to these technologies remains missing from international environment law and international intellectual property rights law. Transfer of technology also faces certain economic barriers such as lack of infrastructure and human resources that enable adoption and absorption of ESTs. Moreover, there exists ideological differences between developed countries and developing and least developed countries regarding mechanism of technology transfer, creating an impasse in international negotiations to achieve EST transfer. In this paper the author has attempted to reframe the discussion on transfer of ESTs through a climate justice perspective. An incorporation of the practical aspects of the common but differentiated responsibilities of the developed countries into the TRIPS regime, in the form of binding obligations to technology transfer and financial assistance, or relaxations in patent protections, may provide adequate resolution. A balanced and rational approach to EST transfer, beyond the exigencies of global politics, is necessary for the continued prosperity of the Earth. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-05-22T12:31:08Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241254011
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Laura Holden, Robert G Lee, Luisa Orsini, Niamh Eastwood, Jiarui Zhou, Aleksandra Čavoški Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. Global biodiversity has been lost at an alarming rate in the past century leading to what is often described as ‘the sixth mass extinction'. Leading causes of this loss are chemical pollution, habitat loss, unsustainable use of resources, invasive species, and climate change. Such environmental change can alter ecosystem functions irreversibly, leading to a direct loss of ecosystem services, such as food provision, climate regulation, and cultural services, which are estimated to have a global value of tens of trillions of dollars. International governing bodies have repeatedly set targets to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, especially within the framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Despite nation states’ pledges at the Rio Summit in 1992 to conserve biological diversity, progress has been lamentable. One reason for such failure is that action to redress biodiversity loss depends on national governments but it is of relatively low concern on the public agenda. This article reviews the UK and EU legal and policy biodiversity frameworks and exposes some of the complexities surrounding biodiversity loss, including non-compliance, public awareness, and valuation. Following a multidisciplinary roundtable on biodiversity in 2023, we suggest policy recommendations to overcome these issues. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-05-02T06:12:22Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241247361
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Verity LJ Adams, Michael Haywood, Sarah Ismail, Trinity Chambers Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-03-29T07:16:56Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529231197247
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Shashi Kant Yadav, Chhaya Bhardwaj, Gopal K Sarangi Abstract: Environmental Law Review, Ahead of Print. India has characterised shale gas as a transitional energy source and is planning to commercially scale the extraction of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Currently, India has announced 56 fracking projects spread across six Indian states. In doing so, exploration of shale gas resources has started in India. The regulations that govern conventional extraction processes are also applicable to fracking activities. The conflation of fracking with conventional drilling processes in India's regulatory approach may have implications for the country's water security, given the unique risks that fracking poses to water resources. This article analyses India's regulatory framework applicable to fracking-specific water (FSW) issues. In doing so, this article identifies four key paradigms of water security and maps these key paradigms with the US fracking experience, identifying four key FSW issues. Subsequently, this article evaluates if India's multilevel regulatory system regulates the identified four FSW issues. In conclusion, this research finds that before commercially scaling fracking operations, India must conduct a scientific inquiry on the impact of proposed fracking projects on its water resources. In doing so, it must re-examine its regulations at the federal and state levels to comprehensively cover FSW issues. Citation: Environmental Law Review PubDate: 2024-03-26T08:39:16Z DOI: 10.1177/14614529241230680
Subscription journal
[1176 journals]
