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.
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.
Abstract: The aim of this article is to track through and offer some reflections on the efforts by the European Union (EU) to ensure that EU law adequately implements the access to environmental justice obligations set down in the 1998 Aarhus Convention (AC) with respect to activities carried out by its supranational institutions and other Union bodies. For a number of years the EU has struggled to ensure its legal framework is in conformity with the Convention’s requirements concerning access to justice, not least in the wake of adverse findings expressed by the Convention’s Compliance Committee responding to complaints from members of the public. However, matters appear to have improved significantly in October 2021 with the adoption of EU Regulation 2021/1767 amending the Union’s legislative rules on an internal review mechanism of EU administrative acts or omissions alleged by members of the public to contravene EU environmental law (namely the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ 1367/2006). Whilst this article considers that most of the key issues relating to noncompliance have now been addressed satisfactorily, much of the credit for this ultimately lies with the European Parliament and Council of the EU as primary co-legislators rather than other key Union institutional actors such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). At the same time, this recent legislative innovation has not enabled the EU to reach its destination of achieving full compliance with the Convention over access to environmental justice, with some important administrative activities affecting the environment still remaining exempt from the Union’s internal review system such as EU decisions on state aid. Volume 31 Online ISSN 0966-1646 PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:01:08 GMT Issue No:Vol. 31 (2022)
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.
Abstract: The EU emission trading system (ETS) is the primary tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and combating climate change. Free allocation of emission allowances plays an important role within this system, and will continue to do so, also after the European Commission’s ‘Fit for 55’ proposal package. This article discusses the determination of free allocation by use of product benchmarks, and the assessment of substitutability under the product benchmark system, and how they relate to the legitimacy and proper functioning of the ETS. It is argued that a coherent, ETS-specific test should be applied when the Commission assesses the substitutability that underpins the product benchmarks, and that full judicial review is warranted going forward, akin to that deployed by the EU courts in competition cases. Volume 31 Online ISSN 0966-1646 PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:01:08 GMT Issue No:Vol. 31 (2022)
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.
Abstract: Crop diversity results from farmers’ selection and exchange of seeds. The crop diversity erosion observed over the last century can be attributed to the transition from traditional to industrial farming practices. Farmers’ seed varieties have been replaced by a few privately owned, high-yielding varieties. The resulting uniformity is jeopardizing food security, further exacerbated by climate change. Both the international framework and the EU legislation perpetuate the root cause of crop diversity erosion. The EU only authorizes on the internal market varieties that are distinct, uniform, stable, and of ‘satisfactory value for cultivation and use’. Non-complying seeds, meaning traditional heterogeneous varieties, are banned. Furthermore, the few authorized varieties are open to privatization through either a Community Plant Variety Right or patents on biotechnological inventions. The exchange, access, and use of these seeds are strictly restricted. Although the EU provides derogations in certain cases, the legal space created is too narrow to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). Volume 31 Online ISSN 0966-1646 PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:01:08 GMT Issue No:Vol. 31 (2022)
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.
Abstract: Emissions trading schemes (ETSs) have emerged as stable components of a fragmented climate governance landscape. Yet the proliferation of ETSs raises critical questions concerning their design, the development of conflicting norms, and how such schemes might link. This Article engages with these concerns by advancing a linkage framework based on a series of core convergence criteria which are considered necessary to assess the compatibility of candidate partner schemes. For the EU, the search for a candidate linkage partner has seemed a Sisyphean undertaking, but it is suggested that South Korea offers the prospect of stable climate settings. The critical design features of South Korea’s Emissions Trading Scheme (KETS) are evaluated before applying core convergence criteria to evaluate compatibility. This Article identifies a degree of alignment between the design features of the EU’s flagship Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and the KETS, but also uncovers divergences where detailed negotiation will prove necessary. Volume 31 Online ISSN 0966-1646 PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:01:08 GMT Issue No:Vol. 31 (2022)
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.
Abstract: After the European Court of Justice seminal decision in Achmea, where consent to investor-State arbitration enshrined in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties was found to be incompatible with the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal order, the European Commission has presented a draft proposal for the modernization of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The proposal relies markedly on the new investment agreements concluded between the European Union and third states, mainly CETA and the agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. It puts forward some key amendments on substantive provisions, by creating regulatory space for sustainable development and transition to clean energy. As regards the fair and equitable standard, the proposal adds that the ‘the tribunal may take into account whether a Contracting party made a specific representation to an investor to induce a covered investment, that created a legitimate expectation, upon which the investor relied in to make or maintain the covered investment’. This article focuses on the concept of ‘specific representation’, by asking whether it (still) encompasses promises made by the legislator, in order to access the impact that said provision might have on previous ECT arbitration case law concerning renewable energy and climate change.Volume 31 Online ISSN 0966-1646 PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:01:08 GMT Issue No:Vol. 31 (2022)
Subscription journal
[21 journals]
