Murcott MJ.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Towards a social justice-oriented environmental law jurisprudence in South Africa MJ Murcott Orcid.org/0000-0001-8311-2195 Thesis accepted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Laws in Constitutional Law at the North-West University Promoter: Prof. LJ Kotzé Graduation: May 2020 Student number: 25855867 For Jean and Charles Murcott i ABSTRACT The problem that this thesis seeks to address is the South African judiciary's failure, in general, to recognise in the adjudication of environmental law disputes that social injustices are connected to harmful environmental conditions and thus to environmental and climate injustices for South Africa's poor. This thesis proposes a legal theory of transformative environmental constitutionalism as a means, in the adjudication of environmental law disputes, to foster an appreciation from a socio-ecological systems perspective, of the interconnected nature of social, environmental and climate injustices, particularly in the socio-ecological crisis of the Anthropocene. This thesis argues that the implementation of a legal theory of transformative environmental constitutionalism by the judiciary could facilitate the emergence of a social justice-oriented environmental law jurisprudence more responsive to the plight of South Africa's poor and the deterioration of the environment, as interconnected concerns. Key words: Transformative constitutionalism, environmental constitutionalism, transformative environmental constitutionalism, social justice, environmental justice, climate justice, Anthropocene, socio-ecological systems ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. ix Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................... 1 1.1 Injustice and the lived realities of South Africa's poor ....................... 4 1.2 Conceptualising the South African judiciary's transformative mandate and defining environmental law disputes ............................................... 18 1.3 Problematising trends in the adjudication of environmental law disputes .............................................................................................. 25 1.4 Transformative environmental constitutionalism: towards a social justice-oriented environmental law jurisprudence ................................... 28 1.5 Main research question and sub-questions ..................................... 31 1.6 Objectives ................................................................................... 32 1.7 Hypotheses, assumptions and caveats ........................................... 34 1.8 Structure of the discussion ........................................................... 38 1.9 Original contribution .................................................................... 40 1.10 Methodology .............................................................................. 41 1.11 Existing foundational research of the candidate ............................ 44 Chapter 2 Connecting transformative constitutionalism and transformative adjudication to environmental constitutionalism .... 49 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 49 2.2 About this chapter ....................................................................... 54 2.3 The goals of transformative constitutionalism ................................ 56 2.4 Transformative adjudication ......................................................... 63 2.5 Environmental constitutionalism in South Africa ............................. 76 2.6 Conclusion .................................................................................. 91 Chapter 3 Trends in the implementation of environmental constitutionalism in South Africa ..................................................... 94 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 94 3.2 About this chapter ....................................................................... 97 3.3 Trend 1: Overlooking social, environmental and climate injustices in environmental law disputes ................................................................ 100 3.4 Trend 2: Over-proceduralising environmental law disputes ........... 106 3.5 Trend 3: Under-development of the environmental right ............... 119 3.6 Trend 4: Overlooking the relationships among environmental rights and other interrelated and mutually reinforcing rights .......................... 132 3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................ 136 iii Chapter 4 Unpacking the content of transformative environmental constitutionalism ........................................................................... 139 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 139 4.2 About this chapter ..................................................................... 143 4.3 Justice-oriented framing of disputes ............................................ 144 4.4 Substantive, rights-based adjudication ........................................ 147 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................ 175 Chapter 5 Transformative environmental constitutionalism's practical significance ..................................................................... 177 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 177 5.2 About this chapter ..................................................................... 180 5.3 Earthlife .................................................................................... 181 5.4 VEJA ......................................................................................... 193 5.5 The Gongqose judgments ........................................................... 203 5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................ 211 Chapter 6 Conclusion ..................................................................... 214 6.1 Problem statement .................................................................... 214 6.2 Objectives and structure of the discussion ................................... 215 6.3 Summary of main findings .......................................................... 216 6.4 Recommendations ..................................................................... 235 6.5 Future research agenda ............................................................. 236 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 240 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My life has changed fundamentally whilst writing this thesis. I experienced loss, which impacted upon me in a profound way, but also many triumphs. It is with the help of a global village that I have somehow managed to submit (though I know that, like me, this thesis will forever remain a work in progress). A broad spectrum of people and institutions (too many to mention individually, and I hope I will be forgiven for omissions) have offered invaluable support (whether intellectual, emotional or financial) and improved the quality of this work. It is fitting to acknowledge, first, my supervisor, Prof. Louis Kotzé of North-West University, Potchefstroom. Louis was patient, believed in me when I did not believe in myself, encouraged me, and held me accountable. I am grateful to Louis for his high standards of excellence and thorough and challenging supervision. It is also thanks to Louis that I have been exposed to some truly incredible opportunities that have greatly enriched this thesis, including the benefit of meeting and collaborating with many inspiring and knowledgeable scholars. Louis introduced me to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Academy of Environmental Law, a fantastic network of environmental law scholars from around the globe. Many of these scholars have offered support and encouragement to me. I would like to acknowledge, in particular, Professors Jim May and Erin Daly of Widener University, with whom I have had the privilege of collaborating, and from whom I have learned a great deal about environmental constitutionalism. In 2016, Jim and Erin generously hosted me for a research visit at Delaware Law, Widener University, as part of the Scholar-in-Residence programme on Global Environmental Constitutionalism. The visit was an amazing learning experience that has played a huge role in developing the ideas expressed in this thesis. It is also through the Academy that I have developed a wonderful global community of friends, who have offered me intellectual and emotional support, including in v relation to this thesis. Special thanks go to Professor Amanda Kennedy, Dr Tiina Paloniitty, Dr Emily Barritt, Ms Emily Webster and Dr Tobias Heldt. I must also specially acknowledge the wonderful Professor Sam Adelman of the University of Warwick. I owe a debt of gratitude to Louis, once again, for introducing me to Sam. It is thanks to Sam (who I hosted as a visiting scholar at the University of Pretoria in 2017 to teach in my undergraduate LLB and LLM courses in environmental law) that I learned, among other things, about the significance of climate justice in the context of my research. I am grateful to the University of Pretoria for the funding provided for Sam’s visit. In 2016, a four-month fellowship