DOCSLIB.ORG

Europe and Eurasia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Europe and Eurasia E u r o p e a n d E u r a s i a 1 4 European Union Law L u d w i g K r ä m e r ( A ) I n t r o d u c t i o n Th e European Union legal system 1 4 . 0 1 Th e European Union (‘EU’) is a regional integration organisation consisting at present of twenty-seven European Member States that have transferred part of their sovereignty to the EU. Th e EU is based on international treaties – the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) – and its power to act is laid down in the various provisions of these treaties; there is no ‘common law’ applicable to it. In this regard, the EU is similar to a civil law country. 1 4 . 0 2 A n u m b e r o f s p e c i fi c features distinguish the EU from traditional international organisations. First, the TEU and TFEU address not only the relations between the Member States and the EU insti- tutions, but also establish rights and obligations for individuals. Second, though legislative decisions in climate change matters are taken by majority vote in the European Parliament – whose members are directly elected – and the Council, which consists of the governments of the twenty-seven Member States, the adop- tion of legislation on climate change is only possible on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission. Th e Commission oversees the application of EU law in the Member States, and has the duty to act in the general interest of the EU rather than in the interest of the individual Member States. 1 4 . 0 3 Th e Court of Justice of the EU, consisting of a General Court (‘GC’) (formerly the Court of First Instance) and the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’), has the duty to ensure the correct applica- tion of EU law. Its judgments are binding on all public authorities, both at EU and at Member State level. When a question of EU law 351 352 Ludwig Krämer becomes relevant in a case before a national court, that court may ask the European Court for an interpretation, and where there is no judicial remedy under national law against a decision of the national court, that court is obliged to make a request to the ECJ for an interpretation of the relevant EU law provision. 1 4 . 0 4 Th e competence to adopt environmental legislation, including legislation on climate change, is shared between the EU and the Member States. When EU legislation is adopted, Member States are not only obliged to implement it, but they must not adopt pro- visions or practices that contradict EU provisions, though in the case of legislation based in the environmental provisions of the TFEU they may maintain or introduce more stringent national provisions than those provided by the European rules. Constitutional/ principal environmental/ human rights law 1 4 . 0 5 Th e TEU lays down as objectives of the EU, among others, ‘sus- tainable development’ and ‘a high level of protection and improve- ment of the quality of the environment’.1 Th e TFEU sets out that ‘[e]nvironmental protection requirements must be integrated into the defi nition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustain- able development’.2 Articles 191–193 TFEU, which specifi cally address environmental policy, state explicitly that the EU’s envir- onmental policy shall contribute to ‘combating climate change’.3 1 4 . 0 6 Th e EU is not yet a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, but its acces- sion is now required under Article 6(4) TEU, which states that the provisions of the Convention ‘shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law’. In 2000, the EU adopted a separate Charter on Fundamental Rights,4 which now has the same legal value as the EU Treaties, though in the case of the United Kingdom and Poland, a Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty states that the Charter does not create justiciable rights in those countries except in so far as they have created such rights under national law. 1 A r t i c l e 3 ( 3 ) , T E U . 2 Article 11, TFEU. 3 Article 191(4), TFEU . 4 OJ, C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1. European Union Law 353 1 4 . 0 7 Th ere is no comprehensive EU climate change legislation. Th e EU has signed and ratifi ed the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes a reduction by 2012 of 8 per cent of the EU’s greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions from 1990 levels. At the time, the EU agreed to an internal, legally binding ‘burden-sharing’5 s y s t e m , w h i c h provided for diff erentiated obligations for the – at that time fi f- teen – Member States. 6 Another binding burden-sharing agree- ment was decided in 2009 among the now twenty-seven Member States, 7 which aimed at reducing the EU’s GHG emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2020, compared to 2005 levels.8 T r a d i n g w i t h e m i s s i o n a l l o w a n c e s 1 4 . 0 8 Th e main EU instrument to address the reduction of the emis- sion of GHGs is Directive 2003/87 9 establishing a scheme for GHG emission allowance trading (the ‘EU ETS’).10 Th e Directive provides larger industrial installations with tradable allowances for the emission of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). When an installation does not require the use of all the allowances it has obtained, it can sell them; by the same token, when its emissions are likely to emit more CO2 than its allowances levels permit, it can buy 5 Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfi llment of commitments thereunder, OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, pp. 1–3. 6 Th e reduction/increase percentages were fi xed as follows: Belgium –7.5%; Denmark –21%; Germany –21%; Ireland +13%; Greece +25%; Spain +15%; France 0%; Italy –6.6%; Luxembourg: –28%; Netherlands: –6%; Austria: –13%; Portugal: +27%; Finland: 0%; Sweden: +4%; United Kingdom –12.5%. 7 Decision 406/2009/EC, of 23 April 2009 on the eff ort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, pp. 136–48. 8 Th e reduction/increase percentages were fi xed as follows: Belgium –15%; Bulgaria +20%; Czech Republic +9%; Denmark –20%; Germany –14%; Estonia +11%; Ireland –20%; Greece –4%; Spain –10%; France –14%; Italy –13%; Cyprus –5%; Latvia +17%; Lithuania +15%; Luxembourg –20%; Hungary +10%; Malta +10%; Netherlands –16%; Austria –16%; Poland +1%; Portugal +1%; Romania +19%; Slovenia +4%; Slovakia +13%; Finland –16%; Sweden –17%; United Kingdom –16%. 9 A Directive is a legally binding instrument, addressed to EU Member States. It obliges them as to the result to be achieved, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods (Article 288 TFEU). 10 Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emis- sion allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/ EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, pp. 32–46. 354 Ludwig Krämer allowances on the market. Installations which participate in the trading system need not respect the requirement of using the best available techniques for limiting their CO2 emissions. However, Member States may be able to impose national CO2 performance standards on installations even though they are covered by the emissions trading Directive. 11 Th e distribution of allowances fol- lows national allocation plans that must be established by the Member States and approved by the Commission. 1 4 . 0 9 Th is Directive has been amended and strengthened several times, most recently to include aviation activities in the EU ETS; 12 and as of 2013, the total number of EU emission trad- ing allowances will be reduced by 1.74 per cent each year. 13 Furthermore, the percentage of allowances to be auctioned will increase from 2013. Whilst in the energy sector all allocation will be auctioned from 2013, the percentage of allowances to be auctioned will vary from sector to sector. A l t e r n a t i v e e n e r g i e s 14.10 Directive 2009/28, which has replaced earlier EU legislation, aims to ensure that, by 2020, at least 20 per cent of total energy consumption in the EU will stem from renewable energy sources. 14 To that end, each Member State is to reach a spe- cifi c percentage level of energy consumption from renewable 11 Directive 2010/75/EU of 24 November 2010 on Industrial Emissions repeats the formu- lation in the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive that where emissions of greenhouse gases covered by the emissions trading regime are involved, a permit may not include emission limit values for direct emissions of greenhouse gases unless necessary to prevent signifi cant local pollution (Article 9). But Preamble 10 then provides that ‘In accordance with Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this Directive does not prevent Member States from main- taining or introducing more stringent protective measures, for example greenhouse gas emission requirements, provided that such measures are compatible with the Treaties and the Commission has been notifi ed.’ 12 Directive 2008/101/EC of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production
    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 5 Issue 1 2015 Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production Lance Noel University of Delaware, [email protected] Jeremy Firestone University of Delaware, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Lance Noel & Jeremy Firestone, Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production, 5 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 169 (2015). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol5/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\M\MEA\5-1\MEA104.txt unknown Seq: 1 4-JAN-16 9:52 PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION Lance Noel* & Jeremy Firestone** ABSTRACT The public trust doctrine is a powerful legal tool in property law that re- quires the sovereign, as a trustee, to protect and manage natural resources. His- torically, the public trust doctrine has been used in relationship to navigable waterways and wildlife management. Despite electricity production’s impact on those two areas and the comparatively smaller impacts of renewable energy, elec- tricity production has garnered very little public trust doctrine attention. This Article examines how electricity production implicates the public trust doctrine, primarily through the lens of four states—California, Wisconsin, Ha- waii, and New Jersey—and how it would potentially apply to each state’s electric- ity planning and policies.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and Others (Appellants)
    Michaelmas Term [2011] UKSC 46 On appeal from: [2011] CSIH 31 JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 October 2011 Heard on 13, 14 and 15 June 2011 Appellant 1st Respondent Richard Keen QC Alan Dewar QC Jane Munro James Mure QC (Instructed by Brodies (Instructed by Scottish LLP) Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) 2nd Respondent 3rd-10th Respondents Ruth Crawford QC Aidan O’Neill QC John MacGregor Chris Pirie (Instructed by Office of (Instructed by Thompsons the Solicitor to the Solicitors Glasgow Advocate General for Scotland) Scotland Intervener (First Minister Intervener (Attorney of Wales) General for Northern Ireland) Theodore Huckle QC John F Larkin QC Clive Lewis QC Donal Sayers BL (Instructed by Welsh (Instructed by Solicitors Assembly Government for the Attorney General Legal Services for Northern Ireland) Department, Cardiff) Intervener (Friends of the Intervener (Department of Earth Scotland Ltd) Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)) Simon Collins Paul Maguire QC Paul McLaughlin BL (Instructed by Patrick (Instructed by Campbell & Co Solicitors) Departmental Solicitor’s Office) LORD HOPE 1. The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers’ liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer’s negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2011 Volume 1, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2011 volume 1, issue 1 5 Southampton Student Law Review University of Southampton School of Law Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review School of Law University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton School of Law All rights reserved. Copyright© 2011 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. The Editors wish to thank Dr. Oren Ben Dor, Dr. Alun Gibbs and Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson. © 2011 Southampton Student Law Review ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2011) 1 S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2011 Editor Harry East Associate Editors Ross W Martin Emma Nottingham Thomas Webber Editorial Board Semande Ayihongbe Aysegul Bugra Dingjing Huang Haedong Jeon Assad Khan Konstantinos Kofopoulos Miao Li Ioanna Magklasi Siven Pillay Rungien Meixian Song Valerio Torti Jingbo Zhang Academic Advisors Dr. Oren Ben Dor Dr. Alun Gibbs Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson The editors wish to thank all members of the University of Southampton School of Law who have helped in the creation of this volume Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Des V´Ehicules A` Moteur
    MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur VOLUME 4 (Cited 4 M.V.R. (6th)) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEUR´ EN CHEF Murray D. Segal, B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. Deputy Attorney General Province of Ontario ASSOCIATE EDITORS/REDACTEURS´ ADJOINTS Justice Rick Libman Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) Toronto, Ontario John C. Pearson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Liz Rice, B.A., LL.B. Director, Crown Operations Barrister & Solicitor Central West Region Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Attorney General Ontario CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Editorial Production and Manufacturing Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Dionne Chambers, B.A., LL.B. Jim Fitch, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Natasha Major, B.A., LL.L. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Anne Simpson, B.A., M.L.S., LL.B. Eden Nameri, B.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Jackie Bowman LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Content Editor Bilingual Legal Writer MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS, a national series of topical law reports, is Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur, une s´erie na- published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $362.00 per bound volume in- tionale de recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Is NOT a Commodity, Water Is a COMMON Resource: the Rationale for States to Hold Groundwater in the Public Trust
    COMMON RESOURCES Water Is NOT a Commodity, Water Is a COMMON Resource: The Rationale for States to Hold Groundwater in the Public Trust Fact Sheet • June 2012 any communities have had no option but to go to court to try and protect their Mgroundwater from corporate water bottlers. These legal battles can be extremely expensive and time consuming,1 and water-bottling schemes have torn towns apart.2 Although some communities have banned commercial water extraction,3 not all towns have had such success. States should not allow the interests of multinational a means to protect natural resources, including water, bottled water companies to take precedence over the from environmental degradation and privatization.10 interests of the public, and all water should be under the Over time, the doctrine has expanded,11 and Hawai’i, dominion of the public and not under the control of pri- New Hampshire, Tennessee and Vermont apply the pub- vate companies. States can better protect their ground- lic trust doctrine explicitly to groundwater.12 water resources and act in the public’s best interest by Water bottlers’ pumping operations can harm the envi- placing groundwater in the public trust. ronment and natural resources that communities may rely on for local farming or residential recreation. Even Water as a Commons though groundwater is not “navigable,”13 groundwater and the Public Trust Doctrine sources are often connected to navigable surface wa- The public trust doctrine puts public interests before ters,14 and when an aquifer is over-pumped,
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Reform – the New UK Regime: Law-Now Alerts, Tools and Latest News
    Regulatory reform – the new UK regime: Law-Now alerts, tools and latest news Law-Now alerts and other tools Chart: International, European and UK institutions (the 2013 position) (3/07/13) Law-Now: “ The Banking Standards Report: The new offence of reckless misconduct ” (18/07/13) Law Now: “ The Government responds to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Report ” (12/07/13) Law-Now: “ Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Final Report ” (25/06/13) Click here to access archived Law-Now alerts and other tools Latest news Topics covered UK FSCS reform UK The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2014/823 (C.32) This Order brings into force certain provisions of the Act relating to the competition functions given to the Payment Services Regulator (established under this Act) concurrently with CMA (established under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013). This is the fourth commencement order to be made under the Act. (Date in force: 1/04/14) (27/03/14) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/823/pdfs/uksi_20140823_en.pdf The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Transitional Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2014/835 This Order makes various supplemental and transitional provisions in consequence of provisions made by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013/1881) (“the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order”). Article 2 amends the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order. Part 20 FSMA provides an exemption from the need for authorisation for members of professional bodies who carry on regulated activity which is merely incidental to the provision of professional services; such regulated activity must be the only regulated activity the member firm undertakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice: Keeping the Doors Open Transcript
    Access to Justice: Keeping the doors open Transcript Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 12:00AM ACCESS TO JUSTICE: KEEPING THE DOORS OPEN Michael Napier Introduction In this Reading I would like to explore the various doors that need to be located, and then opened, if people are to gain access to justice. Obtaining access means negotiating an opening, so it is appropriate that this evening we are gathered together at Gresham's College, described in Claire Tomalin's biography of Samuel Pepys [1] as the 'first Open University'. In 1684, when Pepys was its President, the Royal Society used to meet at Gresham's College for open discussion, studying the evidence of experiments that would prise open the doors of access to scientific knowledge. But access to legal knowledge is very different from the formulaic precision of a scientific experiment, and those who seek access to justice need to know how to negotiate the route. It is not easy. As we all made our way here this evening along Holborn to the ancient splendour of Barnard's Inn Hall we were actually following in the footsteps of the many citizens who have trodden for centuries the footpaths and byways of Holborn, pursing access to justice: 'London 1853. Michaelmas term lately over. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus waddling... up Holborn hill. Fog everywhere. And hard by Temple Bar in Lincoln's Inn Hall at the very heart of the fog sits the Lord High Chancellor..
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted
    Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted by Trevor Jonathan Fox to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Legal Practice In July 2015 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature………………………………………………………………………………… 1 | P a g e ABSTRACT Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims This thesis seeks to answer the primary question as to whether Product Liability Claims are socially desirable by reference to three Product Liability case studies and a survey of 132 archived Product Liability claims. These constitute a representative random sample of Product Liability cases handled by the Author’s Legal Practice. This practice has provided a window through which serious failings are identified in (i) the strict liability based Product Liability Directive; (ii) tort itself as a mechanism for compensating injured persons; and (iii) the procedural infrastructure in which claims are made, as recently reformed in accordance with Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations. This thesis tests Product Liability claims against the objectives of tort: deterrence; corrective justice; retribution and vindication; distributive justice and compensation. It is found that Product Liability claims fail to meet the defined standard of social desirability. There is nothing special about products to necessitate or justify a bespoke system of liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Negligence Litigation in Nigeria: Identifying the Challenges and Proposing a Model Law Reform Act
    Medical Negligence Litigation in Nigeria: Identifying the Challenges and Proposing a Model Law Reform Act A Thesis submitted to the Trinity College, Dublin in fulfilment of the requirement of the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Komolafe Akinlabi Richard Obafemi 2017 School of Law Trinity College, Dublin i DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is entirely my own work and has never been submitted for any degree or examination in any university. DATED: SIGNED: ______________________________ Komolafe Akinlabi Richard Obafemi ii Abstract This thesis examines the present law and practice of Nigeria in relation to medical negligence litigation and makes proposals for reform. The present position is highly problematic. There are major shortages in medical resources in hospitals. There has been a “brain drain” of doctors and nurses from Nigeria to richer countries. The cultural and religious attitudes in parts of Nigeria tend to weaken the assertion by patients of their rights. A further difficulty is the absence of reported case law and the very limited academic analysis of the subject. As a matter of both international human rights law and constitutional law, it is necessary that Nigerian law on medical negligence should be reconstituted and codified. For this reason, the thesis contains a Model Act, designed to reflect the best insights of lawyers throughout the world but, more particularly, to take account of the indigenous factors in Nigeria – resource limitations, religious beliefs, cultural attitudes to gender and autonomy, for example – so that the legislation will represent best practice for Nigeria rather than some theoretical model for reform. The thesis thus examines in considerable detail the constitutional and international human rights aspects of the protection of the right to health, as many of the deficiencies in the delivery of healthcare in Nigeria are attributable to failures at governmental level.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE in the COURTS: JURISDICTION and COMMON LAW LITIGATION
    Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE COURTS: JURISDICTION AND COMMON LAW LITIGATION SYNOPSIS I. The Uncertain Future of Climate Change Litigation II. Article III Standing A. Standing in Early Climate Change Cases B. Massachusetts v. EPA C. Post-Massachusetts Standing Analysis III. Is Climate Change a Nonjusticiable Political Question? IV. Are Claims Displaced or Preempted by the Clean Air Act? A. Federal Common Law Displacement B. Are State Law Claims Preempted? V. Could Common Law Doctrines Apply to Climate Change? A. Public Nuisance and Other Tort Claims 1. Breach of Duty: The Reasonableness of Defendants’ Actions 2. Causation 3. Damages B. The Atmospheric Trust 1. The Atmospheric Trust Theory 2. Atmospheric Trust Litigation I. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION In the 1990s, states and environmental groups began using litigation as a strategy to compel agency action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to force large greenhouse gas emitters to reduce their emissions or pay damages for the harm they caused. Suits against agencies typically arose under federal environmental statutes, most importantly the Clean Air Act. Suits against emitters typically proceeded under tort law and primarily alleged that the emitters had caused or contributed to a public nuisance. Despite the prevalence of environmental litigation in modern society and the long history of using the common law to remedy environmental harms, courts have struggled to fit climate change into statutory frameworks and common law doctrines. In particular, courts have displayed a reticence to accept jurisdiction over cases involving climate change. As this chapter explores, this reticence seems to have increased even after the Supreme Court found climate change claims justiciable in Massachusetts v.
    [Show full text]
  • 'You Can't Negotiate with a Beetle': Environmental Law
    \\server05\productn\N\NMN\50-1\NMN107.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-OCT-10 10:25 MARY CHRISTINA WOOD* “You Can’t Negotiate with a Beetle”1: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age ABSTRACT Environmental law has failed in its most basic purpose: to keep human activities in compliance with nature’s requirements. Ecologi- cal systems are collapsing across the globe, and climate crisis threat- ens the continued viability of human civilization as we know it. Across the United States, agencies at all jurisdictional levels use dis- cretion provided in their governing statutes to allow continuing damage to the atmosphere and other natural resources. Government officials routinely approach environmental protection as a matter of political discretion—and private, singular interests usually win the day over the long-term public good. This article suggests infusing public trust principles into government institutions to hold officials accountable, as trustees, for protecting crucial natural resources. It offers a modern version of the ancient public trust doctrine that is holistic, organic, and uniform across all environmental agencies. This article is adapted from the introductory chapter that will appear in Professor Wood’s book, Nature’s Trust, forthcoming by Cam- bridge University Press in 2011. INTRODUCTION “You can’t negotiate with a beetle. You are now dealing with natural law. And if you don’t understand natural law, you will soon.”2 * Philip H. Knight Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law, Faculty Director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program. The author wishes to thank Orren Johnson and Naomi Rowden for research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Act 2006
    Compensation Act 2006 CHAPTER 29 CONTENTS PART 1 STANDARD OF CARE 1 Deterrent effect of potential liability 2 Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress 3 Mesothelioma: damages PART 2 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 4 Provision of regulated claims management services 5 The Regulator 6 Exemptions 7 Enforcement: offence 8 Enforcement: the Regulator 9 Regulations 10 Obstructing the Regulator 11 Pretending to be authorised, &c. 12 The Claims Management Services Tribunal 13 Appeals and references to Tribunal 14 Interpretation 15 Orders and regulations PART 3 GENERAL 16 Commencement 17 Extent 18 Short title ii Compensation Act 2006 (c. 29) Schedule — Claims Management Regulations ELIZABETH II c. 29 Compensation Act 2006 2006 CHAPTER 29 An Act to specify certain factors that may be taken into account by a court determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty; to make provision about damages for mesothelioma; and to make provision for the regulation of claims management services. [25th July 2006] EITENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART 1 STANDARD OF CARE 1 Deterrent effect of potential liability A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might— (a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or (b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.
    [Show full text]