Environmental Courts Research Articles

Court of Hope and False Expectations: Land and Environment Court 21 Years On

Court of Hope and False Expectations: Land and Environment Court 21 Years On

Adjudicating Sustainability: New Zealand's Environmental Court

Adjudicating Sustainability: New Zealand's Environmental Court

Private Enforcement of Public Values in US Courts: Justiciability Barriers in Environmental Law

We have seen in many countries the development of specialised environmental courts designed to deal with the complex scientific and economic issues that environmental cases often raise. In the USA, however, with the exception of adjudicative bodies devoted to planning disputes in a few individual states, the environmental court movement is non-existent. Nevertheless, liberal rules of standing and ripeness have enabled environmental plaintiffs to bring thousands of lawsuits under federal statutes such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act. Indeed, the actions of citizen plaintiffs under these statutes have contributed enormously to the considerable progress made in the past 30 years toward cleaner water, cleaner air and healthier ecosystems. Recently, however, the US Supreme Court has signalled that federal courthouse doors may have been opened too wide. Lower federal courts have picked up these signals, but the distinctions and rationales they have used to harness judicial review in environmental cases are not as sound as they may appear. Standing and ripeness questions are ultimately reducible to an inquiry into the concreteness and immediacy of the plaintiff's injury. This essay explores recent thinking in the federal courts about this inquiry. That has resulted in the retrenchment of liberalised standing and ripeness. I conclude its thinking does not withstand critical scrutiny.

Environmental Court Project: Final Report

Environmental Court Project: Final Report

Global governance for environmental justice

In so far as the debate on global governance concerns the economy and the environment, the question of environmental justice deserves special attention. Three ways of looking at the future regulation of production for ecological ends are outlined: ‘market environmental‐ism’, ‘ecological modernisation’ and ‘eco‐socialism’. The first calls for radical extension of the market to the environmental commons, the second for political redirection of the economy to achieve ‘green production’; the third—more pessimistically—doubts the capacity of any form of capitalism to survive the coming environmental crisis. In all cases the way forward demands radical institutional change at global level. Some comparisons are drawn between today's world and the emergence of nation states from the matrix of powers in medieval Europe. This system eventually coalesced, spreading to new post‐colonial nations and becoming what is today known as the Westphalian order, partially modified by the creation of the United Nations and other features of the international order. Studying the notion of a ‘global constitution’ suggest that, notwithstanding certain objections, there is little realistic alternative to such a consitution if environmental justice is to be achieved. A number of ‘first steps’ are suggested to improve the global institutional order. Environmental justice requires at minimum a World Environmental Court legitimated and sanctioned by a representative World Environmental Council.

Guided by an Invisible Bulldozer? A Critical Analysis of an Economic Approach to the Resource Management Act 1991

In a series of 1997/1998 Environment Court decisions which include Marlborough Ridge v Marlborough District Council [1998] NZRMA 73; Carter Holt Harvey v Tasman District Council W7/98, 4 March 1998; Boon v Marlborough District Council [1998] NZRMA 305; and Baker Boys v Christchurch City Council [1998] NZRMA 433, New Zealand Environment Court Judges Jackson and Kenderdine adopted an novel “economic approach” to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and in particular, sections 5, 7(b) and 32. This paper critically analyses the Jackson/Kenderdine economic approach to the RMA, and attempts to answer four questions raised by the decisions: (a) where did the economic approach to the RMA originate from? (b) How does the approach relate to previous jurisprudence on ss5, 7, 32 and the role of economics under the RMA generally? (c) What are the policy implications an increased focus on economics in the RMA? (d) What are the practical implications (particularly for the Environment Court) of an increased use of economic theory and evidence in resource management litigation?

Environmental regulatory update

Environmental regulations and court decisions affecting the metal-finishing industries continue to grow in complexity. The period into 2001 is expected to include several new and complex developments in air, hazardous waste, water, and other areas. The following brief includes sections on several issues of particular importance to metal finishers across the nation.

The Indispensability of an International Environmental Court

Review of European Community & International Environmental LawVolume 7, Issue 1 p. 63-67 The Indispensability of an International Environmental Court Alfred Rest, Alfred Rest Institute of Public International Law and Foreign Public Law, University of CologneSearch for more papers by this author Alfred Rest, Alfred Rest Institute of Public International Law and Foreign Public Law, University of CologneSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 December 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00128Citations: 5AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume7, Issue1April 1998Pages 63-67 RelatedInformation

Environmental Mediation in Planning Appeals: Lessons from the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

In both England and Wales (UK) and New South Wales (Australia) the respective planning systems permit the applicant a right of appeal to challenge the merits of a town planning decision. These systems have experienced a growing appeal workload over the last 10 years whilst their administrators have sought to increase the speed of decision making. To deal with such pressures, as well as to provide an alternative method of resolving appeal disputes, the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales has introduced a mediation facility in planning appeals. The Court itself has estimated that some 736 hours have been spent in mediation with an estimated saving of Court time of approximately 405 days. This paper examines how these reforms have sought to reduce the level of dispute in the planning system and consequently the number of appeals with their associated time and expense. Comparison will be made with reforms introduced into the UK system, in particular the Informal Hearing method. The extent to which s...

Institutional and legislative structure of water quality management in Turkey

This paper examines the administrative and legal structure of the wastewater sector in Turkey, identifying its shortcomings and their causes, and suggests solutions. The study begins by outlining the existing administrative and legal structure, then focusing on the areas where difficulties are faced and seeking solutions to them. Those administrative and legal facets which have produced improvements and/or function effectively have been analysed so as to provide examples for other areas. When examining the sector it was observed that problems common to every area are the failure to adequately define powers and responsibilities, the lack of coordination between sectoral organisations, and the fact that attention is generally concentrated on routine matters of secondary importance. The fact that numerous organisations share powers in the same area causes confusion. Plurality also creates difficulties where enforcement is concerned. The existence of more than one set of regulations relating to the same area gives rise to loopholes. At the same time, unrealistic, and hence unenforceable standards undermine the effectiveness of sanctions. It has been concluded that a single organisation should be invested with the legal powers to lay down the principles of water management, that environmental courts should be set up to enforce legislation by means of sanctions; and that for this purpose existing legislation should be reexamined and revised as necessary and/or brought up to date.

The role of the Land and Environment Court in environmental impact assessment

The role of the Land and Environment Court in environmental impact assessment

THE HOUSING CRISIS—NATURE, CAUSES AND POSSIBLE REMEDIES

Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policyVolume 8, Issue 3 p. 70-87 THE HOUSING CRISIS—NATURE, CAUSES AND POSSIBLE REMEDIES PETER J. WILLIAMS, PETER J. WILLIAMS The author is currently Senior Research Officer with the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The author would like to thank Dr Geoff Harris, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of New England, for his review of the article.Search for more papers by this author PETER J. WILLIAMS, PETER J. WILLIAMS The author is currently Senior Research Officer with the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The author would like to thank Dr Geoff Harris, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of New England, for his review of the article.Search for more papers by this author First published: September 1989 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-3441.1989.tb01078.xCitations: 1 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume8, Issue3September 1989Pages 70-87 RelatedInformation

Who Shall Make Environmental Decisions?

Who Shall Make Environmental Decisions?

The Environmental Court Proposal: Requiem, Analysis, and Counterproposal

The Environmental Court Proposal: Requiem, Analysis, and Counterproposal

Feed-back in magnetic amplifiers

Urban land use planning and policy decisions are often contested, with the multiple stakeholders (business, developers, residents, policymakers and the wider community) frequently holding opposing viewpoints about the issues and best solution. In recent years, however, the participatory process of social impact assessment (SIA) has received significant attention as a way to mitigate conflict, facilitating negotiation and conflict resolution. This paper examines how social impacts have informed development appeals in Australia, focussing on ten cases from the Queensland Planning and Environment Court (QPEC). Half are appeals from community members (typically neighbours) wanting to oppose approvals and half from organisations appealing against City Councils decisions to deny their development applications. While legal challenges do not necessarily reflect attitudes and practices, they provide a means to begin to assess how social impacts (although not often explicitly defined as such) inform development related disputes. Based on the nature and outcomes of 10 QPEC cases, we argue that many legal cases could have been avoided if SIA had been undertaken appropriately. First, the issues in each case are clearly social, incorporating impacts on amenity, the character of an area, the needs of different social groups, perceptions of risk and a range of other social issues. Second, the outcomes and recommendations from each case, such as negotiating agreements, modifying plans and accommodating community concerns would have been equally served thorough SIA. Our argument is that engagement at an early stage, utilising SIA, could have likely achieved the same result in a less adversarial and much less expensive and time-consuming environment than a legal case.