Is a Substantive, Non-Positivist United States Environmental Law Possible?

D. Tarlock
{"title":"Is a Substantive, Non-Positivist United States Environmental Law Possible?","authors":"D. Tarlock","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.1.1.substantive","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"U.S. environmental law is almost exclusively positive and procedural. The foundation is the pollution control and biodiversity conservation statutes enacted primarily between 1969–1980 and judicial decisions interpreting them. This law has created detailed processes for making decisions but has produced few substantive constraints on private and public decisions which impair the environment. Several substantive candidates have been proposed, such as the common law, a constitutional right to a healthy environment, the public trust, and the extension of rights to fauna and flora. However, these candidates have not produced the hoped for substantive law. Many argue that a substantive U.S. environmental law is not possible because the law can only serve to establish rational processes for resolving deep and bitter resource use conflicts. This Article argues that international environmental law can serve as a source of mixed procedural substantive principles because it has taken a much more holistic view of the environment, developed a set of overarching norms—soft as they are—that apply to almost all environmental problems, and has done a better job of linking procedure with substance in order to constrain decisions that adversely impact human and ecosystem “health.” The Article offers three proposed principles to strengthen the unfulfilled project of environmental protection. First, procedural duties must be linked to the implementation of substantive outcomes. Second, incomplete information must be a basis for regulatory actions, provided that a minimal scientific threshold of risk is established, processes are in place to acquire additional information, and the decision maker can adjust to changed circumstances. Third, decisions should exhibit planetary stewardship by applying the best available technology, utilizing the polluter pays principle, promoting an accepted standard of sustainable development, adopting the least intrusive resource use option with adaptive feedback, and restoring degraded ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":401480,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.1.1.substantive","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

U.S. environmental law is almost exclusively positive and procedural. The foundation is the pollution control and biodiversity conservation statutes enacted primarily between 1969–1980 and judicial decisions interpreting them. This law has created detailed processes for making decisions but has produced few substantive constraints on private and public decisions which impair the environment. Several substantive candidates have been proposed, such as the common law, a constitutional right to a healthy environment, the public trust, and the extension of rights to fauna and flora. However, these candidates have not produced the hoped for substantive law. Many argue that a substantive U.S. environmental law is not possible because the law can only serve to establish rational processes for resolving deep and bitter resource use conflicts. This Article argues that international environmental law can serve as a source of mixed procedural substantive principles because it has taken a much more holistic view of the environment, developed a set of overarching norms—soft as they are—that apply to almost all environmental problems, and has done a better job of linking procedure with substance in order to constrain decisions that adversely impact human and ecosystem “health.” The Article offers three proposed principles to strengthen the unfulfilled project of environmental protection. First, procedural duties must be linked to the implementation of substantive outcomes. Second, incomplete information must be a basis for regulatory actions, provided that a minimal scientific threshold of risk is established, processes are in place to acquire additional information, and the decision maker can adjust to changed circumstances. Third, decisions should exhibit planetary stewardship by applying the best available technology, utilizing the polluter pays principle, promoting an accepted standard of sustainable development, adopting the least intrusive resource use option with adaptive feedback, and restoring degraded ecosystems.
一个实体法、非实证主义的美国环境法可能吗?
美国的环境法几乎完全是正面的和程序性的。其基础是主要在1969-1980年间颁布的污染控制和生物多样性保护法规以及解释这些法规的司法裁决。这项法律制定了详细的决策程序,但对损害环境的私人和公共决定几乎没有产生实质性的限制。已经提出了若干实质性的候选者,如普通法、享有健康环境的宪法权利、公共信托以及动植物权利的扩大。然而,这些候选人并没有产生希望的实体法。许多人认为,一部实质性的美国环境法是不可能的,因为该法只能为解决深刻而痛苦的资源使用冲突建立合理的程序。本文认为,国际环境法可以作为混合程序实体原则的来源,因为它对环境采取了更全面的看法,制定了一套适用于几乎所有环境问题的总体规范——尽管它们很软——并且在将程序与实质联系起来以约束对人类和生态系统“健康”产生不利影响的决定方面做得更好。文章提出了加强环境保护未竟工程建设的三条建议原则。首先,程序性义务必须与实质性成果的执行联系起来。第二,不完整的信息必须成为监管行动的基础,前提是建立了最低的科学风险阈值,制定了获取额外信息的程序,并且决策者能够适应变化的环境。第三,决策应通过应用现有的最佳技术,利用污染者付费原则,促进公认的可持续发展标准,采用具有适应性反馈的侵入性最小的资源使用选择,以及恢复退化的生态系统来展示地球管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信