Can Domestic Environmental Courts Implement International Environmental Law? A Framework for Institutional Analysis

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
J. Angstadt
{"title":"Can Domestic Environmental Courts Implement International Environmental Law? A Framework for Institutional Analysis","authors":"J. Angstadt","doi":"10.1017/S2047102523000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The rapid and widespread establishment of domestic environmental courts and tribunals raises important questions regarding their implications for international environmental law and global environmental governance. I use an interdisciplinary, multi-method approach to consider the capacity of domestic environmental courts to identify and apply norms and principles of international environmental law in domestic opinions. I first review existing literature, identifying jurisdiction, judicial discretion, and a court's position in a legal system as key institutional determinants of this capacity. I then develop a typology of domestic environmental courts and tribunals, which suggests that, all else being equal, a court with national geographic jurisdiction that also enjoys attributes of broad subject-matter jurisdiction and discretion may be expected to be best equipped to implement norms and principles of international environmental law. Next, I integrate existing assessments of environmental court presence with original outreach and web research to identify all countries which possess environmental courts, and assess a subset of eight existing national-level institutions. The analysis of this subset highlights the diversity of institutional models that can incorporate theorized best practices. Based on these findings, I draw several theoretical conclusions: specifically (i) the relevance of environmental court research to individual- and institutional-level analysis in transnational and international environmental law, (ii) the need for further legal-institutional analysis in global environmental governance scholarship, and (iii) the opportunity for further interdisciplinary analysis of the role of domestic courts in environmental governance.","PeriodicalId":45716,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Environmental Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"318 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000092","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The rapid and widespread establishment of domestic environmental courts and tribunals raises important questions regarding their implications for international environmental law and global environmental governance. I use an interdisciplinary, multi-method approach to consider the capacity of domestic environmental courts to identify and apply norms and principles of international environmental law in domestic opinions. I first review existing literature, identifying jurisdiction, judicial discretion, and a court's position in a legal system as key institutional determinants of this capacity. I then develop a typology of domestic environmental courts and tribunals, which suggests that, all else being equal, a court with national geographic jurisdiction that also enjoys attributes of broad subject-matter jurisdiction and discretion may be expected to be best equipped to implement norms and principles of international environmental law. Next, I integrate existing assessments of environmental court presence with original outreach and web research to identify all countries which possess environmental courts, and assess a subset of eight existing national-level institutions. The analysis of this subset highlights the diversity of institutional models that can incorporate theorized best practices. Based on these findings, I draw several theoretical conclusions: specifically (i) the relevance of environmental court research to individual- and institutional-level analysis in transnational and international environmental law, (ii) the need for further legal-institutional analysis in global environmental governance scholarship, and (iii) the opportunity for further interdisciplinary analysis of the role of domestic courts in environmental governance.
国内环境法院能否执行国际环境法?制度分析框架
国内环境法院和法庭的迅速和广泛设立,对其对国际环境法和全球环境治理的影响提出了重要问题。我采用跨学科、多方法的方法来考虑国内环境法院在国内意见中确定和适用国际环境法规范和原则的能力。我首先回顾了现有文献,确定管辖权、司法自由裁量权和法院在法律体系中的地位是这种能力的关键制度决定因素。然后,我对国内环境法院和法庭进行了分类,这表明,在其他条件相同的情况下,一个具有国家地理管辖权、同时享有广泛主题管辖权和自由裁量权的法院可能最适合执行国际环境法的规范和原则。接下来,我将现有的环境法院存在评估与原始外联和网络研究相结合,以确定所有拥有环境法院的国家,并评估八个现有国家级机构的子集。对这一子集的分析突出了可以纳入理论最佳实践的制度模式的多样性。基于这些发现,我得出了几个理论结论:特别是(I)环境法院研究与跨国和国际环境法中个人和机构层面分析的相关性,(ii)全球环境治理学术中需要进一步的法律制度分析,三有机会对国内法院在环境治理中的作用进行进一步的跨学科分析。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
16.30%
发文量
29
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信