Aantekeninge: Environmental judgments in the last year – a barometer of the state of environmental democracy?

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
J. Hall
{"title":"Aantekeninge: Environmental judgments in the last year – a barometer of the state of environmental democracy?","authors":"J. Hall","doi":"10.47348/tsar/2022/i4a5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is not uncommon for environmental judgments to be dominated by a particular theme at certain periods of time. Sometimes there are clear reasons. For example, after an understandable lag between the trigger for litigation and the litigation itself, between 2005 to 2008 many judgments related to the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998, as lengthy application processes were finalised. However, sometimes clusters of judgments occur which do not seem to be capable of being traced to a single trigger and suggest either more symptomatic dynamics at play or a coincidental congruence. This is the case for environmental judgments that were handed down between June 2021 and May 2022. The judgments cover a variety of issues ranging from law-making to bureaucratic decision-making and implementation responses. Nevertheless, one has a sense when reading them that many of the judgments are characterised by discontent with government’s approach to environmental management. Apart from the odd private dispute, one cannot help but gain the impression that a thread running through many of the judgments is a frustration at the purported failure of government to take the views and needs of ordinary people into account when they make decisions that impact on the environment – and a willingness to take such grievances to court. The theme of the judgments in the last year might well be described as “the year of pushing back”. When viewed as a cluster the judgments may be disconcerting in one respect and raise questions as to whether the environmental justice project is alive and well, or not. However, it is precisely these types of challenges that test the robustness of the transformative approach envisaged by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; provide an opportunity for jurisprudential development; and shed light on the extent to which the courts are willing to safeguard the realisation of the environmental right. In the overview of key environmental judgments which were handed down in the last year below, whether public or private, the disputes may accordingly also be reframed as having another common denominator – and that is that they all bear some importance for the realisation of the democratic environmental rule of law.","PeriodicalId":53590,"journal":{"name":"Tydskrif Vir Die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tydskrif Vir Die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/tsar/2022/i4a5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is not uncommon for environmental judgments to be dominated by a particular theme at certain periods of time. Sometimes there are clear reasons. For example, after an understandable lag between the trigger for litigation and the litigation itself, between 2005 to 2008 many judgments related to the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998, as lengthy application processes were finalised. However, sometimes clusters of judgments occur which do not seem to be capable of being traced to a single trigger and suggest either more symptomatic dynamics at play or a coincidental congruence. This is the case for environmental judgments that were handed down between June 2021 and May 2022. The judgments cover a variety of issues ranging from law-making to bureaucratic decision-making and implementation responses. Nevertheless, one has a sense when reading them that many of the judgments are characterised by discontent with government’s approach to environmental management. Apart from the odd private dispute, one cannot help but gain the impression that a thread running through many of the judgments is a frustration at the purported failure of government to take the views and needs of ordinary people into account when they make decisions that impact on the environment – and a willingness to take such grievances to court. The theme of the judgments in the last year might well be described as “the year of pushing back”. When viewed as a cluster the judgments may be disconcerting in one respect and raise questions as to whether the environmental justice project is alive and well, or not. However, it is precisely these types of challenges that test the robustness of the transformative approach envisaged by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; provide an opportunity for jurisprudential development; and shed light on the extent to which the courts are willing to safeguard the realisation of the environmental right. In the overview of key environmental judgments which were handed down in the last year below, whether public or private, the disputes may accordingly also be reframed as having another common denominator – and that is that they all bear some importance for the realisation of the democratic environmental rule of law.
Aantekeninge:去年的环境判决——环境民主状况的晴雨表?
环境判断在特定时期受到特定主题的支配并不罕见。有时原因很明显。例如,在诉讼的触发和诉讼本身之间存在可以理解的滞后之后,在2005年至2008年期间,由于冗长的申请程序,许多与实施1998年《环境影响评价条例》有关的判决最终完成。然而,有时出现的判断集群似乎无法追溯到单一的触发因素,并暗示更多的症状动力在起作用或巧合一致。这是在2021年6月至2022年5月之间发布的环境判决的情况。这些判决涵盖了从立法到官僚决策和执行反应等各种问题。然而,在阅读这些判决时,人们可以感觉到,许多判决的特点是对政府环境管理方法的不满。除了奇怪的私人纠纷,人们不禁会有这样一种印象:许多判决都有一条主线,那就是人们对政府在做出影响环境的决定时未能考虑到普通人的观点和需求感到失望,并愿意将这种不满诉诸法庭。去年审判的主题可以用“推回之年”来形容。当把这些判决作为一个整体来看时,可能会在一个方面令人不安,并提出环境正义项目是否存在的问题。然而,正是这些类型的挑战考验着1996年《南非共和国宪法》所设想的变革办法的坚固性;为法学发展提供机会;并揭示了法院在多大程度上愿意维护环境权的实现。以下是去年作出的主要环境判决,无论是公开的还是私人的,这些争议也可能因此被重新定义为另一个共同点,即它们对实现民主环境法治都具有一定的重要性。
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: This multilingual periodical is published quarterly by Juta for the Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg. This scholarly and practical journal covers a broad spectrum of topics pertinent to the legal community.
×
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