澳大利亚监管碳捕获和封存活动的新立法制度:它们在多大程度上促进了程序正义的获得?

G. Dwyer
{"title":"澳大利亚监管碳捕获和封存活动的新立法制度:它们在多大程度上促进了程序正义的获得?","authors":"G. Dwyer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2555123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental challenge. Of the various responses to this “super wicked problem”, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one that has been mooted in Australia during recent years. While many commentators continue to question the technological and economic feasibility of CCS, a number of Australian governments have adopted a proactive stance to CCS by amending or enacting legislation to regulate CCS activities in their respective jurisdictions. To date, there has been little critical examination of these legislative regimes and their implications for the future role of CCS in Australia. Accordingly, this article will focus upon one central area of CCS regulation that has not been comprehensively addressed by the existing literature – that is, the extent to which emerging legislative regimes for regulating CCS activities in Australia facilitate access to procedural justice. Access to procedural justice will generally be facilitated in circumstances where the law gives procedural rights to members of the community of justice to: have access to information, participate in decision-making processes, and have access to review procedures before a court or tribunal to challenge decision-making or impairment of substantive or procedural rights. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the laws that have been enacted or amended to regulate CCS activities in Australian jurisdictions in order to identify standards of best practice for facilitating access to procedural justice. It finds that while many of the laws regulating CCS activities in Australia reflect clear attempts by government to facilitate access to procedural justice, some of these laws fall short of facilitating access to procedural justice in an adequate or sufficient manner. Recommendations for law reform are made with the aim of providing guidance as to how Australian CCS laws can better facilitate access to procedural justice in the future.","PeriodicalId":296234,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Sustainable Development (Topic)","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emerging Legislative Regimes for Regulating Carbon Capture and Storage Activities in Australia: To What Extent Do They Facilitate Access to Procedural Justice?\",\"authors\":\"G. Dwyer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2555123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental challenge. Of the various responses to this “super wicked problem”, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one that has been mooted in Australia during recent years. While many commentators continue to question the technological and economic feasibility of CCS, a number of Australian governments have adopted a proactive stance to CCS by amending or enacting legislation to regulate CCS activities in their respective jurisdictions. To date, there has been little critical examination of these legislative regimes and their implications for the future role of CCS in Australia. Accordingly, this article will focus upon one central area of CCS regulation that has not been comprehensively addressed by the existing literature – that is, the extent to which emerging legislative regimes for regulating CCS activities in Australia facilitate access to procedural justice. Access to procedural justice will generally be facilitated in circumstances where the law gives procedural rights to members of the community of justice to: have access to information, participate in decision-making processes, and have access to review procedures before a court or tribunal to challenge decision-making or impairment of substantive or procedural rights. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the laws that have been enacted or amended to regulate CCS activities in Australian jurisdictions in order to identify standards of best practice for facilitating access to procedural justice. It finds that while many of the laws regulating CCS activities in Australia reflect clear attempts by government to facilitate access to procedural justice, some of these laws fall short of facilitating access to procedural justice in an adequate or sufficient manner. Recommendations for law reform are made with the aim of providing guidance as to how Australian CCS laws can better facilitate access to procedural justice in the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":296234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Sustainable Development (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Sustainable Development (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2555123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Sustainable Development (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2555123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

人为造成的气候变化是一个根本性的挑战。在针对这个“超级邪恶的问题”的各种回应中,碳捕获和储存(CCS)是近年来在澳大利亚讨论的一个。虽然许多评论家继续质疑CCS的技术和经济可行性,但一些澳大利亚政府已经采取了积极的立场,通过修改或颁布立法来规范各自管辖范围内的CCS活动。迄今为止,对这些立法制度及其对澳大利亚CCS未来作用的影响的批判性审查很少。因此,本文将重点关注CCS监管的一个核心领域,该领域尚未得到现有文献的全面解决,即澳大利亚监管CCS活动的新兴立法制度在多大程度上促进了程序正义的实现。在法律赋予司法界成员程序性权利的情况下,诉诸程序正义通常会得到便利,这些权利包括:获得信息、参与决策过程、在法院或法庭对决策或实质性或程序性权利的损害提出质疑时,可以利用审查程序。本文对澳大利亚司法管辖区为规范CCS活动而颁布或修订的法律进行了比较分析,以确定促进诉诸程序正义的最佳实践标准。报告发现,虽然澳大利亚许多规范CCS活动的法律都明确反映了政府为促进诉诸程序正义所作的努力,但其中一些法律未能以充分或充分的方式促进诉诸程序正义。提出法律改革建议的目的是为澳大利亚CCS法今后如何更好地促进诉诸程序正义提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Emerging Legislative Regimes for Regulating Carbon Capture and Storage Activities in Australia: To What Extent Do They Facilitate Access to Procedural Justice?
Anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental challenge. Of the various responses to this “super wicked problem”, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one that has been mooted in Australia during recent years. While many commentators continue to question the technological and economic feasibility of CCS, a number of Australian governments have adopted a proactive stance to CCS by amending or enacting legislation to regulate CCS activities in their respective jurisdictions. To date, there has been little critical examination of these legislative regimes and their implications for the future role of CCS in Australia. Accordingly, this article will focus upon one central area of CCS regulation that has not been comprehensively addressed by the existing literature – that is, the extent to which emerging legislative regimes for regulating CCS activities in Australia facilitate access to procedural justice. Access to procedural justice will generally be facilitated in circumstances where the law gives procedural rights to members of the community of justice to: have access to information, participate in decision-making processes, and have access to review procedures before a court or tribunal to challenge decision-making or impairment of substantive or procedural rights. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the laws that have been enacted or amended to regulate CCS activities in Australian jurisdictions in order to identify standards of best practice for facilitating access to procedural justice. It finds that while many of the laws regulating CCS activities in Australia reflect clear attempts by government to facilitate access to procedural justice, some of these laws fall short of facilitating access to procedural justice in an adequate or sufficient manner. Recommendations for law reform are made with the aim of providing guidance as to how Australian CCS laws can better facilitate access to procedural justice in the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信