Anita Boros, Gyula Koi (eds): Sustainability and Law
›
4. Constitutional and legal relations to sustainability: terms, environmental constitution(alism), constitutional environment (László Vértesy)
›
4.2. Environmental constitution(alism), constitutional environment
›
4.2.1. Legal Development and other Drivers

4.2.1. Legal Development and other Drivers

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

For the most part, the emergence of environmental constitutionalism stems from a slow-burn and thorough alteration of international and domestic legal systems resulting from the alarming ecological crisis as well as the limitations of traditional constitutional frameworks.1 For better or for worse, this movement has risen both from bottom-up activism and from top-down institutional change.
 
Figure 13. Milestones in the legal framework
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Figure 14. List of environmental international frameworks, constitutional innovations, and judicial breakthroughs. Source: Compiled by the author
Year
Event
Category
1972
Stockholm Declaration (UN)
International Framework
1976
Portugal Constitution includes environment
Constitutional Innovation
1982
World Charter for Nature
International Framework
1987
Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future’
International Framework
1992
Rio Earth Summit and Declaration
International Framework
1993
Oposa v. Factoran (Philippines)
Judicial Breakthrough
1994
South African Constitution (1996, enacted 1997)
Constitutional Innovation
2008
Ecuador Constitution: Rights of Nature
Constitutional Innovation
2009
Bolivia Constitution: Vivir Bien, Earth’s Rights
Constitutional Innovation
2010
UNEP Environmental Constitution Initiative
International Framework
2012
Rio+20: ‘The Future We Want’
International Framework
2018
Colombia: Atrato River as legal subject
Judicial Breakthrough
2021
German Constitutional Court Climate Ruling
Judicial Breakthrough
2022
UN declares right to healthy environment
International Framework
2024
KlimaSeniorinnen
Judicial Breakthrough
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference, 1972) was the first global recognition that environmental protection was not only a policy concern, but a universal human concern.2 The Stockholm Declaration articulated the principle that everyone has the right to a healthy environment, which eventually set the norm for future constitutional innovations. Only four short years later, in 1976, Portugal emerged as one of the very first countries to enshrine environmental protection in its constitutional law. Specifically, a duty on the state to protect nature and provide for ecological sustainability was required in Article 66 of the Portugal Constitution.3 It is clear that we have begun to establish constitutional-type obligations for the preservation of our environment, since the provision imposed a broad sustainability duty on the state, requiring action from appropriate institutions while involving the participation of the public to have actual environmental quality, within the parameters of sustainable development. More specifically, the state was required to: a) prevent and control pollution and erosion; b) promote balanced territorial planning to ensure the social and economic sustainable development; c) conserve and protect nature reserves, cultural landscapes, and historic sites; d) ensure the rational use of natural resources, whilst considering ecological stability and intergenerational equity; e) in concert with local authorities, enhance urban and rural environmental quality; f) bring legitimate environmental consideration into all policies; g) promote environmental education and ecological values; h) use fiscal policy to align economic development with environmental protection and quality of life.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The momentum carried over to the 1982 World Charter for Nature, which was a UN General Assembly resolution emphasising both the inherent value of nature and the necessity for all legal systems to pursue activities only within the boundaries of nature’s ability to assimilate and replenish.4 A significant cognitive leap occurred in 1987 when the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, invented the famous term, sustainable development, which connected the health of the environment with the responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources to benefit the next generation.5 These developments created the theoretical basis for sustainability to move toward a concern of constitutionalism rather than merely a development policy.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The legal ramifications of these developing norms were underscored at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro at the time of which the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 directed states to reproduce environmental rights and sustainable development into their domestic legal systems. In the same decade, important judicial activism emerged.6 In 1993 the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a watershed judgement in the above-mentioned case entitled Oposa v. Factoran, recognising the legal standing of generations in the future and affirmed a constitutional right to a healthy environment. Oposa v. Factoran became a reference point in global environmental jurisprudence. At the same time, newly democratising states began to conceive their constitutional identities. The post-apartheid 1996 Constitution in South Africa is recognised around the world for its inclusion of environmental protection in its Bill of Rights. Section 24 guarantees that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being and obliges the state to promote ecologically sustainable development. This would influence and be used by drafters of constitutions around the world. The South African Constitutional Court has interpreted this clause broadly; in the case of Fuel Retailers Association v. Director-General, Environmental Management (2007), the court stated that sustainability requires integrated decision making that incorporates both economic development and ecological preservation.7 South Africa exemplifies a transformative constitutionalism that sees environmental justice and social justice through the lens of historical redress. India illustrates an example of judicially driven environmental constitutionalism, where the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to a healthy environment, but the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life), to embed environmental dimensions. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991),8 and MC Mehta v. Union of India (multiple cases),9 the court has grounded several significant doctrines like, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Precautionary Principle, and the Public Trust Doctrine. Indian jurisprudence has significantly enabled citizens and NGOs to file Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and made environmental law to be partly participatory and dynamic, but primarily decided through judicial discretion.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the first two decades of the new millennium, environmental constitutionalism took a truly radical turn in Latin America. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution is a landmark in the evolution of environmental constitutionalism; it became the world’s first Constitution to acknowledge nature (Pacha mama, Mother Earth) as its own rights-holding legal entity, granting ecosystems the right to exist and evolve, permitting them to have representation in courts of law.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Such rights are enforceable in courts of law, and civil society organisations are making use of these rights in some remarkable litigation. For example, in 2011, a provincial court ruled in favour of the Vilcabamba River in the Vilcabamba River Case, thereby stopping a public construction project that would have altered the natural flow of the river.10 This model expands beyond human interests and places ecosystem integrity as the primary objective of legal analysis. Bolivia also amended their Constitution and recognised indigenous cosmologies like Vivir Bien in 2009, officially recognising ‘Mother Earth’ as a living entity, and protections for it (her) were enshrined in the Constitution. Collectively, these efforts represented significant steps away from Western anthropocentrism and invoked a post-human legal consciousness as a part of our constitutional structures.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in institutional terms, kicked off the Global Environmental Constitution Initiative in 2010 which is not a specific, standalone initiative with that exact title, rather has the goal of helping states to imbue their legal constitutions with the values of the environment.11 Two years later, the Rio+20 Summit issued The Future We Want, reaffirming the interdependence of human rights and environmental sustainability, and calling upon states to adopt legal engagements which encourage social and environmental sustainability for future generations.12 Since that time, judicial developments have gained momentum. In a groundbreaking case in 2018, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the Atrato River was a legal subject of rights, as it was entitled to protections, conservation, and restoration. That decision was noteworthy for linking protection of the river with the biocultural rights to the river for the indigenous communities who relied on that ecosystem for survival. The court also ordered that the State create Guardians of the River which would be a legal mechanism for enforcing the river’s rights.13 This case exemplifies a fusion of rights of nature and human rights, mediated by the constitutional value of pluralism.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the insufficient climate policies of the German government violated the constitutional rights of future generations, while also ordering the government to take more ambitious international carbon reduction targets. The ruling was significant in that constitutional rights need to be considered in the context of intergenerational justice.14 Clearly, this was newsworthy in 2021 when the court declared that the government’s climate law was unconstitutional and that it did not protect future generations. In particular, the court ruled that Article 20a of the German Basic Law (Fundamental Law) required the State to protect the environment and that this includes limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The court ordered the government to adopt more ambitious targets, when the court framed climate change as a constitutional issue of liberty and justice. Significantly, this was a real advancement towards climate constitutionalism in an industrialised European democracy. In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly stated the need to the formal recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a universal human right. The resolution, while not legally binding, further affirms the normative trajectory and status of environmental rights to constitutional imperatives.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The KlimaSeniorinnen case from 2024. KlimaSeniorinnen (senior women for climate protection)15 is a Swiss organisation of older women who successfully brought a case against the Swiss government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that claimed that the government’s inaction on climate change caused the women adverse health problems and changed social life patterns as they were having to “avoid the risk of harm” from heat waves that posed a direct threat to their lives and their private lives.16 In April 2024, the ECHR delivered judgment that affirmed a significant ruling and found that Switzerland violated its human rights obligations to take adequate and necessary climate action.17 The ECHR clearly found that climate change constitutes a direct, real, and significant threat to human rights. The ECHR found that Switzerland did not act in a timely way or in an appropriate way to (i) mitigate climate change, and especially (ii) the health impacts of heat waves on citizens. The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment is a significant judgment for climate litigation, establishing a clear pathway for climate litigation and providing a legal framework to hold states accountable for human rights violations due to climate change. The judgment firmly establishes precedent for climate litigation, evidencing in the judgment that climate change threatens human rights, and obliging states to meet climate targets consistent with the 1.5°C limit.18 It highlights that states must prove their climate strategies align with the 1.5°C warming limit to protect human rights, a standard Switzerland still fails to meet, according to the Committee of Ministers. 
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

International and intergovernmental avenues shape environmental constitutionalism through the commonalities of movements, meetings, consultations, conferences, and summits (Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future’, 1987; Rio Earth Summit and Declaration, 1992; Rio+20: ‘The Future We Want’, 2012). While the majority of international environmental arrangements are legally binding on the states that have formally ratified, even treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, which have categories of countries and differentiated obligations based on country obligations, what remains true is that there are hundreds of international environmental agreements and many of these have a small number of participating nations.19 Instruments of this nature—usually bilateral or trilateral—are only legally binding on those signatories, but they are an important part of the larger body of international environmental governance law. Including the important conventions mentioned here, the International Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project has identified more than 3,000 instruments of international environmental law to date.20 In addition, the international norms diffusion established in documents such as the Stockholm Declaration (1972), Rio Declaration (1992), and Aarhus Convention (1998), have furthered principles of environmentalism throughout the world.
 
Figure 15. Rates of successfully completed IEA negotiations. Source: Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M., Balsiger, J., Bernauer, T., Green, J. F., ... & Morin, J. F. (2020). What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 20(1), 103-121. Multilateral IEAs (MEAs, open to three or more states) and bilateral ones (BEAs, limited to two states).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

This figure shows the five-year moving average of the signing of negotiated ‘original agreements,’ protocols, and amendments, documenting those states negotiate many more original BEAs than MEAs but modify them via protocols and amendments less often. States negotiated many BEAs around the time of UNCHE and both MEAs (multilateral environment agreements) and BEAs (bilateral environment agreements) around the time of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

On this wider level, the multilateral or bilateral international treaties – beyond the general topics (Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 1998; Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 1991) – cover the following topics:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • Atmosphere: Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1979; Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1992, including the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, and the Paris Agreement, 2015; Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985, including the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987
  • Freshwater resources: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (ECE Water Convention), Helsinki, 1992;
  • Hazardous substances: Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail, and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989; Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Basel, 1989; FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Stockholm, 2001;
  • Marine environment and living resources: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, London, 1954, 1962 and 1969; Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention), London, 1972; International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage(FUND)1971 and 1992, Brussels, 1971/1992; International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea LOS Convention, Montego Bay, 1982 | International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, 1946; Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979; International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Rio de Janeiro, 1966; Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), New York, 1992; Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS), Monaco, 1996;
  • Nature conservation and terrestrial living resources: Antarctic Treaty, Washington, DC, 1959; UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (a.k.a. the World Heritage Convention), Paris, 1972; Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Washington, DC, 1973; Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979; Food and Agriculture Organisation International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1983; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nairobi, 1992; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Paris, 1994
  • Noise pollution: Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977
  • Nuclear safety: Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 1963; Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), Vienna, 1986; Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986; Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, 1996
 
Figure 16. Subject of MEAs; subject of BEAs. Source: Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M., Balsiger, J., Bernauer, T., Green, J. F., ... & Morin, J. F. (2020). What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 20(1), 103-121. Multilateral IEAs (MEAs, open to three or more states) and bilateral ones (BEAs, limited to two states).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The growth of environmental constitutionalism is not simply a consequence of legislation but has been driven by other movements and drivers such as social and judicial activism and international environmental advocacy. In the grassroots environmental movements, there were many constitutional environmental reforms pushed along by civil society movements, especially in Latin America and South Asia. These movements not only advocated for environmental rights but rights of nature, indigenous land rights, and environmental justice. In Ecuador and Bolivia, indigenous-led movements catalysed reforming the Constitution to recognise nature as a rights-bearing subject, changing the legal paradigm from ownership to relationality. In India, public interest litigation (abbr. PIL) has provided a powerful vehicle for environmental constitutionalism by enabling NGOs and individuals to litigate on behalf of the environment and the right to life.21 The appearance of judicial environmentalism has been seen in the courts worldwide, and the judiciary has also become vital to the advancement of environmental constitutionalism.22 The climate ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 2021, the Colombian Constitutional Court’s recognition of the Atrato River, and the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in Oposa v. Factoran are landmark examples of how constitutional courts interpret existing rights in the context of environmental harms and intergenerational justice.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Figure 17. Aspects of judicial environmentalism. Source: Compiled by the author
Access to Justice
Providing a means for individuals and communities to access judicial processes to challenge environmental harm (including safeguards).
Standing (Locus Standi)
Understanding who has the standing to bring environmental cases and expanding from examining the affected party to public interest litigants and NGOs.
Precautionary Principle
Using precaution when faced with scientific uncertainty; allowing a regulator to act without demonstrable evidence of harm.
‘Polluter pays’ Principle
Making the polluter pay for restoring the environment; internalising environmental externalities.
Inter-generational Equity
Using reasoned duty to future generations in courts (e.g. climate and biodiversity cases).
Rights-Based Environmental Claims
Arguing environmental damages in litigation based on constitutional or human rights provisions (e.g. to a right to life, a right to health, right to environment).
Judicial Review of Policy
Allowing courts to review those executive or legislative decisions to challenge compliance with due process, environmental norms and sustainable development.
Environmental Constitutionalism
Including environmental principles in constitutional interpretation; considering the environmental provisions in the constitution.
Evidentiary Standards
How scientific and technical evidence is used in environmental cases; implications of burden of proof and standards of review.
Proportionality and Balancing
Judicial balancing of environmental protection against rights, economic freedoms and other constitutional rights.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Among the external factors, the planetary urgency of climate change and global crises has become a facilitator for embedding environmental protections in constitutional law. Climate litigation is also increasingly pulling upon constitutional arguments - and challenging government inaction on the basis of rights violations and state duties, particularly in the Global North (e.g., the Urgenda case in the Netherlands and the Neubauer case in Germany).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Figure 18. Timeline of climate crises and legal responses of sustainability. Source: Compiled by the author
Year
Climate Crisis / Event
Description
Legal / Policy Response
1972
UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm)
First major international meeting on environmental issues.
Creation of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).
1987
Montreal Protocol
Discovery of ozone layer depletion.
Treaty to phase out ozone-depleting substances (CFCs).
1992
Rio Earth Summit (UNCED)
Growing concern over deforestation, CO₂, biodiversity.
Agenda 21, UNFCCC, CBD, and Rio Declaration.
1997
Kyoto Protocol
Recognition of global warming, requiring emission reductions.
Legally binding emission reduction targets for developed nations.
2005
Hurricane Katrina
Severe storm highlighted climate resilience gaps.
Revised FEMA policies; climate adaptation funding discussions.
2009
Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15)
Failed attempt to secure binding emissions targets.
Copenhagen Accord (non-binding political agreement).
2015
Paris Agreement (COP21)
Clear global consensus on climate change.
International treaty to limit global warming to well below 2°C.
2018
IPCC 1.5°C Report
Alarm about urgency of action to prevent 1.5°C warming.
National governments revising NDCs (climate commitments).
2019
Amazon Rainforest Fires
Global outcry over deforestation.
Brazil and other nations pledged tougher enforcement, funding from EU halted.
2021
Texas Power Crisis
Extreme cold and grid failure highlighted climate vulnerability.
Grid resilience reforms, discussions around climate-proof infrastructure.
2021
COP26 in Glasgow
Insufficient progress on 1.5°C goal.
Glasgow Climate Pact; calls to phase down coal, update NDCs.
2022
Pakistan Floods
Devastating monsoon floods affected 33 million.
International aid; push for ‘loss and damage’ funding.
2023
Hottest Year on Record
Escalation of heatwaves, wildfires.
EU and US push for stricter climate regulations; carbon border adjustments (CBAM).
2024
Legal Climate Litigation Surges
Citizens sue governments over climate inaction.
Major rulings in Europe and Latin America affirming state responsibility.
 
1

May, J. R., Daly, E., Kotze, L. J., & Soyapi, C. (2017). New frontiers in environmental constitutionalism. United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment).. SSRN Electronic Journal 17(5) DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5035384

Amirante,(2022). op. cit. 148-167.

2

Kiss, A. Ch., & Sicault, J. D. (1972). La Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement (Stockholm, 5/16 juin 1972). Annuaire français de droit international, 18(1), 603-628.

Bose, B. P., Dhar, M., & Ghosh, D. (2022). Stockholm conference to Kyoto Protocol–A review of climate change mitigation initiatives. International Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications, 4(2), 338-350.

Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (2024a). The Stockholm Trajectories. In: Sustainability Beyond 2030. In: Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (eds.). Sustainability Beyond 2030. Trajectories and Priorities for Our Sustainable Future. (London:Routledge). 9-21. eBook ISBN: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676

3 Pereira da Silva, V. (2020). Portugal. Le vert est aussi couleur de Constitution. Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, 35(2019), 455-469.
4

Assembly, U. G. (1982). World Charter for Nature. URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/39295?v=pdf (accessed 29 October 2024).

Davies, G. T., Finlayson, C. M., Pritchard, D. E., Davidson, N. C., Gardner, R. C., Moomaw, W. R., ... & Whitacre, J. C. (2020). Towards a universal declaration of the rights of wetlands. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(5), 593-600.

Wood, H. W. (1985). The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations' Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment. Ecology Law Quarterly, 12(4), 977-996.

5

Hajian, M., & Kashani, S. J. (2021). Evolution of the concept of sustainability. From Brundtland Report to sustainable development goals. In: Chaudhrey Mustansar, H., Velasco-Munoz, J. F. (eds.). Sustainable resource management . (Amsterdam: Elsevier). 1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00018-3

Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (2024b). The Brundtland Trajectories. In: Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (eds.). Sustainability beyond 2030. Trajectories and Priorities for Our Sustainable Future. (London:Routledge). 51-62. eBook ISBN: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676

6

Korcheva, A. (2023). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In: Idowu, S. O., Schmidtpeter, R., Capaldi, N. et al. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management . (Cham: Springer International Publishing). 2811-2817.

Mitrotta, E. (2020). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In: Romaniuk, S., Marton, P. (eds.). The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies . (Cham:Palgrave Macmillan) 1-9.

7

Feris, L. (2008). Sustainable Development in Practice: Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province: Case Comments. Constitutional Court Review, 1(1), 235-253.

Tladi, D. (2010). Sustainable Development, Integration and the Conflation of Values: The Fuel Retailers Case. In: French, D. (ed.). Global Justice and Sustainable Development . (Leiden:Brill Nijhoff). 75-88. Hardback ISBN: 978-90-04-18266-0 e-Book ISBN: 978-90-04-18822-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004188228_005

8

Sharma, G., & Naveen, H. (2024). Case Study on “Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others,”AIR 1991 SC 420. Issue 1 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 7, 658.

Ojha, A., & Sonkar, S. (2018). Outlawing Case issues Ordinance Raj in Krishna Kumar v State of Bihar: A Saga from Permissibility to Constitutional Fraud in India. Opinio Juris in Comparatione Studies in Comparative and National Law, 1(1).

9

Mohanavel, D. (2024). The Evolution of Environmental Law: A Critical Examination of MC Mehta v. Union of India and Its Impact. Issue 5 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 7, 1922.

Bassi, N. (2018). Case Comment on MC Mehta v. Union of India. Supremo Amicus, 4, 285.

10

Siddiqui, N. N., Dash, A., & Beg, M. S. (2025). Debating Legal Rights of Rivers. In: Padmanabhan, A., Siddiqui, N. N., Mithra, G. S. (eds.). Rivers Unbound. Exploring Social Currents, Legal Tides, and Stories of Flow. . (London:Routledge. 239-245. eBook ISBN: 9781003664307 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003664307

Greene, N. (2011). The first successful case of the Rights of Nature implementation in Ecuador. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature. URL: http://therightsofnature. org/first-ron-case-ecuador.

Berros, M. V. (2017). Defending rivers: Vilcabamba in the South of Ecuador. RCC Perspectives, (6), 37-44.

11

Kotzé, L. J. (2019a). A global environmental constitution for the Anthropocene?. Transnational Environmental Law, 8(1), 11-33.

Kotzé, L. J. (2019b). A global environmental constitution for the Anthropocenes climate crisis. In: Etty, T., Zeben, J. (eds.). Research handbook on global climate constitutionalism . (Cheltenham (UK)-Northampton (US):Edward Elgar Publishing. 50-74. ISSN (print): 2047-1025 ISSN (online): 2047-1033

12 Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (2024c) The Rio Trajectories. In: Tavanti, M., & Sfeir-Younis, A. (eds.). Sustainability beyond 2030. Trajectories and Priorities for Our Sustainable Future. (London:Routledge). 22-36. eBook ISBN: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494676
13 Wesche, P. (2021). Rights of nature in practice: A case study on the impacts of the Colombian Atrato River decision. Journal of Environmental Law, 33(3), 531-555.
14

Steinkamp, T. (2023). Intergenerational Justice as a Lever to Impact Climate Policies: Lessons from the Complainants’ Perspective on Germany’s 2021 Climate Constitutional Ruling. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 14(4), 731-746.

Winter, G. (2022). The intergenerational effect of fundamental rights: a contribution of the German federal constitutional court to climate protection. Journal of Environmental Law, 34(1), 209-221.

15 KlimaSeniorinnen Climate Action URL: https://en.klimaseniorinnen.ch/ (accessed 29 October 2024).
16 Eckes, C. (2024). “It’s the democracy, stupid!” in defence of KlimaSeniorinnen. ERA Forum 25(4) 451-470).
17

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (relinquishment) - 53600/20 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13649%22]} (accessed 29 October 2024).

Hösli, A., & Rehmann, M. (2024). Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland: the European Court of Human Rights’ Answer to Climate Change. Climate Law, 14(3-4), 263-284.

18 Letsas, G. (2024). The European court’s legitimacy after KlimaSeniorinnen. In: The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 5(4) 444-453.
19

Nita, A., & Rozylowicz, L. (2020) Dynamics of the international environmental treaties-perspectives for future cooperation. In: A. A. (ed.). 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) 549-556.

Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M., Balsiger, J., Bernauer, T., Green, J. F., ... & Morin, J. F. (2020). What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 20(1), 103-121.

Sand, P. H., & McGee, J. (2022). Lessons learnt from two decades of international environmental agreements: law. International Environmental Agreements. Politics, Law and Economics, 22(2), 263-278.

20

International Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project URL: https://www.iea.ulaval.ca/en (accessed: 29 October 2024); Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M., Balsiger, J., Bernauer, T., Green, J. F., ... & Morin, J. F. (2020) op. cit. 103-121.

21

Konkes, C. (2018). Green lawfare: Environmental public interest litigation and mediatized environmental conflict. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 191-203.

Cummings, S. L., & Rhode, D. L. (2009). Public interest litigation: Insights from theory and practice. Fordham Urb. LJ, 36, 603.

22

May, J. R., & Daly, E. (2017). Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism. (Nairobi-New York City:Law Division United Nations Environment Programme-Widener University Delaware Law School). 298. URL: https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/api/core/bitstreams/e078a2c2-f4ad-465b-81d9-a953424a26c7/content (accessed: 29 October 2024).

Mittal, A. (2021). Role of Judiciary in Protecting and Preserving the Environment. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 4001.

chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave