Environmental Law - Science topic

The PhD topic on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) law and policy including environmental law and sustainable development is a very interesting and important field of research. Some suggestions to consider:

Analyze the current legal and policy framework on CSR, environmental law and sustainable development in a specific country/region, evaluate its effectiveness and challenges in implementation.

Compare and contrast legislation on CSR, environment and sustainable development across different countries/regions, to identify best practices and make recommendations for legal harmonization .

Research the role of law and policy in promoting businesses to implement CSR and contribute to sustainable development, especially in the field of environmental protection.

Assess the impact of legal regulations on CSR, environment and sustainable development on businesses' business activities, as well as provide solutions to balance economic benefits and social responsibility .

Research legal and policy mechanisms to encourage the participation of stakeholders (communities, civil society organizations, government) in monitoring and promoting CSR, environmental protection and development. sustainable development.

Analyze the role of law and policy in building and promoting sustainable business models, integrating environmental and social factors into production and business activities of enterprises.

These topics require extensive research on legal frameworks, policies, as well as practical implementation of CSR, environmental protection and sustainable development in different countries/regions. Combining legal, economic and social theories will help achieve comprehensive and highly applicable research results.

PhD law topics on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and environmental policy and sustainable development may include:

Analysis of how CSR can be used to promote environmental policy and sustainable development.

Evaluate the role of law in promoting CSR and environmental policy and sustainable development.

Research on how companies can effectively implement CSR while complying with environmental and sustainability regulations.

Analysis of the interaction between CSR regulations, environmental laws and sustainable development policies.

Research on how law can be used to promote cooperation between companies and governments in implementing environmental and sustainable development policies.

These are just a few examples of PhD topics that can be explored in the fields of CSR, environmental law and sustainable development. Hopefully this will help you choose the right topic for your needs and research direction.

Some potential Law and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) topics for a PhD thesis could include:

Legal framework of CSR: Analyzes the legal aspects of CSR, including the legal framework, compliance requirements, and the impact of law on corporate social responsibility practices.

CSR reporting and compliance : Investigate the role of legal requirements in CSR reporting, disclosure practices and the impact of non-compliance with CSR regulations.

Corporate governance and CSR: Explores the relationship between corporate governance structures, legal frameworks and the implementation of CSR initiatives in organizations.

CSR and Environmental Law : Examines the intersection of environmental law and CSR, focusing on how companies comply with environmental regulations and engage in sustainable practices.

Human Rights and CSR: Investigate the legal implications of CSR initiatives related to human rights, including issues of labor rights, diversity, inclusion, and social justice.

Ethical leadership and CSR: Research on the legal responsibilities of leaders in promoting ethical behavior, the application of CSR, and the impact of ethical leadership on corporate social responsibility practices Karma.

These topics can provide a solid foundation for in-depth research at the intersection of Corporate Social Responsibility and Law, offering valuable insights into the legal aspects of its implementation. and CSR compliance.

Some of the legal challenges companies face when implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices include:

These legal challenges highlight the complexity and multifaceted nature of implementing CSR activities within a legal framework, highlighting the need for companies to navigate concurrent regulatory requirements maintain ethical standards and social responsibility.

Some examples of legal challenges faced by companies in implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices include:

Regulatory Compliance: Companies need to navigate complex legal requirements and regulations related to CSR, such as environmental protection laws, labor laws, and anti-discrimination laws. Ensuring compliance with these laws while implementing CSR initiatives can be challenging and may require significant resources

Transparency and Reporting: Legal challenges arise in accurately measuring and reporting the impact of CSR initiatives. Companies must adhere to reporting standards and provide transparent information about their social and environmental efforts to stakeholders. Failure to meet reporting requirements can lead to legal consequences and reputational damage

Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging stakeholders effectively, including employees, customers, suppliers, and local communities, is crucial for successful CSR implementation. Legal challenges may arise in managing diverse stakeholder expectations and interests, especially when aligning them with the company's CSR goals and legal obligations

Resource Constraints: Implementing comprehensive CSR strategies often requires significant financial and human resources. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may face challenges in allocating sufficient funds and personnel to CSR activities, impacting the implementation of CSR initiatives

Integration with Business Strategy: Aligning CSR initiatives with the overall business strategy poses legal challenges for companies. Balancing financial performance with social and environmental responsibilities can be complex, especially in industries where short-term profitability is prioritized. Ensuring that CSR practices align with legal requirements and business objectives is essential

These examples highlight the legal complexities and obstacles that companies encounter when implementing CSR practices, emphasizing the importance of navigating legal frameworks while upholding ethical standards and social responsibility.

By implementing these strategies, companies can navigate the legal complexities associated with CSR practices, aligning their initiatives with the legal and regulatory framework. demonstrate a genuine commitment to ethical behavior and social responsibility.

📷 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rBolGuALlwKvzT_anSB8WLJ5Eptg5zpDirXQxLwcMbw/edit?usp=sharing

Collins,

In response to your question regarding this discussion, I think that Ghana has a number of Environmental Laws in place to address plastic pollution, including the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490); the Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999 (LI 1652); the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (Act 517); the Waste Management Act, 2016 (Act 917); and the Plastic Waste Management Regulations, 2019 (LI 2452).

In particular, the EPA's Act 1994 (Act 490) provides for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and enforce environmental regulations, including those related to plastic pollution. The Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999 (LI 1652) requires companies to conduct an environmental impact assessment prior to any project that may affect the environment, including plastic pollution. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (Act 517) provides for the establishment of the National Environment Authority to coordinate environmental management in the country. The Waste Management Act, 2016 (Act 917) provides for the management of solid and hazardous waste, including plastic waste. Finally, the Plastic Waste Management Regulations, 2019 (LI 2452) sets out a comprehensive regulatory framework for the management of plastic waste in Ghana, including the production, importation, transportation, and disposal of plastics.

Interestingly, in addition to these laws, Ghana has also ratified the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa. These conventions provide a legal framework for the reduction and elimination of plastic pollution in the country.

In fact, Collins, it would intrigue you to note that largely, the legal framework in Ghana is comprehensive and provides a strong foundation for the prevention and control of plastic pollution. However, there is still much work to be done in terms of implementation and enforcement. There are reports of illegal dumping of plastic waste in rivers and other water bodies, as well as on land as you and may be already aware. In addition, many of the regulations and laws are not being enforced by local authorities. It is therefore important for the government to strengthen enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that these laws and regulations are adhered to.

Coincido que es un tema multifactorial pero le doy un peso fundamental a tener una voluntad política decidida a gestionar otras formas de uso de energía renovable y contribuir al cuidado del medio ambiente. Se necesita además del concierto de naciones porque hay países que necesitan de la cooperación internacional y la creación de capacidades.

Dear Ladislav Rozenský - this is a great question but a huge topic. I think Montserrat Gas-Aixendri was attempting to narrow the discussion because environmental law is such a broad and encompassing topic. Certainly, you would hope that mature countries would be leading the way in environmental laws and policies for the betterment of the world.

Very best wishes, James.

Only Norway has the normative values used to identify contaminated sites for PBDEs. The values for soil are 0.08 mg/kg for pentaBDE (BDE‐99) and hexaBDE (BDE‐154), and 0.002 mg/kg for decaBDE (NGU, 2007; UNEP 2015). Environment Canada has Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQGs) for PBDEs for risk management practice that describes guidelines for water, sediment and biological tissue to protect aquatic life and mammalian and avian consumers of aquatic life from adverse effects of PBDEs present in some commercial products (Environment Canada, 2013; http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/default.asp?lang=En&n=05DF7A37-1).

NGU (Norges geologiske undersokelse). Forslag til tilstandklasser for jord. Trondheim, December 2007.

UNEP (2015) Revised draft guidance for the inventory of polybrominated diphenyl ethers under the Stockholm Convention. UNEP/POPS/COP.7/INF/27

Dear Simon Sneddon social and environmental issues must be part of business operations and their interactions with their stakeholders on voluntary basis, not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance, giving to markets the potential to deliver on the SDGs. Kind regards, Ernani

@ Olalekan Adekola, please I need a copy of these article "Adekola, O., Whanda, S., & Ogwu, F. (2012). Assessment of policies and legislation that affect management of wetlands in Nigeria. Wetlands, 32(4), 665-677" It is not free online.

My opinion is you need to approach the reality from the Environmental Economics side. Special consider the Kozneth Curve and argue for or argue against to have your broader understanding of the world view on the environmental issues at all levels.

I do not fully understand what you are trying to measure here with SWOT analysis. I don't understand why you want to compare the case/event/fact by using SWOT analysis. I think there's a problem somewhere. Say what?

Neverthess....

The question of rights might be better tempered with a focus on individual responsibilities, and in this regard the Torah is a model of insightful guidance. For example, there is no right to own property per se (not strictly true as their are laws on inheritance) but there is a prohibition on stealing. The same is true of life. The Torah provides no "right to life" and no one against whom such a right could be asserted. It does, however, prohibit murder (whilst simultaneously permitting war and killing in self-defence and also providing remedies to accidental/negligent killings). The right to life is protected by the responsibility not to commit murder. The rights of trees and rivers such as they are can only be upheld by the self-moderating actions/inactions of others in line with their responsibilties - which, of course, can be legally enshrined and enforced.

Thank you Yamandu H Marin , but I looking for the north of Africa. yes your proposition look very interesting.

My Forest and many or all that I know about do not or would not intentionally justify using an invasive exotic plant any more. The change over started to occur about 2 decades ago. We even went so far to discuss and go against state BMPs when the published seed mix included grasses considered invasive like Bahia grass, Serecea lespedeza, tall fescue, etc. In our seed mixes, we have continued to allow for some desired non-native ANNUALs that typically last a year as quick cover, as some of our native grasses are slow to germinate. It’s very expensive to grow plugs and then transplant. Any new forest plans and most if not all written in last 10-20 years are going to prevent use of non-native invasives. Where loblolly pine trees were planted off-site decades ago, they have been or are still being removed to make way for native species. Our timber, road, fire control activities require equipment to be washed to avoid inadvertent spread of invasives. But as mentioned, some areas are very erosive, so rapid cover annuals in the mix like brown top millet are still used as well as weed free straw when needed. Many of the Native seeds established, even sparingly at first, respond well to prescribed fire, a management tool used with some frequency within extensive portions of the SC National Forests. Invasive plants are actively treated, but as suggested, the presence of undesired persistant or invasives such as Bahia grass, Serecea lespedeza, tall fescue and others along roads and old gully treatments and home sites within a mixed ownership landscape creates long term issue where continuing identification and treatments to invasives are expected. Unfortunately, not all agencies, activities, ownerships and nurseries are on the same page as USFS, but I expect and believe the educational emphasis and discussions of concern may have them headed in the right direction through time, but certainly not fast enough. As suggested, unless this issue were to be legislated, it Is voluntary to all but the most conservation oriented. My concern with the pure legislation route would be many of the native grasses that we were familiar with were slow to establish and grow. A few species did respond well such as switchgrass and partridge pea, but erosion control needs a reasonable amount of cover, and using too much seed of annuals or excessive mulch also is bad due to competition, etc.

Please share me the best answer might you get...

There have been various instream flow methodologies developed. A lot depends on the natural range of variation and species present. Some use a minimum value of 7Q10 (the weekly average low that occurs at 10 year frequency). For channel maintenance, there should be at least a bankfull event every year or two to prevent vegetation encroachment, move sediment to maintain channel dimension. I would suggest that one size or cookbook approach is not going to fit all circumstances. Perennial side tributaries along rivers can be localized habitat refuges of cool water and elevated oxygen for mobile species as they enter warm and low oxygen rivers. Fishery and aquatic biologists are apt to have information on the needs of species present. There may be other water use needs to consider, such as swimming, scenic, water available for emergencies as fire control, community and industrial needs, waste treatment and water discharge standards, etc. Some ecosystems also provide important habitats for water birds and animal species.

That's a great question. Philosophically, animal law and environmental law respond to different imperatives, and legally they have different objects. Environment is an intrinsically anthropic concept, after all the environment is what surrounds men. The protection of biodiversity, in international law and in most national legal systems, typically is considered part of environmental law, and as such it not concerned by the wellbeing of wildlife, but by its conservation for anthropic reasons (moral, economical, etc). Even though animal law has many links with environmental law, is a different branch of law.

If you want something interesting to look into you can look at the push to legalize cannabis and how that is affecting First Nation people and their land. There is both a push for, and push away from, allowing potential cannabis corporations to produce on aboriginal land. Due to the history of corporations aggressive use of their land in the past, many leaders are reluctant to share a portion of the land for the proceeds of producing cannabis. However, there are some tribes that are eager to join because for the first time they are being compensated in a reciprocated manner. It would be interesting to look at their clauses, limitations and exactly how it will affect the aboriginal people from both an environmental and economic standpoint. I believe they also have their own judicial process to a certain degree which would also make for an excellent, stand out paper for your course.

If you want to have a brief read about it I remember first reading an article on it in the Toronto Star. Give it a read and then decide if there is enough for you to examine critically.

Good luck!

Hello guido

I am sorry. I have no information on this aspect.

Jairo

The data you gather would also be of interest to me as the local government is contemplating recharge of our underlying aquifer with recycled wastewater

I am not an expert on this subject.  But in the United States, one must have "standing" to sue under Article III of the Constitution. Generally this requires proof of (1) harm or injury to the person suing; (2) that the injury was a legally protected right; and (3) that the injury or harm resulted from the defendant's action.  A municipality in the U.S. is a subdivision of a State and so the right to sue would generally have to arise under a State Constitution (unless the individual were raising a federal claim). There is a federal statute, the False Claims Act where individuals may sue on behalf of the government if the individual believes the government has been harmed -- the citizen's "standing" to sue is generally based on the citizen's rights as a taxpayer.  Thus, if someone over charges the government for a hammer, it is my tax dollars that are being wasted so I can sue.  At the level of a municipality, a similar right to sue attaches as a state taxpayer under a State Constitution in many states.  For example, there was a case in Colorado where someone sued to stop abortions paid for with state dollars. I think they lost however because the government's right to provide healthcare over rode the citizen's interest in where their tax dollars went, but I don't actually remember exactly.  So the "standing" to sue is separate from the ability to win the lawsuit, which is the same elsewhere I suspect.

If I were smarter I could probably be more succinct.  You can see it would be a matter of looking up case law in 50 states + Or I could link a Supreme Court case the the False Claims Act if you like.

Cheers! Mary

I have seen a few interesting papers by Salim Brahimi. They are available in the web:

Read Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) if you are interested in private property taken for public use even if it means being turned over to private developers.

Zilda Veloso is the main responsible for that subject at the MMA (Ministry of Environment). 

However there is still few and unavailable documentation, because discussions for the modelling of the Sectorial Agreement (SA) are still going on.

What I know is that they are depending on stakeholders agreement concerning a few WEEE aspects (e.g. hazardousness), in order to finalise and communicate the SA.

You can also require MMA/Federal documentation at the Portal da Transparência, which you can find at the MMA website. I have tried myself regarding the WEEE SA, and Ms. Veloso answered there was still none official but it may take not too long. 

We can talk about it (and also in portuguese).

Best regards,

Ricardo

Biodiversity has a pivotal role in environment as well as in environmental law. Laws are formulated to protect rights and interest of common people.We know that survival of man is dependent on biota. Hence proper information of biodiversity, their ecological implications, their functions and their economic contribution need to be talen care of while formulation environmental law.

Unclos disputes  see

I hope this might help.

You may also find it useful to consult the following two books on the implementation of EU directives, both of which discuss criminal sanctions and the requirements of effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality that flow from the CJEU caselaw.

Sacha Prechal, Directives in EC Law (OUP, 2005), pp 90-91.  

Richard Brent, Directives: Rights and Remedies in English and Community Law (LLP/Informa Law, 2001), pp. 115-119.

Please see below:

Best,

Guy

Travaux parlementaires

Vos sénateurs

Europe & International

Territoires

Connaître le Sénat

Espace presse

15 octobre 2014

Accessibilité |

Plan du site |

Alertes

Recherche Recherche Recherche avancée

Langue

Base Questions > 2012

Destruction des chardons

13e législature

Question écrite n° 22123 de M. Gérard Larcher (Yvelines - UMP)

publiée dans le JO Sénat du 02/02/2012 - page 257

M. Gérard Larcher attire l'attention de M. le ministre de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l'aménagement du territoire sur les critères de contrôle de la destruction du chardon par les exploitants agricoles, afin de respecter les bonnes conditions agricoles et environnementales (BCAE).

En effet, dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de la politique agricole commune (PAC), la conditionnalité soumet le versement de certaines aides, en particulier les aides du premier pilier, au respect d'exigences en matière d'environnement, de santé publique, de protection animale, de santé des animaux et des végétaux ainsi qu'au respect de mesures relatives aux bonnes conditions agricoles et environnementales (BCAE).

Celles-ci intègrent, dans de nombreux départements, un arrêté préfectoral relatif à la destruction du chardon, qui est inscrit à l'annexe B de l'arrêté du 31 juillet 2000 établissant la liste des organismes nuisibles aux végétaux, produits végétaux et autres objets soumis à des mesures de lutte obligatoire.

Aussi, un certain nombre d'exploitations agricoles concernées font l'objet de contrôles menés par l'Agence unique de paiement. Dans ce contexte, l'agriculteur disposant de 0,01 % de chardons sur son exploitation peut être soumis à la même pénalité qu'un exploitant possédant 1 % de chardons sur son champ. Il semble qu'il n'existe pas de proportionnalité dans la pénalité.

Par conséquent, il lui demande de bien vouloir lui indiquer son avis sur la mise en place d'une pénalité progressive en matière de lutte contre les organismes nuisibles, et en particulier le chardon.

Réponse du Ministère de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l'aménagement du territoire

publiée dans le JO Sénat du 10/05/2012 - page 1148

Les normes de bonnes conditions agricoles et environnementales (BCAE) constituent l'un des domaines de la conditionnalité des aides de la politique agricole commune (PAC). L'objectif de l'une de ces normes est de garantir le bon entretien des terres cultivées ou des jachères. Parmi les critères pris en compte, le défaut d'entretien peut notamment se caractériser par toute infraction à un arrêté préfectoral pris pour lutter contre les nuisibles par application de l'article L. 251-8 du code rural et de la pêche maritime. Il s'agit, le cas échéant, de la présence de chardons. En ce qui concerne le régime de sanction, les États membres sont contraints par la réglementation communautaire qui prévoit que, en règle générale, toute négligence entrant dans le champ d'application de la conditionnalité conduit à une réduction de 3 % appliquée au montant total des aides de la PAC. Ce pourcentage peut, le cas échéant, être diminué à 1 % du montant total des aides soumises à la conditionnalité ou augmenté à 5 %. En outre, une anomalie, qualifiée de « mineure », peut être remise en conformité par l'exploitant, ce qui permet de ne pas appliquer de réduction. Dans ce cadre juridique, la France utilise déjà toutes les latitudes existantes pour que les grilles de contrôle soient établies sur la base de la progressivité de la réduction en fonction des non-conformités constatées. La densité d'adventices constatée, le chardon n'étant qu'une espèce parmi d'autres, est l'un des critères permettant d'apprécier le défaut d'entretien des terres. Toutefois, modifier le régime de sanction, en basant sa progressivité sur la densité de chardons, conduirait à accroître la complexité du système actuel sans que cela présente une réelle pertinence au regard de l'ensemble des critères caractérisant le défaut d'entretien.

Dear Alecia,

A good example you can find in your country. I'm thinking about capacity market and the problem of state aid with all the economic problems behind it. Like others, I would also add change in the system of regulation as a consequence of implementation of smart grids and decentraization of energy system. Huge changes are expected also in the gas market (LNG, shale gas) which becomes today more international than regional.

Best regards,

M.S.  

Zero, since most existing waste plants are viable and profitable while producing zero useful energy.

The steam turbine for generation used with a simple incineration boiler are not really a good match for a small plant. Also the scrubbers for a first world installation would cost as much for a backyard 500tpa plant as for a much larger plant. The organics and moisture content of the waste stream would determine your energy output, viability and plant design for both gasification and anaerobic digestion.

The most obvious study on improvement is: "Effect of air-pollution control on death rates in Dublin, Ireland: an intervention study" by Luke Clancy, Pat Goodman, Hamish Sinclair, Douglas W Dockery, Lancet 2002; 360: 1210–14.

Whether risk is associated with chemical or physical characteristics is a good question and it seems that jury is still out.

You may wish to look at some of the Canadian work. Example:

What I find interesting about this whole discussion, is that as far as I can see, no-one has mentioned the European Court of Human Rights, or explored the extent to which the European Convention on Human Rights recognises the nebulous concept of environmental rights - I'm talking here of a human right to a healthy environment, rather than the rights which may or may not attach to flora and fauna.

Firstly, let's tee up the legislative side. Neither the UDHR or the ECHR expressly recognise any human right to the environment.

However, the ECtHR has recognised that such a right might have an impact in some cases - I'll give a (very brief) summary of the ones I have encountered.

Powell & Rayner v UK (9310/01) 1990. Noise from Heathrow airport not a violation of Art 8 ECHR (right to a private and family life).

Hatton v UK (36022/97) 2003. Noise from Heathrow airport night-flights not a violation of Art 8.

Moreno Gomez v Spain (4143/02) 2004. Night-time noise from nightclubs was excessive, and was a breach of Art 8.

Dees v Hungary (2345/06) 2010. Noise from unregulated heavy traffic was a violation of Art 8.

(see also Mileva & Others v Bulgaria; Dubetska & others v Ukraine; Zammit Maempel & others v Malta; Miroslawa & Janusz Pawlak v Poland; Martinez & Manzano v Spain; and Zeynettin Oto v Turkey, all of which invoke Article 8 in relation to noise pollution)

Noise pollution has provided the bulk of cases referred to the ECtHR that can be linked to "environmental rights" but there are also cases on industrial pollution (Oneryildiz v Turkey (2004), Lopez Ostra v Spain (1994), Fadeyeva v Russia 92005), Giacomelli v Italy (2006), Guerra v Italy (1998), Taskin v Turney (2004) which again mainly invoke Article 8. Oneryildiz is the exception, where the court found a break of Article 2 (right to life).

The closest the court has yet come to recognising environmental rights was in Hamer v Belgium (21861/03) 2007, where the court said (para 79) "Financial imperatives and even certain fundamental rights, such as ownership, should not be afforded priority over environmental protection considerations, in particular when the state has legislated in this regard."

So, in direct answer to Sahab's question, I would have to say no, not yet, but change is slowly coming,

Since my professional and personal life experiences have decidedly influenced what I share with you on this topic, by way of introduction, I am a 61+ year old American trained as a lawyer in the tradition of the English common law. From that, certain perspectives arise. One, is that my first-hand social and political experiences extend to the early 1960s; the second is that since the mid-1970s, I have spent the overwhelming part of my career as a New York State government attorney actively participating in developing environmental protection policy, in convincing the legislature to enact legislation to implement that policy, in creating programs designed to clean up hazardous waste contamination, in drafting regulations implementing the statutes enacted to provide that protection. I also personally have enforced the law in administrative and judicial contexts; in my supervisory capacity over other attorneys, I referred for criminal prosecution environmental law infractions that violated my state’s criminal laws.

I firmly believe that government exists not to benefit itself but to benefit those subject to its authority. Thus, ideas flowing from those governed that seek to promote the general welfare have as much validity as ideas flowing from the government itself; and the statute enactment process provides the primary vehicle to consider, weigh, and either accept or reject various policy, such as those related to environmental protection.

At least in those jurisdictions having a tradition of governmental upholding and enforcement of judicial decisional precedent and of public respect for the legitimacy of, and subsequent conformity with, that precedent, there is another governmental means available to promote environmental protection, namely, judicial decisional precedent. However, that means can promote environmental protection in a manner much focused and restricted than that which the legislative process affords since judicial decisions must flow from interpretations of previously enacted legislation and from certain time-honored principles of – as it is called in jurisdictions having English law as its basis – the “common law.”

That said, judicial decisional law certainly provides a powerful tool for those wishing to promote environmental protection if that decisional law can base itself upon extant statutory enactments and precedential decisions. Indeed, advocacy can take advantage of the force of law’s respect, resulting in policy change – change powerful enough to change social mores. I witnessed this phenomenon in my own lifetime in my own country: we had legally authorized racial segregation until litigation started to crack in the late 1940s, litigation based upon reconciliation of constitutionally-mandated equality of the races with the reality of inequality, that eventually led to its elimination and that, allied with legislative action, literally changed social policy in favor of actively trying to promote a color-blind society.

Judicial decisional law can promote environmental protection on a number of levels; and I know that this is true from personal experience. Litigation brought by individuals or by non-governmental organizations can force government to faithfully carry out mandated actions (for example, to study a particular environmental problem and then to promulgate regulations designed to address the problems found). It also can force individual defendants engaged in practices violative of environmentally-protective statutes or violative of the peaceful enjoyment of one’s own property (as through use of trespass and nuisance theory). It can force whole industrial sectors to change their modes of operation in order to avoid liability to those potentially harmed (as was done under various hazardous waste contamination laws that imposed strict liability upon generators of hazardous waste released into the environment in an uncontrolled manner and that encouraged various manufacturing organizations to adopt “best management practices” for their membership designed to minimize their liability exposure). Allied with public information campaigns, it can help effect social policy change in favor of enhanced environmental protection. Al the above has been successfully tried in the United States and in many of its states; thus, there is abundant precedent. If you wish, I could explore this with you further.

Yes, exactly even in cases where no cross-border element is de facto present, it may be very probable that a similar situation in the near future may involve a resident of another member state. Trade within the internal market is supposed to be free and even potential barriers, which only are likely to hinder the establishment & development of the internal market, are prohibited. (The market access type of approach) This is also the most usual case.

However there are some newer interesting cases coming from other fields than free movement. A very interesting one is the recent antitrust case concerned with a Hungarian Cartel Allianz Hungária Biztosító, case C-32/11. The judgment has been released today and the solution adopted does not follow the AG Opinion from 25 October 2012. I am happy to see that the Court took the view first that it had jurisdiction and second that the issue was admissible.

It's always a good feeling to discover that the Court has ruled in line with your own reasoning. http://www.concurrences.com/anglais/bulletin/news-issues/october-2012/the-ecj-advocate-general-cruz?onglet=1&lang=en