International Environmental Law

Beyerlin, Ulrich; Marauhn, Thilo

doi:10.5771/9783845265582

Cited by 125 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An approach based on understanding sustainable development as a principle or a concept, which does not meet the normative standard, but rather servers to determine political objectives aimed at achieving certain legal and political ideals, (Beyerlin and Marauhn, 2011), can be found in Resolution 37/24 on Promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the Human Rights Council in March 2018. In this Resolution, one can read that the new Agenda, which is well established in international human rights standards, goes way beyond the Millennium Development Goals, by including civil and political rights, as well as the right to development next to economic, social, and cultural rights.…”

Section: The (Non)normativity Of Sustainable Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Right of the Individual to Good Administration in the Context of the Concept of Sustainable Development: Legal Issues

Bienkowska¹,

Lipska-Sondecka²,

Kamińska-Nawrot³

2020

ERSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The (Non)normativity Of Sustainable Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Right of the Individual to Good Administration in the Context of the Concept of Sustainable Development: Legal Issues

Bienkowska¹,

Lipska-Sondecka²,

Kamińska-Nawrot³

2020

ERSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The precautionary principle as set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration requires “[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Even though the legal status of the precautionary principle as customary international law is still unsettled (Fitzmaurice, 2009, p. 4–6; Beyerlin and Marauhn, 2011, p. 284), it has been widely accepted ( Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) , Art. 191 (2); Freestone, 1991, p. 36).…”

Section: Regulatory Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Hamburger

2018

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any legal regulation has to take into account fundamental interests and concerns, whether of private or public nature. This applies in particular to the politically and socially sensitive question of regulating plant biotechnology. With the advent of new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, new challenges are arising for legislators around the world. However, in coping with them not only the technical particularities of the new breeding techniques must be taken into account but also the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of the various stakeholders. In order to be able to draft a suitable regulatory regime for these new techniques, the different interests and concerns at play are identified. Subsequently, a determination is made on how these interests relate to each other, before regulatory concepts to reconcile the conflicting demands are presented. The examined normative criteria, which can have an impact on regulatory decisions regarding genome edited plants and products derived from them, include: industry interests, farmer interests, public opinion, consumer rights and interests, human health and food safety, food security, environmental protection, consistency, and coherence of the regulatory framework and ethical or religious convictions. Since those interests differ from country to country depending on the respective political, economic, and social circumstances, the respective legislator has the task of identifying these normative criteria and must find a suitable balance between them. To this end, a concept is developed on how the different interests can be related to each other and how to deal with conflicting and irreconcilable demands. Additionally, a legislator may have recourse to a number of further analyzed regulatory measures. An approval or notification procedure can be used for a risk assessment or a socio-economic evaluation. Coexistence measures and labeling provisions are able to reconcile interests that are at odds with each other and the precautionary principle can justify certain safeguard measures. As a result, the individual country-specific regulatory outcomes regarding genome edited plants are likely to be as manifold as the interests and regulatory measures at hand.

show abstract

“…As a consequence, the question of how to address both the sources and impacts of air pollution has raised, early on, the need for transboundary solutions. 52 However, despite 'being the Earth's largest single natural resource', 53 the atmosphere is still not governed by a comprehensive legal regime comparable to that of its second-largest resource, that is, the law of the sea. 54 Instead, the body of international law governing the release of air pollutants into the atmosphere is composed of a multitude of instruments that differ not only with regard to their geographic coverage, but also with regard to the activities and substances they regulate as well as the principles and rules that apply.…”

Section: Air Quality In International Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clean Air for All by 2030? Air Quality in the 2030 Agenda and in International Law

Lode¹,

Schönberger²,

Toussaint³

2016

Rev Euro Comp Intl Enviro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Air pollution poses one of the greatest human health threats in the twenty‐first century, accounting for an estimated 7 million premature deaths annually. In the light of this, global efforts to promote clean air are ever more important and should feature among the key priorities on the agenda of the international community. The universal 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in September 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly, offers an important opportunity to tackle air pollution at a global scale. Stressing the importance of air pollution as a human health hazard, this article examines to what extent air quality is covered by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and provides an analysis of the added value of the 2030 Agenda vis‐à‐vis existing international regulatory instruments addressing air pollution. Even though the SDGs do not include a stand‐alone goal on air quality, the article concludes that the 2030 Agenda, by establishing clean air as an integral element of the principle of sustainable development, not only constitutes an important contribution to international (hard) law focusing on the atmosphere, but also sets out a much needed complementary pathway of tackling the issue in the absence of a global agreement on air pollution.

show abstract

International Environmental Law

Cited by 125 publications

References 0 publications

The Right of the Individual to Good Administration in the Context of the Concept of Sustainable Development: Legal Issues

The Right of the Individual to Good Administration in the Context of the Concept of Sustainable Development: Legal Issues

Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Clean Air for All by 2030? Air Quality in the 2030 Agenda and in International Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About