Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 185 items :

  • Politics and Public Policy x
  • Climate Change x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

This content is available to you

Fan Yang, Ting Zhang and Hao Zhang

Developing countries and countries with economies in transition have varying experiences in enforcing their national environmental law. China's judicial interpretations and legislation on environmental protection have established the rules that shift the burden of proof for causation in environmental tort litigation. However, this study of 513 court decisions from the people's courts at different levels in China shows that although the court decisions usually refer to or quote the rules that shift the burden of proof, in most cases the victim-plaintiffs still bear the liability to prove whether the causal relationship exists between the pollution and the harm. This study also finds that Chinese courts defer greatly to the evaluation report in proving causation. It suggests that the court practice of adjudicating environmental tort cases in China values more the factual causation of a pollution incident than the provisions regarding proof of causation stipulated by relevant laws. Consequently, such judicial practices hinder the effectiveness of judicial remedies for pollution victims in China.

This content is available to you

Edited by Ed Couzens, Tim Stephens, Manuel Solis, Saiful Karim and Cameron Holley

This content is available to you

Irene Watson

Colonialism has challenged Aboriginal obligations and relationships to the natural world. This article describes the efforts of First Nations on the continent now known as Australia to maintain their authority and existences in the face of neoliberalism and colonialism, which the British initially inflicted and under which we still survive. The colonial policies of Australia denied our existence and at the same time attempted to demolish our languages and cultures, and to assimilate the consequences. This article asks the questions: what underpins state claims to the title to Aboriginal lands? Does Australia renounce terra nullius and the racist principles and beliefs which make up such a doctrine? And finally does Australia acknowledge and support all ‘Peoples’ as having an inherent right to self-determination, and as a component of such a right, that all ‘Peoples’ have a right to collectively care for their country and to benefit from a relationship to the land which sustains future generations of all Peoples? The possibility of a future for all life forms on earth lies in the responses states might deliver to these questions.

This content is available to you

Edited by Evadne Grant