You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items

  • Author or Editor: James R. May x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Erin Daly and James R May

Rights to human dignity and to environmental quality have evolved co-incidentally, if independently, as drivers in modern constitutionalism. Most constitutions recognize a right to a quality environment, a right to human dignity, or both. Both rights are relatively recent inventions, and few – if any – modern constitutions are adopted or amended without attention to both of these features. Moreover, they share commonalities, inter alia, related to identifying causes of action, appropriate parties, and the scope of judicial review and remedies. And both involve complex legal, philosophical, and political dimensions.

Notwithstanding such positive correlations, courts from around the globe have been considerably more inclined to engage constitutionalized rights to human dignity than constitutionalized rights to a quality environment. Moreover, jurists, advocates and scholars have tended to overlook or ignore threads entwining human dignity and environmental rights jurisprudence. This article aims to tie up these loose ends.

After sampling both dignity and environmental rights jurisprudence and then examining the associations between the two, this article concludes that environmental and dignity rights jurisprudence can correspond in more mutually complementary ways. First, dignity can play a more prominent place in judicial treatment of environmental rights. Second, dignity rights jurisprudence can do more to engage the ways in which environmental degradation diminishes human dignity. As the two areas develop in tandem, jurisprudential outcomes in each area stand to benefit.

You do not have access to this content

Erin Daly and James R May

Worldwide the constitutions of about three-quarters of nations address environmental matters in some fashion. The content of these constitutional provisions vary widely; some include a commitment to environmental stewardship, whilst others recognize a basic right to a quality environment, or ensure a right to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. This chapter provides an introduction to and overview of the field of global environmental constitutionalism. It surveys the variety of environmental provisions in national and subnational constitutions, and examines several key challenges in implementation and adjudication. Ultimately, constitutional law fosters an expansive and holistic approach to the challenge of environmental protection because it deploys a wide range of legal tools, and because constitutionalism reflects the basic principles of a society, and the authority of the sovereign in decision making.
You do not have access to this content

James R. May and Erin Daly

Environmental constitutionalism is a new concept for protecting local and global environmental conditions by invoking national and subnational constitutional law. As constitution-drafters in all legal traditions commit to environmental stewardship, protection and sustainability, courts are increasingly called upon to vindicate protected environmental rights in both their substantive and their procedural aspects. Designed for judges, advocates, and policy-makers as well as scholars in the field, this research review discusses key writings on environmental constitutionalism from around the world, drawing attention to its contours, its challenges, and its potential for enhancing both environmental protection and constitutional governance in theory and context.
This content is available to you

James R. May and Erin Daly

You do not have access to this content

James R. May and Erin Daly

You do not have access to this content

James R. May and Erin Daly

You do not have access to this content

James R. May and Erin Daly

Unconventional shale gas development (also sometimes known as ‘hydrofracturing’ or ‘fracking’) invites new legal responses for fostering environmental protection and sustainability. Chief among these is environmental constitutionalism, in which a country or sub-national unit adopts explicit constitutional provisions that advance environmental outcomes, policies or procedures. This chapter examines how environmental constitutionalism might promote sustainable practices in unconventional shale gas development in the context of ten ‘good practices’, touching on text, implementation, adjudication and process, among other areas. It then contemplates how the recent court decision of Robinson Township et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania embodies these good practices in the context of controversial state action to promote unconventional shale gas development in the State of Pennsylvania in the United States. Section I provides a brief primer on unconventional shale gas development. Section II examines ten good practices in environmental constitutionalism, focusing on how these inform the sustainable development of unconventional shale gas. Section III then examines the extent to which Robinson Township embodies these good practices in context. We conclude that, fully realized, environmental constitutionalism can meaningfully contribute to sustainable practices in unconventional shale gas development.
This content is available to you

Edited by John C. Dernbach and James R. May

This content is available to you

James R. May and John C. Dernbach