Search

China’s economic miracle has been achieved at high environmental costs, including substantial air and water pollution, which are detrimental to the health of China’s citizens. A lack of strong environmental governance is part of the explanation for this state of affairs. Courts and regulatory agencies have not adequately performed their duties. Although China’s administrative system, which historically tended to prefer economic growth over environmental quality and citizens’ rights, is at the root of its environmental problems, the Chinese government has begun to show more enthusiasm for environmental and health protection. In this article, a series of principles and practices for good environmental governance are discussed. Because these principles and practices contribute to establishing rational and effective environmental policies and governance, the Chinese government should consider them in rethinking its current system. The models and practices discussed in this article work best if they form a part of an integrated system. For environmental governance to be able to realize its full potential, however, China should also adopt political reforms and shift power from the various levels of government to ordinary citizens. Chinese society knows a number of strategies to collect and include people’s opinions into administrative decision making, these mechanisms could be strengthened.

The article focuses on environmental group Urgenda's decision on environmental sustainability highlighted by Netherlands national court that pleased climate change activists worldwide. It informs that Urgenda sued its government based on a report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where it alleged that Hague, Netherlands' action on climate policy posed serious environmental and human health risks.

Summary: In this article, an important and troublesome trend of the EC's environmental and social policy is discussed. This trend is best described as a new governance model. In this new model, the government and private sector work together to make new laws (the co-operative approach), and, conversely, corporations are required to assume social responsibilities. Thus, there are two sides to this trend: public government is privatised and corporate government is publicised.The first part of this article discusses the co-operative approach, which has become popular in the environmental area. The main reason for this approach's popularity is that it is believed to avoid the pitfalls of the adversarial approach. The second part analyses the European Commission's ideas about corporate social responsibility (CSR) as set forth in a green paper on this topic. The definition and scope of CSR, the objectives and instruments proposed by the Commission, the CSR stake-holder model, and the management structure and tools required to implement CSR are discussed. The merits of the co-operative approach and CSR are discussed in the third section. The fourth section focuses specifically on the stakeholder model on which CSR is founded. In the next section, some issues that the CSR debate has neglected are brought to the forefront. A final assessment of the co-operative approach and the CSR model is set forth in the final section.

In the Summer of 2000, following nearly a decade of discussions and more than three years of haggling over legal texts, the European Commission formally proposed legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). This legislation would make producers responsible for the take-back, recovery, and treatment of virtually all end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment. This article reviews the Commission's WEEE proposal, and national take-back schemes of the EC member states. It highlights similarities and differences between EC and national provisions. In light of this analysis, it discusses the WEEE directive's legal basis and its environmental protection and harmonisation objectives. The author concludes that the proposed WEEE directive would likely achieve neither its environmental protection nor its harmonisation objective.

The White Paper on Environmental Liability published in February 2000; the main proposals as to the law. The reasons for legislating at the EC level — subsidiarity, the internal market, policy principles. Strict and fault liability; the proposal for strict liability in respect of damage caused by dangerous activities and the justifications for it; fault liability in respect of damage caused by other activities; the burden of proof. The scope of the proposed directive: strict and fault liability; prospective application. Insurance and financial security: the proposed role of insurance and its possible adverse consequences. Liable persons, liability being channelled to the operator; multiple liable parties. Limited defenses contemplated; the regulatory compliance defense; the state of the art defense. Damage to natural resources and problems of valuing such damage. The proposed regime in respect of contaminated sites. Standing to sue. Conclusions, including that the proposed scheme would be problematic and that the White Paper calls for further thought.

An overview of the proposed Liability Protocol under the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and of the proposed rules on liability pursuant to the UN Biodiversity Convention; a short evaluation of the proposals - whether the problem is serious enough to warrant legislative intervention, balancing costs and incentives; conclusion that the proposals would require that the polluter pay twice, and need to be seriously reconsidered with a view to avoiding "overly ambitious, inefficient" schemes.

The Commission's Working Paper on environmental liability and the forthcoming proposal for a directive. The proposed strict liability regime. Scope - prospective rather than historic damage; dangerous activities regulated by EC law; natural resources protected by EC law. Liable persons, liability being channelled to the operator; position of banks and other lenders; "mitigated joint and several liability" where there are multiple liable parties. Defences: force majeure, act of God; contributory negligence; third party intervention; but not state of the art and regulatory compliance. The damage in respect of which liability would arise: environmental damage, and also personal injury, property damage and loss of profits if caused by regulated dangerous activities; focus on the type of damage rather than the activity. Future contaminated sites: cleanup trigger levels and cleanup objectives. Causation: a presumption rebuttable by a prevailing probability. Standing to sue: a two tier approach. Conclusion that the Working Paper sets out some useful ideas but omits important concepts and does not provide much detail.

Consumers are becoming more interested in the environmental aspects of the products they are buying. To meet this demand for information, producers are increasingly making "green claims" about their products. To provide guidance and set more detailed rules for green claims, the European Commission has prepared Green Claims Guidelines. This article discusses these guidelines.