Search

The latest move in the environmentalists' fight against climate change involves judicial proceedings against states. In these proceedings, climate action groups seek court orders to force governments to impose more stringent measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A recent judgment by a Dutch court has given this strategy momentum. In the Urgenda case, the court ruled that the Dutch government owes a duty of care to its citizens to provide protection against the risks posed by climate change. On this basis, the court ordered the government to revise its current policies to ensure that by 2020 carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels. As this article demonstrates, this kind of litigation raises constitutional issues, because courts may not infringe on the legislature's prerogatives. Climate policy-making requires a series of value judgments and policy choices, and the state has non-justiciable discretion as to how it meets its duties of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case on the validity of declaring the Augusta roadstead as a Site of National Interest due to environmental issues in Priolo Gargallo Region in Sicily, Italy. It provides an interpretation on the provisions stipulated in Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) which supports the environmental remedial measures of the roadstead. It provides an analysis on the validity of the restrictions imposed to the authorities' discretion based on the polluter pays principle.

At the international and European levels, there is no shortage of laws, regulations and guidelines for medical research involving human beings. In addition to this, there are also international and European Union regulatory instruments on medical human research. A series of principles relevant to medical research involving human beings are listed. The three common principles which could be identified are a) the autonomy principle b) the proportionality principle c) the principle of prior authorization.