Advertisement

The Aarhus Convention and Cases of Non-compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements: The EU and Japan

  • Yuko Minami
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Protection in the European Union book series (ENVPROTEC, volume 5)

Abstract

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process to ensure that a given decision’s impact on the environment will be considered before such a decision is made. The Aarhus Convention includes rules stipulating the form of judicial review for environmental assessment violations. In conjunction with the ratification of the Aarhus Convention, the EU has enacted laws necessary for its implementation, some of which involve amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to add new rules on judicial review. After reviewing the judicial review standards introduced by the rules of the Aarhus Convention, this paper examines how the EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directive was amended by the Aarhus Convention, and how EU case law applies to the amended portions. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that these standards will lead to new international standards in judicial review of environmental assessment violations that will constitute fundamentally new international standards from the perspective of international law. While EU efforts to address judicial review of environmental assessment violations are fairly advanced, Japan has been strongly criticized, in both academia and elsewhere, for its relatively slow response in these matters. The lethargy in Japan’s response can perhaps be attributed to the special nature of these new international standards. I will explore the implications of the new environmental assessment violation standards on international law introduced by the Aarhus Convention, while also addressing the state of judicial review of environmental assessment violations in Japan.

Keywords

European Union Environmental Assessment Public Participation Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Banner C (2015) The Aarhus Convention: an overview. In: Banner C (ed) The Aarhus Convention: a guide for UK lawyers. Hart, Oxford, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  2. Council of Europe (2012) Manual on human rights and the environment, 2nd edn. http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DH_DEV_Manual_Environment_Eng.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015
  3. Darpö J (2014) Article 9.2 of the Aarhus Convention and EU law: some remarks on CJEUs case-law on access to justice in environmental decision-making. J Eur Environ Plan Law 11:367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Economic Commission for Europe (2004) ECE/MP.PP/2/Add.8, 2 April 2004. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/mop1/ece.mp.pp.2.add.8.e.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015
  5. Economic Commission for Europe (2014) ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2014/8. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-45/ece.mp.pp.c.1.2014.8_adv_edited.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015
  6. Galetta D-U (2010) Procedural autonomy of EU Member States: paradise lost?: a study on the “functionalized procedural competence” of EU Member States. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2010) Kankyo eikyo hyokaho kaiseian ni taisuru iken (The opinion for the proposed amendment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law). http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/ja/opinion/report/data/100521_3.pdf. Accessed 21 Jun 2015
  8. Kuwabara Y (2012) Kankyo dantai sosho no hoteki seitosei (Legitimacy of the environmental lawsuit by organizations). Kankyoho seisaku gakkaishi (J Environ Law Policy) 15:158–167Google Scholar
  9. Lindstrom M, Smith Z (2001) The national environmental policy act: judicial misconstruction, legislative indifference, & executive neglect. Texas A & M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  10. Lohse E (2011) Unrestricted access to justice for environmental NGOs?: the decision of the ECJ on the non-conformity of § 2(1) Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz with Directive 2003/35 on access to justice in environmental law and the Aarhus Convention (Case C-115/09). Environmental law network international review 2011(2):96–103Google Scholar
  11. Lohse E (2012) Surprise? Surprise!-Case C-115/09 (Kohlekraftwerk Lünen): a victory for the environment and a loss for procedural autonomy of the Member States? Eur Public Law 18(2):249–268Google Scholar
  12. Matsumoto K (2012) Kankyo dantai sosho no kenpogakuteki ichizuke (Some remarks on the environmental lawsuit by organizations from the perspective of constitutional law). Kankyoho seisaku gakkaishi (J Environ Law Policy) 15:148–157Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Justice Government of Japan (2010) Tentative translation of the Administrative Case Litigation Act. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=1922&vm=04&re=01. Accessed 21 June 2015
  14. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan (1997) Tentative translation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law. http://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/policy/assess/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2015
  15. Okubo N (2011) Kankyo eikyo hyoka to sosho (Environmental impact assessment and the litigations). Kankyoho seisaku gakkaishi (J Environ Law Policy) 14:59–71Google Scholar
  16. Okubo N (2012) Ofusu joyaku to kankyo koeki sosho (The Aarhus Convention and environmental public interest litigation). Kankyoho seisaku gakkaishi (J Environ Law Policy) 15:133–147Google Scholar
  17. Shimamura T (2012) Kankyo dantai sosho no seitosei ni tsuite (Some remarks on the legitimacy of the environmental lawsuit by organizations). In: Takagi H et al (eds) Gyoseihogaku no mirai ni mukete (New perspectives in administrative law and regulatory policy). Yuhikaku, Tokyo, pp 503–541Google Scholar
  18. Shimamura T (2015) Kankyoho ni okeru dantaisosho (Lawsuits by organizations in the environmental law). Ronkyu jurisuto (Q Jurist) 12:119–130Google Scholar
  19. Tokyo Bar Association (2009) Kankyo eikyo hyokaho kaisei ni kakawaru ikensyo (The opinion for the amendment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law). http://www.toben.or.jp/message/ikensyo/pdf/20090209_02.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015
  20. Yanagi K (2011) Kankyo eikyo hyokaho sikogo no sosho no doko (The trends in jurisprudence after the enforcement of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law). Horitsu ronso (Meiji Univ Law J) 83(2–3):331–391Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International and Cultural StudiesTsuda CollegeTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations