Advertisement

The Influence of International Institutions on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in the EU and its Member States

  • Anne Wetzel
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

During the last two decades, the European Union (EU) has not only developed an ever more comprehensive acquis in many policy areas, but has also engaged in extending these rules to non-EU members through ‘governance below the membership line’ (Friis and Murphy, 1999) or ‘external governance’ (Lavenex, 2004). In the realm of environmental policy, for instance, the EU has been promoting its rules, including those of environmental governance, in its neighbourhood for many years. In its efforts, the EU has not relied on bilateral approaches only but has also made use of multilateral fora in order to transmit its environmental acquis. One of these is the so called ‘Environment for Europe’ (EfE) process that emerged from a Czechoslovakian initiative in 1991. The achievement of greater policy co-ordination was among the major objectives of this process from the beginning. However, it was clear that policy co-ordination meant ‘one-way harmonization’ towards EU rules (Caddy, 1997).

Keywords

European Union Member State Public Participation Environmental Matter European Union Member State 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2006), Report of the Meeting. Addendum. Findings and Recommendations with Regard to Compliance by Belgium with its Obligations under the Aarhus Convention in Relation to the Rights of Environmental Organizations to have Access to Justice (Communication ACCC/C/2005/11 by Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen VZW (Belgium)), ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2006/4/Add.2 (28 July).Google Scholar
  2. Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2011), Findings and Recommendations of the Compliance Committee with Regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/32 (Part I) Concerning Compliance by the European Union (14 April).Google Scholar
  3. Bugdahn, S. (2008), Travelling to Brussels via Aarhus: Can Transnational NGO Networks Impact on EU Policy?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulmer, S. J. (1998), ‘New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European Market’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5(3), 365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caddy, J. (1997), ‘Harmonization and Asymmetry: Environmental Policy Co-ordination between the European Union and Central Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 318–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen, T., Falkner, G. and Jørgensen, K. E. (2002), ‘Theorizing EU Treaty Reform: Beyond Diplomacy and Bargaining’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9(1), 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ClientEarth (2008), Communication to the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee (Communication ACCC/C/2008/30).Google Scholar
  8. Commission (1993), ‘Towards Sustainability. A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development (Fifth Environmental Action Programme)’, Official Journal of the European Communities, C138, 17 May 1993, 5–98.Google Scholar
  9. Commission (1996), Implementing Community Environmental Law COM(96) 500 final, 22 October.Google Scholar
  10. Commission (1998), Proposal for a Council Decision on the Signature by the European Community of the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters COM(1998) 344 final. 2 June.Google Scholar
  11. Commission (2002), Second Working Document. Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 22 July, available at http://www.elaw.org/node/2680, date accessed 26 April 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Commission (2003), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters COM(2003) 624 final, 24 October.Google Scholar
  13. Commission (2009), ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Conference on “The Aarhus Convention: How are its Access to Justice Provisions being Implemented?”, 2 June 2008’. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Council (1997), Council Resolution of 7 October 1997 on the Drafting, Implementation and Enforcement of Community Environmental Law, Official Journal, C 321, 22 October 1997, 1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Council (2004), Preparation of the Meeting of the Council (Environment) on 20 December 2004. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC Institutions and Bodies = Political Agreement, 15153/04, 29 November.Google Scholar
  16. Council (2005), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters — State of Play, 9967/05, 10 June.Google Scholar
  17. Council (2006), Adoption of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC Institutions and Bodies — Statement, 10407/06 ADD 1 REV 1, 29 June.Google Scholar
  18. Council (2009), International Conference on Practical Implementation of the Aarhus Convention (Brno, 16–17 April 2009) — Information from the Presidency, 11073/09, 16 June.Google Scholar
  19. Cremona, M. (2006), ‘External Relations of the EU and the Member States: Competence, Mixed Agreements, International Responsibility, and Effects of International Law’, EUI Working Paper LAW No. 2006/22 (Firenze: European University Insitute).Google Scholar
  20. Crossen, T. and Niessen, V. (2007), ‘NGO Standing in the European Court of Justice — Does the Aarhus Regulation Open the Door?’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), 16(3), 332–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delreux, T. (2008), ‘The EU as a Negotiator in Multilateral Chemicals Negotiations: Multiple Principals, Different Agents’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 1069–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delreux, T. (2009a), ‘The EU in Environmental Negotiations in UNECE: An Analysis of its Role in the Aarhus Convention and the SEA Protocol Negotiations’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), 18(3), 328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delreux, T. (2009b), ‘The EU Negotiates Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Explaining the Agent’s Discretion’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 719–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dross, M. (2004), ‘Die Access-Studie: Konsequenzen für den Richtlinienvorschlag zu Klagerechten in Umweltangelegenheiten’, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht (3/2004), 152–6.Google Scholar
  25. Dross, M. (2005), ‘Access to Justice in EU Member States’, Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, 2(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebbesson, J. (2002a), ‘Comparative Introduction’, in J. Ebbesson (ed.) Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in the EU (The Hague: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar
  27. Ebbesson, J. (2002b), ‘European Community’, in J. Ebbesson (ed.) Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in the EU (The Hague: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar
  28. ECO (1996a), Brussels Declaration from the Pan-European ECOs Conference on Public Participation, 28 October.Google Scholar
  29. ECO (1996b), ECO Report from the Second Negotiating Session, 30 October-1 November.Google Scholar
  30. ECO (1996c), ECO Report on the First Meeting of the Ad hoc Working Group on the ECE Convention on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making, 17–19 June.Google Scholar
  31. ECO (1997a), ECO Report from the Fourth Negotiating Session, 17–21 February.Google Scholar
  32. ECO (1997b), ECO Report from the Sixth Negotiating Session and Preparatory Meetings, 7–11 July 1997.Google Scholar
  33. O. Elgström (2000), ‘Norm Negotiations. The Construction of New Norms Regarding Gender and Development in EU Foreign Aid Policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 457–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Environment for Europe (1991), Conclusions of the ConferenceEnvironment for Europe’, Dobris Castle, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, 21–3 June.Google Scholar
  35. Environment for Europe (1993), Declaration, Lucerne, 30 April.Google Scholar
  36. Environment for Europe (1995), Declaration by the Ministers of Environment of the Region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Sofia, 25 October.Google Scholar
  37. Epiney, A. (2003), ‘Zu den Anforderungen der Aarhus-Konvention an das europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht’, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, (Sonderheft 2003), 176–84.Google Scholar
  38. European Economic and Social Committee (2004), Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, COM(2003) 624 final — 2003/0246 (COD) NAT/223, 29 April.Google Scholar
  39. European Parliament (2004), ‘European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, P5_TA-PROV(2004)0239, 31 March’, Official Journal of the European Union, C 103 E 29 April 2004, 626.Google Scholar
  40. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2006), ‘Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 264, 25 September 2006, 13–19.Google Scholar
  41. Franck, T. M. (1990), The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  42. Friis, L. and Murphy, A. (1999), ‘The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: Governance and Boundaries’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(2), 211–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996), ‘Political Science and The Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44, 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hontelez, J. (2009), Letter to the Environment Ministers of Member States Concerning Input to the EU Environment Council meeting 25 June 2009 European Environmental Bureau, 27 May.Google Scholar
  45. Jendrośka, J. (2005), ‘Aarhus Convention and Community Law: The Interplay’, Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, 2(1), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krämer, L. (2006), ‘Umsetzung und Vollzug des Umweltrechts’, in T. Ormond, M. Führ and B. Regine (eds) Environmental Law and Policy at the Turn of the 21st Century (Berlin: Lexxion).Google Scholar
  47. Lambert, L. and Bélier, S. (2011), Access to Environmental Justice — Aarhus Convention. Question for Written Answer to the Commission E-002454/2011.Google Scholar
  48. Lavenex, S. (2004), ‘EU External Governance in “Wider Europe”’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin, L. L. (2008), ‘Book Review: Xinyuan Dai, International Institutions and National Policies’, The Review of International Organizations, 3(2), 201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pallemaerts, M. (2009), Compliance by the European Community with Its Obligations on Access to Justice as a Party to the Aarhus Convention, IEEP Report (Institute for European Environmental Policy).Google Scholar
  51. Pernice, I. and Rodenhoff, V. (2004), ‘Die Gemeinschaftskompetenz für eine Richtlinie über den Zugang zu Gerichten in Umweltangelegenheiten’, Zeitschrift fïir Umweltrecht, (3/2004), 149–51.Google Scholar
  52. Pierson, P. (1996), ‘The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierson, P. (2004), Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  54. Radaelli, C. M. (2002), ‘The Domestic Impact of European Union Public Policy: Notes on Concepts, Methods, and The Challenge of Empirical Research’, Politique européenne, (2002/01, No. 5), 105–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raustiala, K. (1997), ‘States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions’, International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 719–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Risse, T. (2004), ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’, Government and Opposition, 39(2), 288–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rittberger, B. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2006), ‘Explaining the Constitutionalization of the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1148–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schimmelfennig, F. (2001), ‘The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, 55(1), 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schimmelfennig, F. and Thomas, D. C. (2009), ‘Normative Institutionalism and EU Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective’, International Politics, 46(4), 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slocock, B. (1999), ‘“Whatever Happened to the Environment?”: Environmental Issues in the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’, in K. Henderson (ed.) Back to Europe. Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union (London: UCL Press).Google Scholar
  61. Stec, S. and Casey-Lefkowitz, S. (2000), The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (New York, Geneva: United Nations).Google Scholar
  62. Thelen, K. (1999), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thelen, K., and Steinmo, S. (1992), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’ in S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth (eds) Structuring Politics. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  64. Thomas, D. C. (2009), ‘Explaining the Negotiation of EU Foreign Policy: Normative Institutionalism and Alternative Approaches’, International Politics, 46(4), 339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. UNECE (1997), Report of the Eighth Session CEP/AC.3/16, 17 December.Google Scholar
  66. United Nations (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I).Google Scholar
  67. Wates, J. (1996a), Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. UN ECE Guidelines: from Theory to Practice (Brussels: European Environmental Bureau).Google Scholar
  68. Wates, J. (1996b), ‘Towards an ECE Convention on Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making’, Elni Review (1/1996), 15–21.Google Scholar
  69. Wates, J. (1997a), ‘The Convention Negotiations’, Participate, (2), 5–8.Google Scholar
  70. Wates, J. (1997b), Germany’s Stance in the Public Participation Convention Negotiations (Brussels: European Environmental Bureau, 1 May).Google Scholar
  71. Wates, J. (2005), ‘NGOs and the Aarhus Convention’, in T. Treves, M. Frigessi di Rattalma, A. Tanzi, A. Fodella, C. Pitea and C. Ragni (eds), Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies (The Hague: TMC Asser Press).Google Scholar
  72. Ziehm, C. (2005), ‘Legal Standing for NGOs in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention and under Community and National Law’, Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, 2(4), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zschiesche, M. (2002), ‘The Aarhus Convention — More Citizens’ Participation by Setting out Environmental Standards?’, Elni Review (1), 21–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anne Wetzel 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Wetzel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations