Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:54:20.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law and the Expertise of Environmental Lawyers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2011

Elizabeth Fisher
Elizabeth Fisher*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law and Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of transnational environmental law is used descriptively and prescriptively to refer to a multitude of legal processes which are distinct from transnational law in other legal areas. Hence, the rise of transnational environmental law requires environmental lawyers to reflect on their skills and knowledge and to foster both their contributory and interactional expertise in this area. That process of fostering expertise needs to be seen in light of a number of intellectual challenges, including the necessity to engage with comparative environmental law methodology, the need to not privilege one legal system over others, the need to engage with extended legal pluralism, the importance of thinking about the role of language in legal processes, and the significance of understanding the process of co-production.

Keywords

Transnational Environmental LawLegal MethodologyContributory ExpertiseInteractional Expertise
Type
Invited Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 2012 , pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fisher, E., Lange, B., Scotford, E. & Carlarne, C., ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 213–50 at 228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Commonwealth v. Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1.

3 This ultimately resulted in the edited collection Harding, R. & Fisher, E. (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

4 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (unced), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163&l=en.

5 For a discussion of this, see Fisher, E. & Harding, R., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Australia: From Aspiration to Practice?’, in O’Riordan, T., Cameron, J. & Jordan, A. (eds.), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle (Cameron May, 2001), pp. 215–33.Google Scholar

6 J. Segal, ‘An Industry Perspective on the Precautionary Principle’, in Harding & Fisher, n. 3 above, pp. 73–82.

7 Fisher, E., Risk, Expertise and Judicial Review: Scope of Review and Decision-Making under Scientific Uncertainty (Thesis in Law submitted for a D.Phil Degree, Oxford University, 1998).Google Scholar

8 Renn, O., Dreyer, M., Klinke, A., Losert, C., Stirling, A., van Zwanenberg, P., Muller-Herold, U., Morosini, M. & Fisher, E., The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union: Regulatory Strategies and Research Needs to Compose and Specify a European Policy on the Application of the Precautionary Principle (PrecauPri) (Centre for Technology Assessment, 2003).Google Scholar

9 Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of 18 Dec. 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (reach) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency [2006] OJ L396/1.

10 Fisher, E., “The Perfect Storm” of reach: Charting Regulatory Controversy in the Age of Information, Sustainable Development, and Globalization’ (2008) 11(4) Journal of Risk Research, pp. 541–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Fisher, E., Pascual, P. & Wagner, W., ‘Understanding Environmental Models in Their Legal and Regulatory Context’ (2010) 22(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 251–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Fisher, E., Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism (Hart Publishing, 2007).Google ScholarPubMed

13 Fisher, E., ‘Administrative Law, Pluralism and the Legal Construction of Merits Review in Australian Environmental Courts and Tribunals’, in Pearson, L. & Harlow, C. (eds.), Administrative Law in a Changing State: Essays in Honour of Mark Aronson (Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 325–48.Google Scholar

14 Fisher, E., ‘Beyond the Science/Democracy Dichotomy: The World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and Administrative Constitutionalism’, in Joerges, C. & Petersmann, E.-U. (eds.), Transnational Trade Governance and Social Regulation: Tensions and Interdependencies (Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 327–49.Google Scholar

15 See Lee, R. & Stokes, E., ‘Environmental Governance: Reconnecting the Global and Local’ (2009) 36(1) Journal of Law and Society, pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which introduced a special issue on the global and local in environmental law.

16 Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Lakatos, I., ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Science (Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 91–196.Google Scholar

17 Yang, T. & Percival, R., ‘The Emergence of Global Environmental Law’ (2009) 36 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 615–64.Google Scholar

18 Busch, P.-O., Jörgens, H. & Tews, K., ‘The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Instruments: The Making of a New International Environmental Regime’ (2005) 598(1) Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, pp. 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Wiener, J., ‘Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law’ (2001) 27 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 1295–371.Google Scholar

20 Heyvaert, V., ‘Levelling Down, Levelling Up, and Governing Across: Three Responses to Hybridization in International Law’ (2009) 20(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 647–74Google Scholar; and Schepel, H., The Constitution of Private Governance (Hart Publishing, 2005).Google Scholar

21 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

22 Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635.

23 E. Hey, ‘Global Environmental Law’ (2009) unpublished essay, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1511188.

24 See Bogojevic’s discussion of the ‘global gaze’ in Bogojevic, S., ‘Ending the Honeymoon: Deconstructing Emissions Trading Discourses’ (2009) 21(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 443–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 de Sadeleer, N., Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (Oxford University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Lee & Stokes, n. 15 above, at pp. 2 and 7.

27 Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above, at pp. 245–6.

28 Kelemen, D., Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union (Harvard University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Carlarne, C., ‘Good Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?’ (2008) 30(4) Law & Policy, pp. 450–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Stephens, T., International Courts and Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; and Scott, J. & Sturm, S., ‘Courts as Catalysts: Rethinking the Judicial Role in New Governance’ (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law, pp. 565–92.Google Scholar

31 Lee & Stokes, n. 15 above.

32 Scott, J., ‘From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction’ (2009) 57(4) American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 897–942Google Scholar; and Heyvaert, V., ‘Governing Climate Change: Towards a New Paradigm for Risk Regulation’ (2011) 74 The Modern Law Review, pp. 817–44.Google Scholar

33 Yang & Percival, n. 17 above.

34 Fisher, E., ‘Unpacking the Toolbox: Or Why the Public/Private Divide Is Important in EC Environmental Law’, in Freedland, M. & Auby, J.-B. (eds.), The Public Law/Private Law Divide: Une entente assez cordiale? (Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 215–42.Google Scholar

35 Bodansky, D., ‘Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law’ (1995) 3(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, pp. 105–19.Google Scholar

36 Jessup, P., Transnational Law (Yale University Press, 1956).Google Scholar

37 Koh, H., ‘Transnational Legal Process’ (1996) 75 Nebraska Law Review, pp. 181–208, at 184.Google Scholar

38 Kingsbury, B., ‘Global Environmental Governance as Administration: Implications for International Law’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 63–84.Google Scholar

39 Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above.

40 Evetts, J., Mieg, H. & Felt, U., ‘Professionalisation, Scientific Expertise, and Elitism: A Sociological Perspective’, in Ericsson, K., et al. . (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 M. Chi, ‘Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics’, in Ericsson, et al., ibid., pp. 21–30.

42 Collins, H. & Evans, R., Rethinking Expertise (University of Chicago Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Ibid.

44 Collins, H., ‘Language and Practice’ (2011) 41 Social Studies of Science, pp. 271–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45 Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above, at pp. 239–43.

46 Fisher, n. 12 above.

47 Cf. Purdy, J., ‘The Politics of Nature: Climate Change, Environmental Law, and Democracy’ (2010) 119 Yale Law Journal, pp. 1122–209Google Scholar; Godden, L. & Peel, J., Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Heng, L.L., ‘A Fine City in a Garden: Environmental Law and Governance in Singapore’ (2008) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 68–117Google Scholar; and Wood, S., Tanner, G. & Richardson, B., ‘What Ever Happened to Canadian Environmental Law?’ (2010) 37 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 981–1040.Google Scholar

48 Teubner, G., ‘Breaking Frames: The Global Interplay of Legal and Social Systems’ (1997) 45(1) American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Fisher, E., ‘Risk Regulatory Concepts and the Law’, in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (ed.), Risk and Regulatory Policy: Improving the Governance of Risk (OECD, 2010)Google Scholar; and Bogojevic, n. 24 above.

50 Zumbasen, P., ‘Transnational Law’, in Smits, J.M. (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 738–54, at 739.Google Scholar

51 Galligan, D., Law in Modern Society (Clarendon Press, 2007), at Chapter 10.Google Scholar

52 Shapiro, M., Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (University of Chicago Press, 1981).Google Scholar

53 Scotford, E., ‘Mapping the Article 174(2) EC Case Law: A First Step to Analysing Community Environmental Law Principles’, in Etty, T.F.M. & Somsen, J. (2008) The Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Vol. 8, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

54 Bogojevic, n. 24 above.

55 Collins, n. 44 above.

56 Dryzek, J., The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

57 Bammer, G. & Smithson, M. (eds.), Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Earthscan, 2008).Google Scholar

58 Fisher, Pascual & Wagner, n. 11 above.

59 Heinzerling, L., ‘The Environment’, in Cane, P. & Tushnet, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 701–24.Google Scholar

60 Jasanoff, S., Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Heyvaert, n. 32 above.

62 Jasanoff, S., ‘The Idiom of Co-Production’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2006), pp. 1–12, at 2–3.Google Scholar

63 Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove White, R. & Wynne, B., ‘Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk and Democracy in World Trade Law’ (2005) 30 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 81–123, at 94.Google Scholar

64 Fisher, n. 14 above.

65 Wynne, B., ‘Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002)’ (2003) 33(3) Social Studies of Science, pp. 401–17Google Scholar; and Jasanoff, S., ‘Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies”’ (2003) 33(3) Social Studies of Science, pp. 389–400.Google Scholar

66 Abbott, A., The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (University of Chicago Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Sennett, R., The Craftsman (Allen Lane, 2008)Google Scholar; Haas, P. (ed.), Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Co-ordination (MIT Press, 1992)Google Scholar; and Evans, R., ‘The Sociology of Expertise: The Distribution of Social Fluency’ (2008) 2 Sociology Compass, pp. 281–98.Google Scholar

67 Collins, n. 44 above.

68 Plater, Z., ‘Environmental Law and the Three Economies: Navigating a Sprawling Field of Study, Practice, and Societal Governance in which Everything is Connected to Everything Else’ (1999) 23 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 359–92.Google Scholar