Juridical protection of the rights of nature is steadily emerging in several legal systems and in public discourse. Building on a recent publication in Transnational Environmental Law in which we interrogated Ecuador’s constitutional experiment with the rights of nature, we critically reflect in this contribution on Bolivia’s legal regime providing for the rights of Mother Earth. We do so, first, by sketching the juridical-political context within which these statutes were drafted and adopted, and then by analyzing the relevant constitutional provisions that provide the basis for the laws of Mother Earth. The third part forms the bulk of the discussion and details the background and the most relevant provisions of Bolivian statutes with a view to enabling a deeper critique in Part 4, in which we critically evaluate both the symbolic and the theoretical significance of the statutes as well as concerns related to their practical implementation. Insofar as the rights of nature paradigm has now become a truly global debate and a consideration in transnational comparative legal borrowing practices, our analysis aims to reveal the Bolivian experience, which could be instructive for civil society groups, academics, politicians and legislatures in a transnational setting.

Scholars of environmental law are gaining comfort with looking for law in unusual places. As a result, lists and maps of the environmental content of contractual provisions are emerging. What these lists and maps largely miss, however, is the powerful dynamic of how legal norms move across borders through contract. This article argues that contractual provisions operate as critical platforms for the migration of legal norms, ideas and technologies between project and transactional settings. Three dynamics of how this movement takes place (transfer from contract to contract, migration from contract to legislation, and entrenching private standards through contract) are explored – each revealing how contractual practices reproduce selective visions of what counts as the ‘environment’ worth protecting.

Many parts of the world rely on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus to improve farming production and increase yields. There are significant food security as well as socio-economic issues at stake. However, it is also clear that fertilizer loads are particularly damaging to aquatic environments, including lakes, rivers, coral reefs, and wetlands. This article explores governance approaches to fertilizer practices that impact on aquatic environments (eutrophication) by examining a case study of the Great Barrier Reef. Governance involves any and all forms of state and non-state control over a given set of issues. It can include, but is not limited to, rule-based approaches like regulation, although it can also involve market-driven measures like nutrient trading schemes, government grants and other financial incentives. So, which approach to governance works best to combat this particular policy question? What other insights into the design of effective regulation and governance can be gathered? In this article, the authors make three broad arguments for change: firstly, it is crucial that regulation features within government strategies; secondly, there must be a rigorous systematic evaluation of the strategies to ensure that the desired behavioural change is achieved along with the desired outcomes; thirdly, and most importantly, the strategies and the evaluation methods must be appropriate for the culture of the industry they are designed to regulate.

United Kingdom Supreme Court Justice Robert Carnwath has urged the judiciary to develop ‘common laws of the environment’, which can operate within different legal frameworks, tailored where necessary towards specific constitutions or statutory codes. One such mechanism with the potential for repositioning environmental discourse in both common law and civil law jurisdictions is the doctrine of the public trust. Basing their arguments upon a heritage of civil law and common law, supporters of the public trust doctrine are currently testing its scope in United States federal courts via groundbreaking litigation aimed at forcing the federal government to uphold its duty to protect the atmosphere. This article considers whether common law judicial resourcefulness can transform a transatlantic hybrid of uncertain parentage into a powerful tool of environmental protection.

This article compares the use of litigation to enforce species protection law in the European Union (EU) with that of the United States (US). Recent legal disputes over wolf hunting on both continents offer useful case studies. Focusing on three aspects of litigation – namely, (i) against whom claims are brought, (ii) who can bring claims, and (iii) the types of claim that can be brought – the analysis contrasts US-style adversarial legalism with its European counterpart, or ‘Eurolegalism’, and assesses what each approach is able to deliver in terms of the legal protection of wolves. It is argued that Eurolegalism helps to explain the development of species protection law in the EU and its similarities to and differences from the American experience.

The specific characteristics of each national system of judicial review reflect the indigenous legal framework and well-established administrative culture. It is necessary, therefore, to contextualize judicial review against the background of the idiosyncrasies of the local legal and administrative systems and what the national system regards as ‘unlawful’ decision making. An analysis of the contemporary jurisprudence of the Irish courts – in the specific context of enforcement of environmental impact assessment law – reveals a complex web of principles, which continue to evolve and to be influenced by European Union (EU) law. The article maps the development of these principles and assesses whether the standard of review (or the intensity of scrutiny) applied by the Irish courts is compatible with the EU law principle of effective judicial protection.