Search results

This paper explores the historical roots of environmental accountability in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria by focusing on the campaigns for social and environmental justice by writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and the indigenous Ogoni people.

The methods consist of an analysis of books, diaries, letters and poems written by Ken Saro-Wiwa as well as books, reports and audio recordings of panel discussions which capture the Ogoni struggle, Ken Saro-Wiwa’s activism and its impacts. The authors’ approach to the data is sensitised by Foucault’s notion of counter-conduct as it enables the authors to better grasp the creative agency of Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni as they struggle and campaign for political autonomy, environmental justice and accountability.

The authors’ findings illustrate how Ken Saro-Wiwa’s books, letters, poems, diaries and articles provide early accounts of environmental injustices and the absence of accountability in the Niger Delta. They highlight how Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni movement deploy counter-conduct to subvert existing power and accountability structures through innovative strategies, effective mobilisation and communication at local and international levels. The authors’ findings also highlight how these have led to specific forms of accountability for human rights and the environment at local and global levels. They also show how Saro-Wiwa’s activism and the Ogoni struggle have inspired a new generation of environmental activists and new ways of demanding accountability.

This paper presents, for the first time, an account of the historical roots of environmental accountability practices from an African and developing country context. Its focus on the historical roots of environmental accountability is also unique as it expands the view beyond the origins of environmental accounting to look more broadly at the origins of environmental accountability practices.

This paper aims to examine the extent to which environmental rights enforcement is currently practiced in Nigeria and the relevant characteristics for the development of a legal framework for the practice of environmental rights enforcement in Nigeria, particularly in the interest of the Niger Delta region of the country. The Niger Delta region of Nigeria is rich with abundant hydrocarbon resources and plays host to numerous multinational oil companies. For over five decades, oil spills and gas flaring from the operations of these companies have polluted water bodies and degraded farmlands on which the inhabitants depend for their livelihood. However, the absence of a legal regime of environmental rights has made it difficult for inhabitants of the region to seek legal remedy against these companies.

This paper examines the extent to which environmental rights enforcement is currently practiced in Nigeria and the relevant characteristics for the development of a legal framework for the practice of environmental rights enforcement in Nigeria, particularly in the interest of the Niger Delta region of the country.

Nigeria does not have constitutional environmental rights. The legal implication of this provision is that it is not justiciable as such no court of law can exercise jurisdiction to hear any matter that is connected with the provisions of that chapter. In other words, even the government’s “constitutional” responsibility to protect the environment cannot be judicially enforced, let alone environmental rights for victims of environmental damage.

The original and significant contribution of this paper is to highlight the real issues and address them through substantive and procedural environmental rights provisions either in the constitution or positive legislations.

This paper explores environmental accountability and downward accountability role of nongovernmental organisations (henceforth NGOs) under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the food and beverage industry of Nigeria. The paper relies on empirical data gathered from qualitative interviews of three stakeholders – accountants, Corporate Social Responsibility Officers (CSROs), CEOs and NGO CSROs. It employed theoretical conceptualisation of environmental accountability and NGO's downward accountability. Analysis shows that despite the existence of attributes of environmental accountability such as sense of responsibility on the part of corporations and citizens' rights to demand for and enforce accountability, passivity of citizens' right caused by vulnerability prevails. The finding also shows that downward accountability roles of NGOs in the industry have been framed as that of enhancing activities in the value chain. Part of this is RecyclePay project that funds education for the poor. Thus NGOs' downward (environmental) accountability in Nigeria has potential to promote environmental well-being, beneficiary's economic empowerment and education for the poor, thereby simultaneously addressing vulnerability. It shows that vulnerability may induce a different conceptualisation of environmental accountability than that of a normal democratic setting where the citizens are deemed to have right to demand and enforce (environmental) accountability. This paper contributes to our understanding of (environmental) accountability and downward accountability role of NGOs within an emerging market context.

Property rights are often seen to be the cause and the solution of a wide range of social problems especially those affecting the natural environment. But, the property rights box is indeed pandoran, spawning as many questions as it answers as a function of diverse theoretical perspectives. The literature on property rights is not homogeneous so that interpretations of problems and suggestions for solutions are highly diverse. Consequently, the value of property rights theory in understanding or solving social problems can be problematic. The recent interest in property rights theory has been spawned by the focus on the “takings” issue where a particular perspective of private property rights, as a form of natural rights, has “re”‐emerged. This “new” private property rights perspective portends radical consequences for environmental management. But the theme of this paper is that this methodology adds little insight to the understanding of property rights and environmental problems.

The purpose of this paper is to explain and come to an understanding of origin and growth relating to the concept of environment and sustainable development in domestic and international laws; also to show the rationality of enlisting the right to the environment as a basic right in the constitution, that would help to protect this value from the detrimental activities of private entities and states, and also to show the rationality of institutional development.

This paper attempts to focus on environment and sustainable development in Bangladesh. The research is based upon theoretical sources and empirical data.

An environment is a set of natural, artificial or man‐made, physical, chemical and biological elements that make the existence, transformation and development of living organisms possible. The appearance of the environmental law arose from the need to conserve the environment in order to avoid its destruction and, as a result, the danger that an adequate quality of life might disappear. By conservation, we understand all those measures that are necessary to preserve the environment and natural resources. In modern times, human development corresponds to the concept of sustainable development and environment. It is a transverse theme derived from joint consideration of the issue of the environment and environmental protection, and of all that concerns production in the development of a country or nation.

The paper is original in calling for making the constitution a weapon, in as much as the environment should be fit for human development so that productive activities may meet present needs without compromising those of future generations. The environment is an independent value and needs as strict protection as other commonly agreed values, such as the right to property, or the right to life and health.

This paper aims to present a discussion to stimulate interest in further research by highlighting aspects of Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights and exploring whether parts can be transplanted to improve sustainability in China.

In this paper, the authors trace the evolution of environmental law in China after 1978, identify increased citizen participation as a path to improvement and provide an overview of purposes and means in Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights which may be a model to consider.

Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights may have aspects to be added to China’s legal toolbox warranting further research.

While this descriptive review identifies possibilities, further work is required to apply legal concepts from one jurisdiction to another. Context and details of implementation warrant further attention.

This paper provides a platform from which further more detailed research may advance sustainability in China by considering a legal framework used by others to integrate the development of society, economy and environment.

Bioethics and environmental ethics have been largely separated, in principle. However, the two types of ethics do overlap when dealing with significant issues such as human embryos, animal experimentation, and responsibility to future generations. In this paper, the possibility of synthesizing these two ethics through the concept of care is considered. Accordingly, the range of the object of the concept of care is similarly broadened. Moreover, after considering the serious defects of care-based theory, a care-based position, which regards human rights or their substitute as a complement to care, is advanced. This position can be said to be a Japanese approach to bioethics.

Multinational companies whose importance has increased or improved depending on global capitalisation and travelling around the world without knowing borders have activities in developing countries due to suitable conditions (e.g. cheap workers costs, flexible legal arrangements). In this study, the precautions set forth to prevent environmental troubles, to obliterate or to minimise it, are the activities undertaken by the multinational companies which are considered. In the study, Turkey as a case country in which this subject was studied. Globalisation is the last step of economical sovereignty set up by means of multinational companies all over the world by capitalism which affects our age deeply. Unlimited capital stocks of capitalism and its economical development aim “whatever the result is” fastens the problems internationally as a result of not recognizing the social developments and justice, inequality, poverty and unsocializing people in developing countries. As a result of this, we're having environmental problems, the speed of nature's being consumed has been increased and there have been troubles almost every field of the social lives. However there is no one else who accepts the responsibilities of cost and social policies in the global economies in which international capital and global corporations decide on the rules; there is also no one else who accepts the responsibilities of environmental pollution and natural possessions' destruction as the result of the activities of international capital and global companies. The reason for this is that it is assumed that the government must take the responsibility “to protect and to development the environment”. According to this idea, protecting and developing the environment has been supplying public use and public service. Thus public service is the duty of the state. Environmental rights subject, known as third generation rights or corporation rights, is to protect the environment and to development it. People who have the environmental rights are those actors who will make use of these rights and who will have the responsibilities of these rights. The people who will make use of these rights and who will have the responsibilities are generally the same actors. These are not only the people but also public and special institutions including communities; states and public; and the next generation. In this case, all the right owners who have the rights to live in a healthy and well balanced environment are obliged to protect and to development the environment at the same time, including the multinational companies. Every economic activity has an effect on the environment. Multinational companies have activities in the fields like gold mining, petrol, chemicals and food industry which have high potential effects on the environment in developing countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria. On this point the question why multinational companies choose these countries should be answered. The answer doesn't only help to explain the issue's political sides but also it could show that the most dirtying foreign capital activities take place in developing countries. Why multinational companies have chosen these developing countries was studied under two titles. (1) Dirtying industries are choosing the countries which don't have severe legal arrangements, (2) The public opinion in developing countries is unconscious of the harms that economical activities give to the environment. If the first finding hadn't been true, the activities in most polluting sectors wouldn't have been directed to the countries where environmental laws are flexible/flexibly practised. Besides, the public opinion in these low educational level countries doesn't have enough knowledge about the environmental problems and importance of environment. This information also gives assurance to the multinational companies that they don't face with the opposing activities of the public there. Nevertheless, foreign capital is wanted by these countries to supply new technologies, to supply the political and economical support of the countries which export development and capital, to open their economy to other countries and to protect the environment of the country. But, in practice, these countries which are under pressure to pay their debts don't pay attention to the ecological defects of the activities let the multinational companies to settle in the country, import the wastes which supply currency entrance, to be stored in the national borders and to be reused without evaluation. Foreign capital entrance in gold mining fields is a small example about being served and defended as a gold opportunity to pay Turkey's foreign debts. As a result, multinational companies are unsuccessful in sharing environmental responsibilities in the developing countries. Multinational companies have been making use of the opportunities that the environment presents but they don't do their duties to environmental rights. The efforts by multinational companies have been improving as prevention of increasing the environmental standards. Related to this, in the countries mentioned and also in Turkey, where economical activity fields like ecological sensitivity isn't assured enough by law and isn't protected wholly is a kind of great danger for Turkey.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of Mott) v. Environment Agency, the purpose of this study is to explore the interface between property, environment and human rights. It examines the space within human rights jurisprudence for a richer notion of property that can accommodate social and environmental obligation and non-anthropocentric values.

In this study, a theoretical lens is applied to human rights doctrine. A central question is the extent to which there is room within the discourse on Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) to the European Convention on Human Rights for a more relational and ecocentric approach. The paper engages with the jurisprudence of the UK courts and that of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the works of scholars such as Jennifer Nedelsky and Nicole Graham.

It is concluded that although the judgment in Mott demonstrates the potential for A1P1 to function as a means for rights-holders to obtain a voice in environmental decision-making processes, it highlights the tendency of property to preserve existing structures and arrangements. When assessing whether an individual is asked to bear an excessive burden, great weight was given in Mott to values associated with livelihood. What did not feature in the (brief) judgment was the consideration of the ecological context in which Mr Mott’s rights were embedded and the extent to which this context might have inherently restricted his ability to enjoy his property. The dispute demonstrates the limitations of existing property institutions and discourses in managing ecological conflict and fostering positive relationships and management practices.

This study contributes to the doctrinal literature on A1P1, providing a new perspective on the role of human rights jurisprudence in managing environmental conflict. It is original in its examination of human rights discourse in light of relational and ecocentric theories of property, providing a critique of existing values and paradigms. Evaluating the doctrinal reasoning in Mott with reference to this theoretical framework, it provides fresh insight into the limitations of the Supreme Court’s approach. It points to the need for more explicit incorporation of environmental values and contexts in human rights reasoning.