No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Note:

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

Univ., Diss.--The Hague, 2006. / Literaturverz. S. [261] - 275.

The present thesis deals with the international legal consequences of the Biosafety Protocol. If this Protocol answers the problem of GMOs, by enforcing the application of the precautionary principle to the international trade of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), it does not solve the conflict between the interests of trade and those of the environment. On the contrary, the Biosafety Protocol conflicts with the rules of the GATT and the national norms inspired by it would risk being contested before the dispute-settlement institutions of the World Trade Organisation. The Protocol therefore constitutes a new element in the conflict, pre-existing and unsolved, which sets the implicit supremacy of the GATT against the international environmental norms. It confirms the necessity to find a solution enabling the equal authority and mutual respect of the international environmental and trade rules. / All information is correct as at 14 November 2000.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: p. 377-421.

Chapter one offers an introduction and a general outline of argument. Chapter two lays out the current scholarship on human rights and the environment and presents rejoinders to three prominent lines of objection to linking human rights and environmental interests: conceptual, those arising from issues of recognition, vagueness and conflicts between human rights, ecological, especially from those seeking protections for the environment regardless of its utility to humans, and those wishing to expand human rights beyond human interests, and adjudication concerns, namely from those sceptical that the polycentric nature of environmental issues create an insurmountable barrier to any significant improvements through judicially enforced human rights. Chapter three introduces and defends the environmental minimum as a normative framework for systematically conceptualizing the relationship between human rights and the environment. As such, it is chiefly concerned with ensuring a good faith regulatory engagement with environmental pollution: specific risks to recognised human rights trigger the environmental minimum, which then provides minimum standards (legal, established and emerging) that set the standard of review for determining whether a violation of human rights has occurred. Chapter four deals with the crucial empirical argument, outlining how the framework can systematically account for and consistently guide the further development of the case law under the European Convention on Human Rights. This conclusion rests on a comprehensive analysis of the environmental case law since 1950 using quantitative methods to expose doctrinal patterns previously not recognized in legal scholarship. Finally, chapter five explores and evaluates the potential benefits of the environmental minimum framework beyond human rights adjudication. Specifically, it investigates benefits to the varied fields of public law, regulatory policy, International Environmental Law, constitutionalism, and other international human rights treaties.