The Rivonia treason trial started on October 9, 1963, the same day that former Cape Town coloured singer Danny Williams made front page headlines by marrying a white girl in London. Those were the days when apartheid, not as “reformed” as it is today, was rigorously applied by the National Party government. Love, sex and marriage across the colour line were forbidden. Crooner Williams, 31, then riding the crest of the pop wave with his ballad “Moon River”, took his vows with Bobbi Carole, who married him against the wishes of her parents. Williams, fearing persecution, told an interviewer he would not be welcome in South Africa again. But most prominent by far on the front page that day was the Rivonia treason trial. A report from Pretoria — following the style of the times — said: “Eleven men — four whites, one Indian and six Natives — went on trial in the Supreme Court here today before Mr Justice Quartus de Wet (Judge President of the Transvaal) on charges of sabotage and of offences under the Suppression of Communism Act and of contravening the Criminal Law Amendment Act.” / Supplement to The Argus, Wednesday February 7 1990 / Exclusive Part 2

Este trabalho visa a realizar uma análise sistemática das diversas normas do Código de Processo Civil que tratam do abuso de situações jurídicas processuais. O tratamento desse tema é dividido em quatro partes. Em primeiro lugar, analisa-se a teoria geral do abuso do processo, que abrange a evolução histórica do abuso processual, a adoção da teoria do abuso do direito oriunda do Direito privado, os fundamentos da prevenção e da repressão dos comportamentos abusivos, os elementos essenciais que caracterizam o abuso do processo (objeto, sujeitos e requisitos do ato processual abusivo) e a discussão acerca da ilicitude do ato processual abusivo. Em seguida, considerando os elementos caracterizadores do abuso do processo, são identificadas e estudadas as hipóteses de abuso de situações jurídicas processuais previstas no Código de Processo Civil brasileiro. A terceira seção deste trabalho é dedicada às consequências jurídicas do abuso do processo e a algumas questões referentes à aplicação de sanções. Finalmente, na quarta parte, procede-se ao exame dos mecanismos destinados a prevenir o abuso de situações jurídicas processuais. / This work aims to do a systematic analysis of the different norms of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code that deals with the abuse of procedural rights. The treatment of this subject is divided into four sections. In the first place, it analyses the general theory of abuse of process, which includes the historical evolution of abuse of process, the adoption of the theory of abuse of rights from civil law, the foundations of prevention and repression of abusive behaviors, the essential elements that characterize the abuse of process (its object, its subjects and the requisites of the abusive procedural act) and the discussion about the unlawfulness of the abusive procedural act. Subsequently, considering the distinguishing elements of abuse of process, it identifies and studies the fattispecies of abuse of procedural rights contained in the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code. The third section of this work is dedicated to the legal consequences of abuse of process and to some questions related to the application of sanctions. Finally, in the fourth section, it examines the legal devices aimed at preventing abuse of procedural rights.

Il a été longuement discuté de savoir si le système d'arbitrage est applicable pour régler les litiges administratifs qui concernent certains contrats administratifs ou d’autres sans rapport avec le contrat administratif. Dans cette thèse, les trois questions spécifiques sont analysées tour à tour : (1) Est-il possible pour un arbitre ou un tribunal arbitral de trancher des questions relevant du droit administratif? (2) Y a-t-il, ou devrait-il y avoir, des limitations à l'autorité des arbitres et des tribunaux arbitraux? (3) Enfin, après la délivrance d'une sentence arbitrale, quel rôle devrait jouer l'État dans la phase de contrôle judiciaire? La première question concerne l'arbitrabilité et a été discutée dans la première partie (FIRST PART: ARBITRABILITY). La deuxième question a été discutée dans la deuxième partie (SECOND PART: PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE). Enfin, sur la dernière question a fait l’objet d’une troisième partie (THIRD PART: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND EXECUTION OF ARBITRATION AWARD). Dans cette thèse, nous avons comparé les systèmes de quatre pays (Canada, Chine, France, Taïwan). En conclusion, nous pouvons donc conclure que l’évolution de la conception du contrat administratif implique de nombreux aspects, y compris les aspects juridiques, économiques, politiques et même culturels. Le développement de la fonction de contentieux administratif, comme ‘’subjectivement orienté" ou "objectivement orienté" aura une incidence sur l'acceptation de l'arbitrage en matière administrative. Dans l'ensemble, l'arbitrage sera plus acceptable dans les systèmes dont la fonction est plus ‘’subjectivement orientée" que dans ceux dont la fonction est "objectivement orientée". / While arbitration has traditionally been considered as a means to resolve private disputes, its role in disputes involving administrative contracts is a crucial question in administrative law. In brief, the three specific questions are (1) Can arbitrators or arbitral tribunals decide issues involving administrative law? and (2) Is there, or should there be, any limitation on the authority of arbitrators or arbitral tribunals? (3) Moreover, after the issue of an arbitration award, what role should the State play in the judicial review phase? The first question, the issue of arbitrability, is discussed in part 1 (FIRST PART: ARBITRABILITY). The second question will be discussed in part2 (SECOND PART: PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE). Finally, on the question of what happens after the arbitration award, we will discuss judicial review in part 3 (THIRD PART: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND EXECUTION OF ARBITRATION AWARD). We compare legal systems between the four countries: in France, in Canada, in China and in Taiwan. We believe that an administrative contract, at least in its function and conception, is gradually becoming different from a private contract. Innovation with respect to administrative contracts will also reflect the concentration and function of the administrative litigation systems in each country. In addition, the “objective” or “subjective” function of administrative litigation will also affect the degree of arbitrability, as well as arbitration procedures. Taken together, arbitration will be more acceptable in systems whose function is more “subjectively oriented” than in those whose function is “objectively oriented". Finally, “the arbitration of administrative matters” traditionally has been an important question in administrative and arbitration law. In the future, we will continue to see it shine in the doctrine and jurisprudence of both the administrative and arbitration law fields.

The Swedish government is legally obliged to conduct climate policy work that will protect nature and humanity from the harmful effects of climate change. Obligations related to the environment arise under Swedish domestic law, European law and international law. This thesis investigates the possibilities for the Swedish public to initiate climate change litigation against the Swedish government due to insufficient climate actions. I examine three climate change litigation approaches from selected jurisdictions, including Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. By transposing the three litigation approaches into the Swedish legal order I seek to discuss the possibilities for the public to challenge the Swedish state's responsibility in climate matters. This thesis claims that the possibilities for the concerned public to address climate change are restricted. International obligations derived from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Aarhus Convention have given individuals substantive rights and procedural rights in matters related to the environment. However, the implementation of the international obligations are not always enshrined in the national law.

人類經濟活動重心之變革推動著產業競爭的樣貌，於二十一世紀的今日，知識已成為經濟活動中最主要之價值驅力，與之相應的，產業中智慧財產層面的競爭也逐漸受到重視，發展至今，智慧財產已深入產業鏈且細化為各種以智慧財產運用為中心以創造獲利之企業。 半導體產業於台灣經濟發展之推進中佔有關鍵性之地位，隨著台灣廠商在全球產業鏈中扮演的角色重要性與日俱增，難以避免必須因應半導體產業中由智慧財產所造就的新興商業模式，其中，智慧財產研發公司拋棄舊有以生產製造為主之商業模式，開創以知識為本的競爭場域，並挾其智慧財產進行全球化的授權以及訴訟，扮演著遊戲規則的創造者，尤其記憶體產業之兩大智慧財產研發公司Rambus Inc.以及Tessera Technology Inc.，自2000年起不斷於全球提起專利訴訟，對整體產業乃至於台灣廠商帶來無法忽視之影響。 本研究試圖建立分析智慧財產研發公司之架構，亦即由該等公司之策略演進出發，宏觀的了解其於變動的競爭環境中如何發揮企業優勢；其次，以公司策略定位為基礎，進一步推動資源投入之分配，並形塑商業模式的產生；最後，本研究萃取智慧財產研發公司商業模式中較具特色且影響廣泛之訴訟階段，藉由記憶體產業中之個案分析比較之方式進行深入之實證研究，以管窺該等公司之專利運用模式，期能透過提升對於智慧財產研發公司策略定位、商業模式以及訴訟模式之了解，活化企業智慧財產之管理，並提供台灣廠商面對專利授權與訴訟時因應之基礎。 / The revolution of economic activities of human beings has been the force behind the changing format of competition among industries. In the contemporary 21st century, knowledge has become one of the most valuable forces in economic activities; correspondently, the competition strategy of intellectual property also seized much attention. As of today, intellectual property has already been integrated in each and every industry chains and developed into various enterprises which earn profits by operating it. Semi-conductor industry played an important role in the process of Taiwan’s economic development. As Taiwanese companies claim more crucial roles in the global industry chain, they are inevitably forced to deal with the new business model established by the creation of intellectual properties. Among them, intellectual property development companies have withdrawn from old business model of production and manufacturing and create a new competition field on the basis of intellectually properties. Intellectual property development companies engage in global wide license and litigation, acting as the rule-maker within the new frame of competition. Rambus Inc. and Tessera Technology Inc. are the two leading intellectual property development companies which brought lawsuits internationally since 2000, creating serious impacts on both the entire industry and Taiwanese companies. This research aims to establish an analytical framework to observe intellectually property development companies, starting from the progress of strategy, try to understand how to exercise their advantages in the ever-changing competitive business world; furthermore, based on business strategies, this research look further into the distribution of resources and the creation of business models; lastly, this research closely examines the litigation phase of the business model of intellectual property development companies by comparative case studies, in order to conclude the operation pattern of patents of such companies. With further exploration on the strategic positioning, business model and litigation pattern of intellectual property development companies, this research provides not only a deeper understanding on the management of IPRs but also a framework for Taiwanese companies to cope with patent licenses and litigations.

隨著社會變遷，近一二十年來，我國醫療糾紛有大幅增加之現象，而經由媒體的報導，醫療糾紛在我國亦經常成為眾所矚目、備受爭議的社會焦點。由於醫療行為所導致的損害，直接侵害病人之身體權、健康權、甚至生命權，對於病人及其家屬生活所造成之影響，難謂非為鉅大，故醫療糾紛之妥善處理，實係吾人從事醫療法律之研究者，應予正視並深入探討之議題。 我國醫療糾紛之處理，向以刑事訴訟為主要之救濟途徑，惟晚近醫界、法界均已達成共識，認為醫療糾紛應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。惟吾人若欲藉由民事法律關係妥善處理醫療糾紛，則須注意醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，亦即，因醫病雙方專業知識上之落差，導致雙方在民事程序上處於武器不平等之地位。為衡平此一武器不平等，我國實務上部分法官在審理醫療民事訴訟時，曾打破傳統民事過失歸責原則，將消費者保護法無過失責任與民法第191條之3一般危險責任之規定適用於醫療行為，惟自民國93年醫療法第82條第2項修正之後，該法既規定「醫療機構及其醫事人員因執行業務致生損害於病人，以故意或過失為限，負損害賠償責任。」邇近之實務判決遂多採醫療行為過失責任之見解，也多排除民法第191條之3之適用。我國醫療訴訟醫病爭執之重點，乃於近年由實體法之無過失責任之採擇與否，轉換至程序法之舉證責任分配。 於醫療訴訟等現代型訴訟事件中，被害人時常發生舉證上之困難，倘若依照僵化固定的舉證責任分配規則，則不免有失公平正義。因此，舉證責任分配於醫療訴訟上應如何操作方屬適當，實為醫療民事訴訟中值得觀察的重點所在。基於上述之問題意識，本論文的研究架構共分為七章，其內容綱要如下： 第一章 緒論：闡釋說明研究動機，並指明目前民事醫療糾紛事件之問題重心在於「程序法」，特別係在「舉證責任之分配」。進而說明本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究範圍與研究方法。 第二章 醫療糾紛之發生及其處理：本章由醫療糾紛之發生談起，進而說明醫療糾紛之法律關係，探討不同法領域下醫療提供者違反義務時之法律責任，包括民事責任、刑事責任及行政責任等，並論證醫療糾紛實應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。最後，介紹醫療糾紛發生後，國內外現今法制上之醫療糾紛處理機制，並分析其優缺點。 第三章 醫療糾紛之民事法律關係與醫療民事訴訟之特殊性：本章聚焦於醫療糾紛之民事法律關係，探討醫療提供者之契約責任、醫療無因管理與醫療提供者之侵權責任等。同時，討論醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，分析醫療民事訴訟被害人舉證困難之原因，並分析加重醫療提供者民事責任之法理基礎、以及過度加重醫療提供者民事責任所可能導致之反效果。 第四章 民事訴訟舉證責任分配之學說：按我國關於民事舉證責任之立法明文，係規定於民事訴訟法第277條：「當事人主張有利於己之事實者，就其事實有舉證之責任。但法律別有規定，或依其情形顯失公平者，不在此限。」學者乃認為，在我國法制下，所謂舉證責任分配法則係一總體概念，而可區分為「舉證責任分配一般原則」與「舉證責任分配減輕」二者，而以前者為原則，後者為例外。本章即由舉證責任之基礎觀念出發，藉由介紹國內外之學說，而分別處理「舉證責任分配之一般原則」與「舉證責任分配之減輕」等概念。 第五章 醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配規則之具體適用：本章集中討論醫療民事訴訟之舉證責任。本章前半段介紹醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配之一般規則、以及比較法上(包括德國、美國與日本)醫療糾紛舉證責任減輕之具體規則，後半段則分析我國實務操作醫療糾紛舉證責任分配之問題。本文一共歸納出實務判決於適用舉證責任分配時共六個問題，並分別找出判決加以闡釋。於本章末，則提出將醫療糾紛類型化，應有助於解決我國實務之問題。 第六章 醫療糾紛之類型化與舉證責任分配體系之建構：本章先試從「法學思維」、「醫學思維」、以及「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」出發，分別建立三套操作模組，以將醫療糾紛類型化，並建構其各別之舉證責任分配體系。關於純粹由「法學思維」或「醫學思維」所建立之操作模組，本文將分析其操作上之侷限，而針對本文所建議「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」之操作模組，亦將於各醫療糾紛分類，舉實務案例諸例實際操作之，以驗證本文所建議操作流程之可行性。章末則另提出法院於適用舉證責任分配規則時，其他與客觀舉證責任分配無直接相關，但應予考量之事項，以助於更正確地適用舉證責任分配規則。 第七章 結論、建議與展望：綜合前開章節討論，針對醫療民事爭訟程序中之舉證責任分類體系與操作模式，做出總結。並提出其他相關建議，以終極落實醫療需求者憲法上基本權之保障。 / The number of malpractice claims filed in Taiwan against physicians has increased significantly in the recent decades. Medical malpractice litigations are characterized by a huge gap in medical knowledge between physicians and patients, leading to an unequal status between both parties in the trials. To ensure that the principle of equality of arms is upheld in civil procedures, the courts applied the strict liability embodied in Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 191-3 of the Civil Code to malpractice cases. However, since the amendment and promulgation of Article 82 of the Medical Care Act, there has been a consensus that strict liability is no longer applicable in medical litigations, and negligence becomes an essential element for establishing the liability of medical practitioners. In addition to modifying liability rules, an alternative for achieving equality of arms is to relieve the plaintiffs from the burden of proof. However, the burden of proof should be adjusted with precaution, because an excessive shift might contribute to defensive medicine. Accordingly, this study aims to standardize the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes. The thesis is composed of the following seven chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the background of the present study, with a special emphasis on the pivotal role of the burden of proof in medical litigations. Also delineated in this chapter are the objectives and methodology of the present study. Chapter 2 The occurrence and resolution of medical malpractice disputes: In this chapter, the incidence of medical injury and medical malpractice is discussed first, followed by an analysis of the civil, criminal, and administrative liabilities of medical professionals. The plethora of resolutions for settling medical malpractice disputes are summarized at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3 Civil liabilities of medical malpractice and characteristics of medical litigations: This chapter focuses on the civil liabilities of medical malpractice, which arise from failure to undertake contractual duties or tort liabilities. The characteristics of medical litigations, such as the unequal status in arms between plaintiffs and defendants and the difficulties in concluding negligence or deciphering causation, are discussed in the second half of the chapter. Chapter 4 Theories and rules in allocating the burden of proof: The allocation of the burden of proof is determined according to Article 277 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure: A party bears the burden of proof with regard to the facts which he/she alleges in his/her favor, except either where the law provides otherwise or where the circumstances render it manifestly unfair. Consequently, in principle, the burden of proof is allocated according to the “Normentheorie,” with specific rules applied to ease the plaintiff’s burden of proof under exceptional and unfair circumstances. Chapter 5 Rules for allocating the burden of proof in medical litigations: German, American, and Japanese rules for allocating or relieving plaintiffs from the burden of proof in medical litigations are introduced. The current problems in applying these rules to medical litigations in Taiwan are inspected. The solution to these problems relies on a precise classification of medical malpractice disputes. Chapter 6 Establishing the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes: Three models for allocating the burden of proof are created on the basis of three classification systems: classification from a legal perspective, classification from a medical perspective, and classification from a combined medical-and-legal perspective. A comparison of these three models reveals that the last might be the best algorithm. Specific tips for an accurate application of this algorithm are also provided. Chapter 7 Conclusions: This chapter highlights the importance of an appropriate allocation of the burden of proof in medical litigations, as well as the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof established in the present study. Also included are suggestions on how to ameliorate Taiwan’s medical litigation system in the future.

Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in, and utilisation of, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques to resolve environmental conflicts in western societies. ADR was incorporated into one of New Zealand's main environmental statutes, the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA). Under s.268 of the RMA the Environment Court (the Court) may, if the parties agree, conduct mediation in order to facilitate settlement of resource management disputes. The RMA, which has now been in operation for ten years, gives no guidance as to the way in which mediation is to be conducted. The Court has developed procedures and processes for administering and conducting mediation. This study critically evaluates the practice of Court assisted mediation of environmental disputes under the RMA. A literature review and interviews with stakeholder groups are used in this evaluation. The study shows that mediation generates benefits for the Court and participants. It also identifies limitations with the current mediation procedures and processes. These may impact the effectiveness of participants in mediation, their satisfaction with, and support for, the mediated settlement and with the environmental outcomes. The study recommends a series of guidelines be prepared on the functions and administrative procedures of the Court and on the mediation process promoted by the Court. Further research is also recommended. It is considered that these recommendations, if implemented, will enhance the process for participants, ensure more equitable and consistent environmental outcomes, in terms of present and future generations, and retain public confidence in the mediation process.

Over the last couple of decades or so, comparative public law scholars have been reporting a dramatic increase in the power and influence of judicial institutions worldwide. One obvious effect of this “judicialization of politics” is to highlight legitimacy concerns associated with the exercise of judicial power. Indeed, how do courts attain and retain their legitimacy particularly in the context of their increasing political relevance? To answer this question I develop a novel theory of strategic legitimacy cultivation. The theory is developed through an application of the institutionalist branch of the rational choice theory which suggests that institutional structures, rules, and imperatives provide behavioural incentives and disincentives for relevant actors who respond by acting strategically in order to attain favourable outcomes. The theory shows that courts cultivate legitimacy by exhibiting strategic sensitivities to factors operating in the external, political environment. In particular, legitimacy cultivation requires courts to devise decisions that are sensitive to the state of public opinion, that avoid overt clashes and entanglements with key political actors, that do not overextend the outreach of judicial activism, and that employ politically sensitive jurisprudence. The theory is tested in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada through a mixed-method research design that combines a quantitative analysis of a large number of cases, case-study approaches, and cross-policy comparisons. One of the central findings of the dissertation is that understanding judicial institutions and judicial policymaking influence requires taking close accounts of external contexts within which courts operate.

Over the last couple of decades or so, comparative public law scholars have been reporting a dramatic increase in the power and influence of judicial institutions worldwide. One obvious effect of this “judicialization of politics” is to highlight legitimacy concerns associated with the exercise of judicial power. Indeed, how do courts attain and retain their legitimacy particularly in the context of their increasing political relevance? To answer this question I develop a novel theory of strategic legitimacy cultivation. The theory is developed through an application of the institutionalist branch of the rational choice theory which suggests that institutional structures, rules, and imperatives provide behavioural incentives and disincentives for relevant actors who respond by acting strategically in order to attain favourable outcomes. The theory shows that courts cultivate legitimacy by exhibiting strategic sensitivities to factors operating in the external, political environment. In particular, legitimacy cultivation requires courts to devise decisions that are sensitive to the state of public opinion, that avoid overt clashes and entanglements with key political actors, that do not overextend the outreach of judicial activism, and that employ politically sensitive jurisprudence. The theory is tested in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada through a mixed-method research design that combines a quantitative analysis of a large number of cases, case-study approaches, and cross-policy comparisons. One of the central findings of the dissertation is that understanding judicial institutions and judicial policymaking influence requires taking close accounts of external contexts within which courts operate.

本研究關注中科三期環評訴訟中行政與司法的互動，主要的研究問題是探究行政系統如何回應司法判決？從而分析司法判決對於行政系統產生什麼影響？綜觀中科三期環評爭議，隨著后里農民提起行政訴訟，讓行政與司法間的攻防與角力就此展開。最高行政法院於2010年判決撤銷中科三期環評結論確定，然而科學園區的開發早已如火如荼展開，面對廠商營運、量產在即，但開發行為的合法性基礎卻被撤銷，迫使行政系統必須做出因應。然而，行政系統並未遵守司法判決「依法行政」，反而持續以「選擇性的作為與不作為」來抵抗司法。 從行政系統的因應可發現儘管行政權強力抗拒司法，但顧及政策必須持續推行，所以實際上亦不可能完全無視判決指摘，仍必須做出「行為上的調整」，包含：重啟環評、加速通過環評，或者又重新決議要進行二階環評等。顯示面對司法審查的進逼迫使其必須「繞道而行」。後續儘管法院再裁定中科三期應停工，行政系統仍未就範，而修修補補、只做半套的環評，不僅仍無法通過法院合法性的檢驗，也致使中科三期演變成「邊施工、邊營運、邊環評」的窘況。本研究主要採取的研究方法包含：次級資料分析、參與觀察、訪談法。 總結而言，本研究將指出行政系統的態度與偏好是司法判決能否落實的關鍵。相反的，司法則沒有什麼權力影響判決如何被執行。然而，儘管司法顯露出侷限性，始終未能有效牽制住中科三期的開發，但中科三期環評訴訟對於行政系統仍產生相當的衝擊與影響，不論是對環評制度實務或對於往後環境運動的發展，這場運動仍是有深遠影響的一股動能。 / As more and more administrative litigations were filed, tensions between the executive and the judiciary branch have been on the rise. By using the environmental impact assessment (EIA) litigation of the 3rd phase expansion of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP) as a case study, this paper aims to understand the dynamic interaction between these two branches of the state. Particularly, it aims to shed light on how the executive reacts to judicial decisions, and whether judicial review influences bureaucratic practices and if so, its means and the extent of its impact. According to the separation of powers principle, the main function of judicial review is to monitor the legal reach of the executive power. Even as one of the landmark cases in Taiwanese legal history, however, it had been observed that not all judicial decisions are implemented by government agencies following the EIA litigation. Despite the fact that the conclusion of the EIA had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court, the executive resisted this judicial decision by being selective in its enforcement. Nevertheless, the executive must still respond to the judiciary albeit with some “behavioural adjustments” in order to make sure that the development of the 3rd phase expansion of CTSP can be completed as soon as possible. Research methods adopted in this paper is mainly literature review, participant observation and in-depth interview. This case study reveals three major findings. First, the enforcement of judicial decisions is not necessarily obligatory and hinges on the attitudes of the executive. Secondly, the judiciary has very limited powers when it comes to effecting the enforcement of its decisions but its decisions do engender some observable changes (or non-changes) in bureaucratic behaviour which can be attributed to judicial review. Thirdly, although these verdicts failed to stop the abuse of power and allowed the fulfillment of rights, for local residents, cause lawyers, and NGOs, there are still many positive lessons to be taken away from their efforts from which future environmental movements will also likely benefit.