The Juridical Nature of the Right to Favorable Environment: Principle vs Norm of Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2686-7834-2023-4-62-67Keywords:
right to favorable environment, favorable environment, healthy environment, principle of law, norm of lawAbstract
The article aims to test the author’s hypothesis that the right to favorable environment by its legal nature is rather closer to a principle than to a legal norm. The theoretical basis of the distinction between principle and norm of law is considered, special attention is paid to the study of the theory of the American lawyer and philosopher Ronald Dworkin. Relying on the concept of Dworkin, the author by the method of analogy provides arguments in support of his hypothesis. The confirmation of the proposed idea is also found in the decisions of international courts. Serious analysis of the legal framework, doctrinal sources and judicial practice was conducted in the course of writing the article.Downloads
References
Дворкин Р. О правах всерьез. М., 2004.
Коваль С. В. Разграничение принципов и правовых норм в философии права Р. Дворкина. Вестник Моск. Ун-та. Сер. 7: Философия. 2020. № 2. С. 63–71.
Кремнев П. П. Общепризнанные принципы общего международного права в системе российского права. Вестник Моск. ун-та. Серия 11: Право. 2018. № 6. С. 19–33.
Ромашев Ю. С. Общие принципы права в системе международного права. Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, 2021. № 3. С. 148–174.
Douglas-Scott S. Environment Rights in the EU-Participatory Democracy or Democratic Defi cit? In: Human Rights Approaches to Environment protection. eds. A. E. Boyle, M. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1998. Pp. 177–197.
Dworkin R. A matter of principle. N. Y., 1986a.
Dworkin R. Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. N. Y., 1996.
Dworkin R. Law’s empire. Cambridge, 1986.
Dworkin R. Social rules and legal theory. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 855–890.
Dworkin R. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, 1977.
Dworkin R. The model of rules. University of Chicago Law Review, 1967. Vol. 35. Nо. 1. Article 3. Pp. 14–46.
Hart H. L. A. Concept of law. Second ed. N. Y., 1994.
Hart H. L. A. The conce pt of law. Oxford, 1961.
Hershovitz S. The end of jurisprudence. Yale Law Journal, 2015. Vol. 124. Pp. 1160–1204.
Leiter B. Beyond the Hart / Dworkin debate: The methodology problem in jurisprudence. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 2003. Vol. 48. Pp. 17–57.
Raz J. Legal principles and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal, 1972. Vol. 81. No. 5. Pp. 823–854.
Shapiro J. S. Hart — Dworkin Debate: A short guide for the perplexed. Ronald Dworkin / A. Ripstein (ed.). Cambridge, 2007. Pp. 22–55.
Shelton D. Human Rights and the Environment: Jurisprudence of Human Rights Bodies / Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment, 14–16 January 2002. Background Paper. No. 2. University of Notre Dame. Geneva [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Environment/BP2_TBjurisprudence.pdf (дата обращения: 24.10.2023).
Stavropoulos N. The Debate that never was. Harvard Law Review. 2017. Vol. 130. No. 8. Pp. 2082–2095.
Weiss E. B. Environmental change and international law: New challenges and dimensions / Ed. by E. B. Weiss. – Tokyo, 1992.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Bakhilina A.K.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
