Suchergebnisse

On February 8, 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (Bancoult No 3) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The case concerned a challenge to the validity of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) extending 250,000 square miles around the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT or Chagos Archipelago). Declared in 2010, the MPA was justified on the ground of environmental protection and resulted in a ban on all commercial fishing in this zone. The appellant alleged that the MPA had been established for an improper purpose—to prevent the Chagos Islanders from resettling the Archipelago. He claimed that this was evidenced by a diplomatic cable sent from the U.S. embassy in London. It recorded a 2009 meeting in which U.S. and British officials discussed the reasons behind the MPA. The cable was subsequently leaked via the WikiLeaks website and published in two national newspapers. Accordingly, as Lady Hale rightly observed, "[t]he crucial legal issue in this case is therefore the admissibility of the cable."

Intro -- Contents -- About the Contributors -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 The Aim of This Collection -- 1.3 The Contributors -- References -- Chapter 2: Justifying Bancoult (No 2): Why Justice Hercules Must Sometimes Disappoint Us -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Bancoult (No 2) and Its Critics -- 2.2.1 Was the Prerogative Power of Colonial Governance Limited by a Fundamental Right? -- 2.2.2 Did the Formulation 'Peace, Order and Good Government' Connote a Limited or Plenary Prerogative Power? -- 2.2.3 Did Judges Have the Power to Review the Reasons Given by the Government for Removing the Chagossians Islanders? -- 2.3 Positivism and Pragmatism in Bancoult (No 2) -- 2.3.1 What's Wrong with Positivist Textual Analysis? -- 2.3.2 A Pragmatist Way Out? -- 2.4 Enter Justice Hercules -- 2.4.1 Interpreting Bancoult (No 2) -- 2.4.2 Two Competing Schemes of Principle: 'Moral No-Difference' and 'Moral Difference' -- 2.4.2.1 Moral No-Difference -- 2.4.2.2 Moral Difference -- 2.5 Isn't It Justice Hercules's Job to Do Justice? -- 2.6 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Environmental Protection v the Right of Abode: A Case-Study in the Misuse of Power -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 The Legal Flaws in the 2009 Consultation -- 3.3 The Position Today -- References -- Chapter 4: How Public Law Has Not Been Able to Provide the Chagossians with a Remedy -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Background -- 4.3 First Attempts at a Remedy: The Vencatassen Case -- 4.3.1 Settlement Terms Are Mis-Described -- 4.3.2 Chagossians Are Misinformed -- 4.4 The Judicial Review in Bancoult (No. 1) and Its Evolution -- 4.4.1 Procedural Reform -- 4.4.2 Do Your Homework First -- 4.4.3 How Did the High Court Declare the Exile Unlawful? -- 4.5 The Group Litigation: Chagos Islanders v Attorney General and HM BIOT Commissioner [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB).

This paper critiques the two-dimensional (hierarchical–spatial) focus on scales evident in management and organizational studies, and the capitalist ecological modernization (CEM) paradigm that dominates current corporate and governmental approaches to sustainability. Our contribution is to propose a more complex and nuanced understanding of scale, which incorporates social, political, temporal and material dimensions. We propose a heuristic framework from Harvey, in order to evaluate different paradigms of socio-ecological organizing: specifically, the dominant paradigm of CEM against a social ecology (SE) alternative. We explore the divergent conceptions of, and relative importance placed upon, concepts of scale, grain, level and field in these two contrasting paradigms. Our analysis highlights the limitations and contradictions of the CEM expression of scale, namely its predominant focus on measurement and expansion through 'economies of scale'. By offering an alternative conception of the links between scales, grains, levels and social fields, we show how this enriches the conceptualization of potential forms of socio-ecological organizing and opens up the potential for alternative modes of organizing socio-ecological sustainability.

This paper critiques the two-dimensional (hierarchical–spatial) focus on scales evident in management and organizational studies, and the capitalist ecological modernization (CEM) paradigm that dominates current corporate and governmental approaches to sustainability. Our contribution is to propose a more complex and nuanced understanding of scale, which incorporates social, political, temporal and material dimensions. We propose a heuristic framework from Harvey, in order to evaluate different paradigms of socio-ecological organizing: specifically, the dominant paradigm of CEM against a social ecology (SE) alternative. We explore the divergent conceptions of, and relative importance placed upon, concepts of scale, grain, level and field in these two contrasting paradigms. Our analysis highlights the limitations and contradictions of the CEM expression of scale, namely its predominant focus on measurement and expansion through 'economies of scale'. By offering an alternative conception of the links between scales, grains, levels and social fields, we show how this enriches the conceptualization of potential forms of socio-ecological organizing and opens up the potential for alternative modes of organizing socio-ecological sustainability.