Suchergebnisse

The evolution of environmental law in the last few decades has occurred in two main phases, which correspond to two opposing and sometimes conflicting trends. The first phase, which may be identified as the "environmental regulatory trend", has been characterised by the attempt to protect the environment through the management of the negative externalities caused by the dominant economic model based on the pursuit of an unrestrained growth. Such a regulatory trend, despite producing an enormous corpus of legislation, has shown many deficiencies. The shortcomings of the environmental regulation trend have therefore paved the way for the advent of the second phase, characterised by an "environmental deregulatory trend", which has promoted a shift towards the progressive revision of the existing legislation, with a view to simplifying and streamlining it. Unfortunately, both approaches have resulted in a substantial failure. The aim of the present paper is to analyse the double failure of environmental regulation and deregulation and to promote a possible way out. This will be identified as the need to revise the current regulatory regime for environmental protection and to promote a shift towards a new ecologically based approach to the law, which should primarily aim at the protection of the health and integrity of the ecosystems which support life on Earth. Moreover, in order to signal the decisive shift that the new approach should mark, a corresponding change in the name of the law aimed at the protection of the environment and ecosystems will be proposed: from environmental law to ecological law.

The flexibility mechanisms introduced by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change promote the realization of climate change related investment projects which aim to contribute both to the fight against climate change as well as to foster sustainable development patterns in host countries. At first glance, the flexibility mechanisms seem to represent paradigmatic examples of green economy instruments which have numerous potential benefits. However, the implementation of such mechanisms may give rise to some negative environmental externalities which have the consequence of creating a new type of investment versus environment conflict, characterized by a new form of conflict with an internal environmental dimension. This "internal environmental conflict" seems to represent an evolution of the traditional investment versus environment conflict in which the presence of climate change related interests has the potential to paradoxically reinforce the investment side of the controversy and reduce the strength of the opposed environmental side. These new internal environmental conflicts cannot be properly managed by the traditional criteria and instruments that have so far been used to deal with traditional investment versus environment conflicts. Therefore, it seems that in order to efficiently manage and solve such new types of conflicts, a new interpretative paradigm must be adopted which consists of the concept of ecological sustainability. The use of such a new interpretative paradigm should ensure the ecological sustainability of climate change related investments by making sure that they can promote global climate change related goals while, at the same time, not endangering the local environment where the relevant projects are located.

International environmental law is undergoing a serious crisis. In order to improve its "environmental effectiveness", the adoption of a new founding paradigm is necessary. The new paradigm ought to be based on the concept of "ecological sustainability", grounded on the duty to protect and restore the integrity of the eco-systems. Besides setting the framework for the revision of international environmental law on the basis of the "ecological sustainability" paradigm, this paper focuses on its application in climate change law. In this sense, a critical analysis is provided on the application of the most relevant flexibility mechanisms foreseen at international level by the Kyoto Protocol, namely the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Emissions Trading, as well as of the most interesting instruments applied at EU level, namely the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). ; The Redefining the Transatlantic Relationship and its Role in Shaping Global Governance (TRANSWORLD) project is funded by the European Union's 7th Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 290454.

The globalisation of the world economy on the one side and the expansion of national systems of competition antitrust law on the other side over the last few years have raised to the top of the international agenda the trade and competition issue. While trade barriers are decreasing and business internationalises, cross-border anticompetitive practices increase. Such practices, which may reduce effective competition and undermine the benefits of globalisation, dramatically reveal the limits of an asinchronised international antitrust regime. From one point of view, it is generally very difficult for the panoply of national antitrust systems to tackle domestically cross-border anticompetitive practices, which by their very nature are planned and implemented by several actors under several jurisdictions and have negative effects in many countries. From another point of view, it is generally inefficient for companies operating at the international level to be subject to different national competition rules, due to the lack of common rules at the international level. Up to now, various attempts to synchronise competition principles with a new globalised trading system by establishing a harmonised international competition regime have dramatically failed. Meanwhile, several countries have concentrated their efforts on the development of bilateral co-operation agreements, by their nature more limited in scope. The first part of this paper will be devoted to analyse the main features of the EC-US bilateral co-operation agreements in the field of competition law. On the basis of this analysis, I will argue that although bilateral co-operation must be recognised as an important achievement in the present preliminary stage of the globalisation of the world economy, it should be gradually supplemented, and eventually replaced, by some forms of multilateral antitrust co-operation, possibly within the framework of the WTO. In the second part of this work, I will present some concrete options for the development of multilateral antitrust co-operation in this sense.

The Encyclical Letter "Laudato Sì. On Care For Our Common Home", issued by Pope Francis in May 2015, contains some legal and economic aspects that go beyond a purely religious relevance, touching upon the political, social, and ethical spheres. The present contribution aims to identify these aspects of the Encyclical Letter, providing a brief reasoned analysis of its most interesting and relevant features, namely the emergence and the human origin of the ecological crisis, the critique of the dominant technocratic paradigm, the weakness of the institutional and legal international response, and the major paths of dialogue proposed by the Encyclical Letter to overcome "the spiral of self-destruction" which humanity is currently confronting. This contribution then focuses on integral ecology as the proposed solution to tackle the present ecological crisis and the call for an ecological conversion. On the basis of the analysis, a final section highlights some tipping points which are worthy of further comment, and contextualises Pope Francis' views in the light of the most relevant scientific literature on these topics.