• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental law >A FIGHTING STANCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LITIGATION
【24h】

A FIGHTING STANCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LITIGATION

机译：环境司法诉讼的战斗立场

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The poor, persons of color, and indigenous peoples often turn to the courts to correct the injustice of companies and governments causing environmental harms in their communities. Existing interpretations of tort, statutory, and constitutional law do not adequately fit the situations faced by environmental justice plaintiffs, however, so defendants often move to dismiss for justiciability reasons like lack of standing or the political question doctrine or for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs therefore need to frame their lawsuit so it gives the best chance of surviving the motion to dismiss. One possibility is stasis theory from classical rhetoric, which provides a systematic strategy for identifying the most likely issue upon which a judge will rule and developing arguments and counterarguments around it. This Article explains how stasis theory can inform environmental justice litigation by explicating the pleadings, briefs, and opinions in two similar climate justice cases. Because the law upon which they rely is inapt or undeveloped, plaintiffs should avoid framing the case as one of disputed facts resting upon undisputed law because the defendants can shift the ground to the stasis of procedure. Having asserted that unsettled law is settled, the plaintiffs will lack convincing counterarguments to defendants' challenges that only the political rather than judicial branches can address complex harms or that the plaintiffs lack standing, so the court will likely break the stasis in the defendants' favor and order dismissal. The plaintiffs should therefore concede claims based on a legal entitlement and instead assume a fighting stance in the stasis of qualification where they can tap into the narrative of environmental justice to make appealing arguments. Those could be a request for equity because the law is not only ineffective but harmful, or because many common law torts or environmental or civil rights laws are close but imperfect fits for their situations, the plaintiffs could highlight rather than downplay this incongruity via recourse to one of the four legal stases. By conceding the higher grounds, the plaintiffs keep the fight away from arguments that are stronger for the adversary. The compelling stories of distributive and corrective injustice that plaintiffs can tell might create sufficient affective connections with the judge to persuade her to rule in plaintiffs' favor. Having recognized the need for judicial intervention in the face of inadequate law, the judge then has a basis for denying the procedural challenges.
机译：穷人，颜色人和土着人民经常转向法院，以纠正公司和政府的不公正，造成社区环境危害。现有的侵权行为，法定和宪法法的解释并没有充分适应环境司法原告所面临的情况，因此被告常常向缺乏立体或政治问题代理或未能陈述索赔，以便搬迁。因此，原告需要框架他们的诉讼，以便幸存下来的最佳机会来解雇。一种可能性是来自古典言论的瘀滞理论，为识别法官将统治和制定其周围的争论和反驳的最有可能的问题提供了系统策略。本文通过在两个类似的气候司法案件中解释诉状，简报和意见，解释了斯塔西斯理论如何通知环境司法诉讼。由于他们依赖的法律或未开发，原告应该避免框架，因为被告可以将地面转移到程序的僵局，以追求争议的事实。断言令人未婚的法律已经解决，原告将缺乏被告的挑战令人信服的反驳，只有政治而不是司法分支会能够解决复杂的危害或原告缺乏站立，所以法院可能会在被告人的青睐中打破阻碍并解雇。因此，原告应该根据法律权利承认索赔，而是在有资格的基本上承担战斗立场，他们可以利用环境司法的叙述，以制定吸引人的论据。这些可能是对股权的要求，因为法律不仅无效而有害，或者因为许多常见的法律侵权行为或环境或民权法则是近似的，而是对其情况的不完美，原告可以突出，而不是通过求助来揭示这种不协调的不可思议。四个法律遂之一。通过承认更高的理由，原告远离对对手更强大的论据。原告可以讲述的分配和纠正不公正的令人信服的故事可能会与法官创造足够的情感联系，以说服她统治原告的青睐。在面对法律不足的情况下认识到司法干预的需要，那么法官则为否认程序挑战有依据。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental law》 |2020年第3期|557-614|共58页
  • 作者

    JEFF TODD;

  • 作者单位

    Business Law in the Department of Finance & Economics at Texas State University;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号