Author(s): Maria-Luiza Hrestic / Language(s): English
Issue: 1 (42)/2019
Maybe more than many others, environmental law differs from what itseems. Despite its reputation of being arid, it is luxuriant, technical, it is elementary, andbeing suppletive, it is essential. Moreover, it is defined as rational matter, as set of rulesregulating man’s activities in his environment and in the relation with his environment. Itsjuridical framework is of the order of the obligation of doing, out of the means it usesprincipally prevention, and as accessory, reparation or remediation or reconstruction.However, being a rupture law, its maturity tends to change its fundaments towards afinalizing definition, close to an obligation of result. As sand, the standards for sustainableeffect get infiltrated in the young building and consolidate or weaken it. In this way, forexample, public and private persons contribute, each in his domain of competence andwithin the limits of his responsibility, to a policy whose objective is to enforce eachperson’s right to breathe an air that is not damaging to health. Since then and for thisreason, its physiognomy becomes confuse, especially if we think about the immensetendency to borrow from other laws, to transform principles or deep concepts, and even tocreate some, solely its own. Environmental law generates in itself, but also outside itself(e.g. the mechanism evaluating a project’s impact on the environment, consisting in thescientific evaluation of a project’s incidents on the environment, whose principle has beenexported towards other laws). This is precisely a sign of its maturity.
More...