The article examines the evolution of climate litigation concerning environmental impact assessments of extractive projects, with particular attention to British jurisprudence and the Finch v. Surrey case. Through the analysis of recent judicial decisions, it highlights how litigation is progressively expanding the scope of required assessments, mandating the consideration of downstream emissions. However, structural limitations emerge in a system that, conceived as a procedural tool, struggles to incorporate binding substantive evaluations, necessitating comprehensive reform that moves beyond the neoliberal approach to environmental governance
DOWNSTREAM EMISSIONS E GOVERNANCE DEI PROGETTI FOSSILI: EVOLUZIONE E LIMITI DELLE VALUTAZIONI DI IMPATTO AMBIENTALE DALLA GIURISPRUDENZA BRITANNICA AL CONTENZIOSO CLIMATICO GLOBALE
Naglieri giuseppe
2025-01-01
Abstract
The article examines the evolution of climate litigation concerning environmental impact assessments of extractive projects, with particular attention to British jurisprudence and the Finch v. Surrey case. Through the analysis of recent judicial decisions, it highlights how litigation is progressively expanding the scope of required assessments, mandating the consideration of downstream emissions. However, structural limitations emerge in a system that, conceived as a procedural tool, struggles to incorporate binding substantive evaluations, necessitating comprehensive reform that moves beyond the neoliberal approach to environmental governanceI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
