Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:20:42.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Constitutionalism: A Comparative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

Roderic O’Gorman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While 148 of the 196 national constitutions in effect today manifest some form of environmental constitutionalism, the fact that some states have not adopted such provisions suggests that their spread is not inexorable. This article investigates the factors which affect whether a state adopts environmental constitutionalism. By undertaking a historical analysis of those countries which have so amended their constitutions, it identifies the context in which the constitutional change takes place as a significant consideration. The context of constitutional change influences the amendment process, which is then opened up to a range of other factors, both external (learning/persuasion, acculturation/emulation) and internal (political leadership, public and sectoral engagement, constitutional ideology, national environmental damage), all of which are considered by examining previous efforts to enshrine environmental constitutionalism. The article concludes by highlighting four specific responses that are key to successful amendment processes, namely: capitalizing on crisis situations; ensuring that economic concerns are adequately addressed; leveraging the support of the public and politicians; and linking environmental protection to national values.

Keywords

Environmental constitutionalismEnvironmental rightsComparative constitutionalism
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 435 - 462
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Dublin City University, School of Law & Government, Dublin (Ireland). Email: Roderic.ogorman@dcu.ie.

My thanks to my colleagues Tom Hickey, James Gallen and Adam McAuley for comments on earlier drafts, to Aoife McPartland for research assistance, and to the anonymous reviewers who provided extremely comprehensive and useful feedback.

References

1 V. Hart, Democratic Constitution Writing, United States Institute of Peace, Special Report No. 107, July 2003, p. 2, available at: http://www.peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DemocraticConstitutionMaking_USIP2003.pdf.

2 Boyd, D.R., The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment (UBC Press, 2012), p. 3 Google Scholar.

3 Constitution of the Republic of Italy, Art. 9.

4 See Table 1 at the end of this article.

5 St Vincent and the Grenadines (2009); Iceland (2013).

6 See also Jeffords, C. & Minkler, L., ‘Do Constitutions Matter? The Effects of Constitutional Environmental Rights Provisions on Environmental Outcomes’ (2016) 69(2) Kyklos, pp. 294–335 Google Scholar.

7 Bruch, C., Corker, W. & VanArsdale, C., ‘Constitutional Environmental Law: Giving Force to Fundamental Principles in Africa’ (2001) 26(1) Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 131–211 Google Scholar, at 135.

8 Boyd’s work provided major guidance on when each constitution was amended: D.R. Boyd, ‘The Status of Constitutional Protection for the Environment in Other Nations’, David Suzuki Foundation, Paper No. 4, 2014, available at: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/2014/whitepapers/DSF%20White%20Paper%204.pdf.

9 See Table 1 at the end of this article. The categorization for some states was borderline, particularly between regime consolidation and crisis change (e.g. Egypt, Guinea and Myanmar). Generally, where the existing government retained control over the process, the state is assigned to the regime consolidation category. While in Eritrea the government totally controlled the process, it is assigned to crisis change as a result of its gaining independence from Ethiopia.

10 Constitution of Algeria, Art. 122(19)–(20); Constitution of Austria, Arts 10(9) and (11); Constitution of Sierra Leone, Art. 17(3)(a).

11 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, Art. 27.

12 Constitution of Australia, Art. 47; Constitution of Uruguay, Art. 100.

13 Fighting desertification is mandated in the Constitutions of Niger (Art. 36) and Somalia (Art. 45(3)(d)).

14 Frank, Hironaka and Schofer use a similar justification in examining the global spread of Environmental Ministries as distinct from Natural Resource Ministries, stating that the former ‘seek to protect, rather than exploit, nature’s bounty’: Frank, D.J., Hironaka, A. & Schofer, E., ‘The Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century’ (2000) 65 American Sociological Review, pp. 96–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 99.

15 See generally Gellers, J.C., ‘Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights: A Global Quantitative Analysis’ (2015) 6(1) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, pp. 75–97 Google Scholar; Gellers, J.C., ‘Environmental Constitutionalism in South Asia: Analyzing the Experiences of Nepal and Sri Lanka’ (2015) 4(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 395–423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Gorman, R., ‘The Case for Enshrining a Right to Environment within EU Law’ (2013) 19(3) European Public Law, pp. 583–604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nickel, J.W., ‘The Human Right to a Safe Environment: Philosophical Perspectives on Its Scope and Justification’ (1993) 18(1) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 281–295 Google Scholar; Thorme, M., ‘Establishing Environment as a Human Right’ (1990–91) 19(2) Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, pp. 301–342 Google Scholar; Nash, J., ‘The Case for Biotic Rights’ (1993) 18(1) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 235–249 Google Scholar; Gormley, W.P., ‘The Legal Obligation of the International Community to Guarantee a Pure and Decent Environment: The Expansion of Human Rights Norms’ (1990) 3(1) Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 85–116 Google Scholar; Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment’ (2006–7) 18(3) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 471–511 Google Scholar. For a more sceptical view of giving constitutional protection to environmental rights, see Fernandez, J.L., ‘State Constitutions, Environmental Rights Provisions, and the Doctrine of Self-Execution: A Political Question?’ (1993) 17 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 333–387 Google Scholar.

16 Kotzé, L.J., ‘Arguing Global Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 199–233 Google Scholar, at 208.

17 Ibid., p. 207.

18 Ibid., p. 210.

19 Hayward, T., ‘Constitutional Environmental Rights: A Case for Political Analysis’ (2000) 48(3) Political Studies, pp. 558–574 Google Scholar, at 559.

20 Rodriguez-Rivera, L., ‘Is the Human Right to Environment Recognized under International Law? It Depends on the Source’ (2001) 12(1) Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, pp. 1–45 Google Scholar, at 9–16.

21 For more on environmental procedural rights, see Daly, E., ‘Constitutional Protection for Environmental Rights: The Benefits of Environmental Process’ (2012) 17(2) International Journal of Peace Studies, pp. 71–80 Google Scholar; Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 613–642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

23 Constitution of Georgia, Art. 37(5); Charter for the Environment (France), Art. 7; Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Art. 39; Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, Art. 35(2); Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, Art. 115; Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, Art. 37(2); Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro, Art. 23.

24 Constitution of the Republic of Finland, s. 20(2); Charter for the Environment (France), Art. 7; Constitution of the Sovereign and Independent State of Eretria, Art. 10(3).

25 Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, Art. 70.

26 See Stone, C.D., ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 South California Law Review, pp. 450–501 Google Scholar.

27 Nash, n. 15 above, p. 238.

28 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, Arts 71–4; see Kotzé, L.J. & Villavicencio Calzadilla, P., ‘Somewhere Between Rhetoric and Reality: Environmental Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature in Ecuador’ (2017) 6(3) Transnational Environmental Law (forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daly, E., ‘The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights of Nature’ (2012) 21(1) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, pp. 63–66 Google Scholar.

29 UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev. 1(1973), 16 Jun. 1972, available at: http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=97&;articleid=1503.

30 Bruch, Corker & VanArsdale, n. 7 above, p. 158.

31 Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Art. 45.

32 Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Art. 21.

33 Constitution of the Republic of Nepal, Art. 35(5).

34 Constitution of Estonia, Art. 35.

35 Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, Art. 35(3).

36 Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 67; Constitution of Democratic Republic of Congo, Art. 54(2).

37 Bruch, Corker & VanArsdale, n. 7 above, p. 149; Brandl, E. & Bungert, H., ‘Constitutional Entrenchment of Environmental Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Experiences Abroad’ (1992) 16(1) Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 1–100 Google Scholar, at 16.

38 Constitution of the Slovak Republic, Art. 55(1).

39 Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan, Art. 5(2)(c).

40 Constitution of the Republic of Madagascar, Art. 37.

41 Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, Art. 55.

42 Freedom of the Press Act (1766) (Sweden), Art. 9(3), Ch. 1.

43 Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro, Art. 59(2).

44 Constitution of Estonia, Art. 34.

45 Brown, N.J., ‘Reason, Interest, Rationality, and Passion in Constitution Drafting’ (2008) 6(4) Perspectives in Politics, pp. 675–689 Google Scholar, at 682; Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z. & Blount, J., ‘Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter?’ (2009) 5(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science, pp. 201–223 Google Scholar, at 208; Scheppele, K.L., ‘Aspirational and Aversive Constitutionalism: The Case for Studying Cross-Constitutional Influence Through Negative Models’ (2003) 1(2) International Journal of Constitutional Law, pp. 296–324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 300.

46 Schauer, F., ‘On the Migration of Constitutional Ideas’ (2004–05) 37 Connecticut Law Review, pp. 907–919 Google Scholar, at 910.

47 Lutz, D., ‘Towards a Theory of Constitutional Amendment’ (1994) 88(2) American Political Science Review, pp. 355–370 Google Scholar, at 358; Arato, A., ‘Forms of Constitution Making and Theories of Democracy’ (1995) 17(2) Cardozo Law Review, pp. 191–231 Google Scholar, at 194.

48 Hart, n. 1 above, p. 9.

49 Goderis, B. & Versteeg, M., ‘Transnational Constitutions: A Conceptual Framework’, in D. Galligan & M. Versteeg (eds), Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 103–133 Google Scholar.

50 Greece did not adopt environmental constitutionalism following the end of military dictatorship in 1975, but added the provisions in 2001 in a non-crisis situation.

51 Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (India).

52 Anderson, M.R., ‘Individual Rights to Environmental Protection in India’, in A. Boyle & M.R. Anderson (eds), Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 199–225 Google Scholar, at 213.

53 Swaram Singh Committee Report, (1976) 2 SCC (Jour) 45, available at: http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/76v2a4.htm.

54 Bannon, A., ‘Designing a Constitution-Drafting Process: Lessons from Kenya’ (2007) 116(8) Yale Law Journal, pp. 1824–1872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1827.

55 Brown, n. 45 above, p. 680.

56 Constitution of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Constitution of the Sultanate of Oman. Al-Gilani and Filor illustrate how the insertion of environmental rights in the constitution of an autocratic state can make very little difference to environmental protection in practice: Al-Gilani, A. & Filor, S., ‘Reforming the National Framework for Environmental Policies in Saudi Arabia’ (1999) 42(2) Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, pp. 253–269 Google Scholar, at 266.

57 Landau, D., ‘The Importance of Constitution Making’ (2012) 89(3) Denver University Law Review, pp. 611–633 Google Scholar, at 614–15.

58 Ginsburg, Elkins & Blount, n. 45 above, p. 209.

59 Lutz, n. 47 above, p. 358; Rasch, B.E. & Congleton, R.D., ‘Amendment Procedure and Constitutional Stability’, in R.D. Congleton & B. Swedenborg (eds), Democratic Constitutional Change and Public Policy: Analysis and Evidence (The MIT Press, 2006), pp. 319–342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 323.

60 J. Verschuuren, ‘The Constitutional Right to Environmental Protection’, abbreviated version of a doctorate thesis that was published in Dutch in Het grondrecht op bescherming van het leefmilieu (W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink BV, 1993), available at: https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/364753/envartcult.html#N_1_.

61 Seerden, R. & Heldeweg, M., ‘Public Environmental Law in the Netherlands’, in R. Seerden, M. Heldeweg & K. Deketelaere (eds), Public Environmental Law in the European Union and the United States: A Comparative Analysis (Kluwer Law International, 2002), pp. 341–394 Google Scholar, at 346.

62 Goodman, R. & Jinks, D., ‘How to Influence States: Socialisation and International Human Rights Law’ (2004) 54(3) Duke Law Journal, pp. 621–703 Google Scholar; Simmons, B.A., Dobbin, F. & Garrett, G., ‘The International Diffusion of Liberalism’ (2006) 60(4) International Organisations, pp. 781–810 Google Scholar; Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above; Ginsburg, Elkins & Blount, n. 45 above.

63 Simmons, Dobbin & Garrett, ibid., p. 790.

64 Goodman & Jinks, n. 62 above, p. 633.

65 Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above, p. 106.

66 Ibid.

67 Karlsson, C., ‘Comparing Constitutional Change in European Union Member States: In Search of a Theory’ (2014) 52(3) Journal of Common Market Studies, pp. 566–581 Google Scholar, at 568.

68 Schauer, n. 46 above, p. 914.

69 Marks, S., ‘The Process of Creating a New Constitution in Cambodia’, in L.E. Miller (ed.), Framing the State in Times of Transition: Case Studies in Constitution-Making (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010), pp. 207–244 Google Scholar, at 236.

70 Bannon, n. 54 above, p. 1859; Reyntjens, F., ‘The Winds of Change: Political and Constitutional Evolution in Francophone Africa 1990–1991’ (1991) 35(1/2) Journal of African Law, pp. 44–55 Google Scholar, at 45.

71 Frank, Hironaka & Schofer, n. 14 above, p. 101.

72 Bekhechi, M.A., ‘Some Observations Regarding Environmental Covenants and Conditionalities in World Bank Lending Activities’ (1999) 3 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, pp. 287–314 Google Scholar, at 306.

73 World Bank, Operations Policy and Country Services, ‘Review of World Bank Conditionality’, 9 Sept. 2005, p. 17, available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-1114615847489/ConditionalityFinalDCpaperDC9-9-05.pdf.

74 Gellers, ‘Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights’, n. 15 above, p. 85.

75 Gellers conducted statistical research on the reasons why states adopt environmental constitutionalism and found that there is an inconclusive relationship between a country’s reliance on foreign financial assistance and the likelihood that it will adopt constitutional environmental rights: Gellers, ‘Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights’, n. 15 above, p. 93.

76 Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above, p. 111.

77 Simmons, Dobbin & Garrett, n. 62 above, p. 792.

78 Law, D. & Versteeg, M., ‘The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism’ (2011) 99(5) California Law Review, pp. 1163–1257 Google Scholar, at 1175.

79 See Vogel, D., Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

80 Bernauer, T. & Caduff, L., ‘In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation’ (2004) 24(1) Journal of Public Policy, pp. 99–126 Google Scholar, at 101.

81 Simmons, Dobbin & Garrett, n. 62 above, p. 795.

82 Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above, p. 104.

83 Johnston, A.I., ‘The Social Effects of International Institutions on Domestic (and Foreign Policy) Actors’, in D. Drezner (ed.), Locating the Proper Authorities: The Interaction of Domestic and International Institutions (University of Michigan Press, 2003), pp. 145–196 Google Scholar, at 145, 153.

84 Goodman & Jinks, n. 62 above, p. 635.

85 Ginsburg, Elkins & Blount, n. 45 above, p. 209. See Frankenberg, G., ‘Constitutional Transfer: The IKEA Theory Revisited’ (2010) 8(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law, pp. 563–579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Davison, J., ‘America’s Impact on Constitutional Change in Eastern Europe’ (1992) 55 Albany Law Review, pp. 793–814 Google Scholar.

87 Feldman, N., ‘Imposed Constitutionalism’ (2005) 37(4) Connecticut Law Review, pp. 857–889 Google Scholar, at 868.

88 S. Romero, ‘Leftist Candidate in Ecuador Is Ahead in Vote, Exit Polls Show’, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2006.

89 It is relevant to note that the previous Ecuadorian Constitution had also demonstrated environmental constitutionalism, including a right to environment (Art. 23(6)) and environmental duties on the state (Art. 3).

90 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, Art. 71(1).

91 Whittemore, M.E., ‘The Problem of Enforcing Nature’s Rights under Ecuador’s Constitution: Why the 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite’ (2011) 20(3) Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, pp. 659–691 Google Scholar, at 662.

92 Personal communication with Mari Margil, Associate Director, CELDF, 21 Jan. 2015. Within the Assembly, Acosta was regarded as being similarly supportive of the rights of indigenous people, whereas Correa was seen as opposed: Becker, M., ‘Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador’ (2011) 38(1) Latin American Perspectives, pp. 47–62 Google Scholar.

93 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (1998), Art. 84(6).

94 Personal communication with Mari Margil, Associate Director, CELDF, 21 Jan. 2015.

95 Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above, p. 119.

96 Goodman & Jinks, n. 62 above, p. 638.

97 Simmons, Dobbin & Garrett, n. 62 above, p. 799.

98 Hart, n. 1 above, p. 2.

99 Frank, Hironaka & Schofer, n. 14 above, p. 99.

100 Ibid.

101 Constitution of Romania, Art. 134(2)(e)–(f).

102 Ionita, G.-I., ‘The Fundamental Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment: Romanian Particularities of Recognition and Guarantee’ (2012) 2 Law Review online articles, pp. 1–22 Google Scholar, at 12, available at: http://www.internationallawreview.eu/fisiere/pdf/06-Iulian-Ionitax.pdf.

103 Ibid., p. 18.

104 Bruch, Corker & VanArsdale, n. 7 above, pp. 145, 209 Table 2.

105 Nairobi (Kenya), 27 June 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986, available at: http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr.

106 Bruch, Corker & VanArsdale, n. 7 above, p. 179.

107 Boyle, n. 15 above, p. 481.

108 Gellers, J.C., ‘Greening Constitutions with Environmental Rights: Testing the Isomorphism Thesis’ (2012) 29(4) Review of Policy Research, pp. 522–543 Google Scholar; Gellers, ‘Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights’, n. 15 above.

109 Ackerman, B., We the People: Foundations (Belknap Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Elster, J., Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (Cambridge University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

110 Reich, G.M., ‘The 1988 Constitution a Decade Later: Ugly Compromises Reconsidered’ (1998) 40(4) Journal of Inter-American Studies & World Affairs, pp. 5–24 Google Scholar, at 6–7.

111 Nicol, D., ‘Progressive Eras, Periods of Reaction, and Constitutional Change’ (2014) 15(3) German Law Journal, pp. 437–459 Google Scholar, at 457.

112 Feldman, n. 87 above, p. 877.

113 Marrani, D., ‘The Intersection Between Constitution, Human Rights and the Environment: The French Charter for the Environment and the New Ex Post Constitutional Control in France’ (2014) 16(2) Environmental Law Review, pp. 107–121 Google Scholar, at 108; Bourg, D. & Whiteside, K.H., ‘France’s Charter for the Environment: Of Presidents, Principles and Environmental Protection’ (2007) 15(2) Modern & Contemporary France, pp. 117–133 Google Scholar, at 122.

114 Speech by J. Chirac, ‘Avranches’, 18 Mar. 2002, cited in Marrani, D., ‘The Second Anniversary of the Constitutionalisation of the French Charter for the Environment: Constitutional and Environmental Implications’ (2008) 10(1) Environmental Law Review, pp. 9–27 Google Scholar, at 12.

115 Bourg & Whiteside, n. 113 above, p. 122.

116 Ibid.

117 Bourg & Whiteside, n. 113 above. See Marrani, D., ‘Human Rights and Environmental Protection: The Pressure of the Charter for the Environment on the French Administrative Courts’ (2009) 10(1) Sustainable Development Law & Policy, pp. 52–57 Google Scholar.

118 Bernauer & Caduff, n. 80 above, p. 105.

119 See H. Weidner, ‘Environmental Policy and Politics in Germany’, in Desai, U. (ed.), Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries (The MIT Press, 2002), pp. 149–202 Google Scholar.

120 Brandl & Bungert, n. 37 above, pp. 23–30.

121 Quint, P.E., ‘The Constitutional Guarantees of Social Welfare in the Process of German Unification’ (1999) 47(2) The American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 303–326 Google Scholar, at 313.

122 Baukloh, A. & Roose, J., ‘The Environmental Movement and Environmental Concern in Contemporary Germany’, in A. Goodbody (ed.), The Culture of German Environmentalism: Anxieties, Visions, Realities (Berghahn, 2002), pp. 81–101 Google Scholar, at 81.

123 Haupt, C.E., ‘The Nature and Effects of Constitutional State Objectives: Assessing the German Basic Law’s Animal Protection Clause’ (2009–10) 16(2) Animal Law Review, pp. 213–257 Google Scholar, at 219.

124 Quint, P.E., ‘What Is a Twentieth-Century Constitution?’ (2007) 67(1) Maryland Law Review, pp. 238–257 Google Scholar, at 244.

125 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 20(a). Grimm, D., ‘The Basic Law at 60 – Identity and Change’ (2010) 11(1) German Law Journal online articles, pp. 34–46 Google Scholar, available at: https://www.germanlawjournal.com/volume-11-no-01.

126 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) [Federal Constitutional Court], 15 Jan. 2002, 104 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE) 337, 347 (FRG).

127 Haupt, n. 123 above, p. 220; Evans, E., ‘Constitutional Inclusion of Animal Rights in Germany and Switzerland: How Did Animal Protection Become an Issue of National Importance?’ (2010) 18 Society & Animals, pp. 231–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Law & Versteeg, n. 78 above.

129 Ibid., p. 1223.

130 Ibid., p. 1175, 1230; as measured between 2000–6.

131 See Table 1 at the end of this article.

132 For a comprehensive discussion of the influence of the Westminster model on constitutional governance internationally, see Harding, A., ‘The “Westminster Model” Constitution Overseas: Transplantation, Adaptation and Development in Commonwealth States’ (2004) 4(2) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, pp. 143–166 Google Scholar.

133 Goderis & Versteeg, n. 49 above, p. 103.

134 O’Brien, D. & Wheatle, S., ‘Post-Independence Constitutional Reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean and a New Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms for Jamaica’ [2012] Public Law, pp. 683–702 Google Scholar, at 685. The states examined here and their date of independence are: Jamaica (1962), Trinidad and Tobago (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Dominica (1978), St Lucia (1979), St Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), and St Kitts and Nevis (1983).

135 O’Brien, D., The Constitutional Systems of the Commonwealth Caribbean: A Contextual Analysis (Hart, 2014), p. 267 Google Scholar.

136 Z. Elkins & T. Ginsburg, ‘Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects’, SSRC Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum, Jan. 2011, p. 15, available at: http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/files/CDG_Constitutional%20Reform%20in%20the%20English%20Speaking%20Caribbean_CPPF%20Briefing%20Paper_January%202011_f.pdf?6c8912; C. Barrow-Giles, ‘Regional Trends in Constitutional Developments in the Commonwealth Caribbean’, SSRC Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum, Jan. 2010, p. 9, available at: http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/Cynthia%20Barrow.pdf; Bishop, M.L., ‘Slaying the “Westmonster” in the Caribbean? Constitutional Reform in St Vincent and the Grenadines’ (2011) 13(3) British Journal of Political & International Relations, pp. 420–437 Google Scholar.

137 Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Jamaica), Art. 13(2)(l). A proposal by a special select committee of the Jamaican Parliament to have the provision conditioned by the phrase ‘compatible with sustainable development’ was not accepted in the final draft: ‘Report of the Joint Select Committee on its Deliberations on the Bill Entitled an Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to Provide for a Charter of Rights and for Connected Matters’, pp. 42–3, available at: http://jis.gov.jm/media/charter-of-rights1.pdf.

138 O’Brien & Wheatle, n. 134 above, p. 698.

139 Bruch, Corker & VanArsdale, n. 7 above, p. 135.

140 Gordon, R., ‘Growing Constitutions’ (1999) 1(3) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, pp. 528–581 Google Scholar, at 542; Go, J., ‘Globalizing Constitutionalism? Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000’ (2003) 18(1) International Society, pp. 71–95 Google Scholar, at 71.

141 Gordon, ibid., p. 558; see also Slinn, P., ‘A Fresh Start for Africa? New African Constitutional Perspectives for the 1990s’ (1991) 35(1–2) Journal of African Law, pp. 1–7 Google Scholar; Munslow, B., ‘Why Has the Westminster Model Failed in Africa?’ (1983) 36(2) Parliamentary Affairs, pp. 218–228 Google Scholar; Huntington, S.P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (University of Oklahoma Press, 1993), pp. 20–21 Google Scholar.

142 Sprinz, D. & Vaahtoranta, T., ‘The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy’ (1994) 48(1) International Organization, pp. 77–105 Google Scholar, at 79.

143 Frank, Hironaka & Schofer, n. 14 above, p. 99. In an article published in response to these authors, Buttel similarly questions whether ‘environmentalism tends to be a direct response to environmental degradation in objective terms’: Buttel, F.H., ‘World Society, the Nation-State, and Environmental Protection: Comment on Frank, Hironaka, and Schofer’ (2000) 65(1) American Sociological Review, pp. 117–121 Google Scholar.

144 Mazurski, K.R., ‘Communism and the Environment’ (1991) 5(4) Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, pp. 39–44 Google Scholar; Stec, S., ‘Ecological Rights Advancing the Rule of Law in Eastern Europe’ (1998) 13(1) Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, pp. 275–358 Google Scholar, at 278.

145 Cholewinski, R., ‘The Protection of Human Rights in the New Polish Constitution’ (1998) 22(2) Fordham International Law Journal, pp. 236–291 Google Scholar, at 276.

146 Stec, n. 144 above, p. 285.

147 Fernandes, E., ‘Law, Politics and Environmental Protection in Brazil’ (1992) 4(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 41–56 Google Scholar, at 41–2.

148 Gellers, ‘Environmental Constitutionalism in South Asia’, n. 15 above, p. 404.

149 Ginsburg, Elkins & Blount, n. 45 above, p. 209.

150 Fisher, A.C. & Peterson, F.M., ‘The Environment in Economics: A Survey’ (1976) 14(1) Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 1–33 Google Scholar; Bekerman, W., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?’ (1992) 20(4) World Development, pp. 481–496 Google Scholar; Grossman, G.M. & Krueger, A.B., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment’ (1995) 110(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 353–377 Google Scholar.

151 Brown, E.F., ‘In Defence of Environmental Rights in East European Constitutions’ (1993) 1(1) University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, pp. 191–217 Google Scholar, at 201, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=995326.

152 Ibid.

153 L. Myers, ‘Czechs Borrow Bill Of Rights: New Constitution May Go Further, If Some Have Their Way’, Chicago Tribune, 11 Oct. 1992.

154 Agnone, J., ‘Amplifying Public Opinions: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Movement’ (2006–07) 85(4) Social Forces, pp. 1593–1620 Google Scholar, at 1608–9.

155 O’Brien & Wheatle, n. 134 above, p. 685.

156 Landemore, H., ‘Inclusive Constitution-Making: The Icelandic Experiment’ (2015) 23(2) Journal of Political Philosophy, pp. 166–191 Google Scholar, at 170.

157 Behnke, N. & Benz, A., ‘Politics of Constitutional Change between Reform and Evolution’ (2009) 39(2) Publius: The Journal of Federalism, pp. 213–240 Google Scholar, at 222.

158 Ruhl, J.B., ‘An Environmental Rights Amendment: Good Message, Bad Idea’ (1997) 11(3) Natural Resources and the Environment, pp. 46–49 Google Scholar, at 47.

159 See Danielsson, J., ‘The First Casualty of the Crisis: Iceland’, in A. Felton & C. Reinhart (eds), The First Global Financial Crisis of the 21st Century: Part II June–December 2008 (Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2009)Google Scholar; Matthiasson, T., ‘Spinning Out of Control, Iceland in Crisis’ (2009) 34(3) Nordic Journal of Political Economy, pp. 1–19 Google Scholar.

160 T. Gylfason, ‘Iceland’s Crowdsourced Constitution Killed by Parliament’, Verfassungsblog, 30 Mar. 2013, available at: http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/putsch-icelands-crowd-sourced-constitution-killed-by-parliament-2.

161 E. Bergman, ‘Reconstituting Iceland – Constitutional Reform Caught in a New Critical Order in the Wake of Crisis’, conference paper delivered at ‘Political Legitimacy and the Paradox of Regulation’, Leiden University (The Netherlands), 24–25 Jan. 2013, p. 12, available at: http://www.academia.edu/2463798/Reconstituting_Iceland_constitutional_reform_caught_in_a_new_critical_order_in_the_wake_of_crisis. The country undertook an unusual approach to drafting the new constitution, using innovative techniques such as crowdsourcing, broad-based public participation and the election of a 25-member Constitutional Assembly to write the document: Landemore, n. 156 above, p. 166.

162 B. Thorarensen, ‘Why the Making of a Crowd-Sourced Constitution in Iceland Failed’, Constitution Making and Constitution Change Blog, International Association of Constitutional Law, 26 Feb. 2014, available at: http://constitutional-change.com/why-the-making-of-a-crowd-sourced-constitution-in-iceland-failed.

163 Gylfason, n. 160 above.

164 Ginsburg, Elkins & Blount, n. 45 above, pp. 208, 215; Rosenn, K.S., ‘Brazil’s New Constitution: An Exercise in Transient Constitutionalism for a Transitional Society’ (1990) 38(4) American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 773–802 Google Scholar, at 777.

165 Landemore, n. 156 above, p. 170.

166 Bourg & Whiteside, n. 113 above, p. 117.

167 See Ruhl, n. 158 above; Sunstein, C., ‘Against Positive Rights’ (1993) 2(1) East European Constitutional Review, pp. 35–38 Google Scholar.

168 Okere, B.O., ‘The Protection of Human Rights in Africa and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Comparative Analysis with the European and American Systems’ (1984) 6(2) Human Rights Quarterly, pp. 141–159 Google Scholar, at 141; Kiwanuka, R.N., ‘The Meaning of “People” in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (1988) 82(1) The American Journal of International Law, pp. 80–101 Google Scholar.

169 O’Brien, n. 135 above, p. 275. The Charter also introduced proposals justified under the auspices of conservative Jamaican national values, such as a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage.

170 Schauer, n. 46 above, pp. 911–12; Gellers, ‘Environmental Constitutionalism in South Asia’, n. 15 above; Gordon, n. 140 above.

171 Fernandes, n. 147 above, p. 54.