Volume 21: Issue | Numéro 1 (2024)
Judicial Role Morality in Climate Change Litigation: An Embrace of Two Principled Lenses
Hassan M. Ahmad
Domestic judges sit in a unique position. They can combat unabated climate impacts in a way their political counterparts cannot—and have not. This article takes a partisan view to argue for a principled yet provocative judicial role morality such that judiciaries can consistently adjudicate private and public law claims that are aimed at confronting an inevitably inhabitable planet. Climate change litigation that has and will continue to manifest controversial and complex doctrines and principles requires judges to step outside their historically confined role as interpreters of existing law. Judiciaries that hear climate-related claims would be well served to adopt a Dworkinian rights-based rule of law— one that accords with elements of Habermas’s co-originality thesis. This expansive adjudicative scope would necessitate consideration of the morally soundest justification of the rulebook of existing doctrines in a way that intends to respond to the urgency and dire consequences that climate change poses. In the absence of relatively more sweeping legislative and policy measures promulgated by the political branches of government, independent judiciaries may be an effective end-around to achieve robust climate policies.
Antoine Laurent
Dès lors que le paysage lie la nature et la société qui l’habite et l’aménage, la question de sa protection concentre les enjeux et difficultés de la pluralité d’intérêts du développement durable. Un bon support de réflexion à ce propos est fourni par un récent arrêt du Conseil d’État français, où figure une tension opposant principalement l’écologie, qui plaide en faveur du développement de l’énergie éolienne, et la culture, qui s’oppose aux changements du paysage faisant écho à une œuvre littéraire majeure, à savoir La Recherche de Proust.
Deux questions se trouvent ainsi mêlées : la première, technique, porte sur l’inclusion d’une dimension immatérielle dans la protection du paysage, c’est-à-dire la prise en considération de son lien avec une œuvre culturelle, indépendamment de ses caractéristiques physiques. La réponse positive qui lui est apportée découle de la notion même de paysage qui lie la nature à sa perception par l’être humain, cette dernière incluant la culture qui l’imprègne et la forge.
La seconde, plus générale, porte sur la conciliation des divers intérêts sociétaux recherchée par le développement durable, et mène à identifier la proportionnalité comme principe sousjacent du raisonnement juridictionnel. En effet, au regard du risque de protection généralisée du paysage à travers une dimension culturelle exacerbée, qui entraverait tout projet éolien, il convient d’élargir la focale en prenant en compte les autres intérêts en jeu – ici le patrimoine architectural et la vie économique autour du site – et le degré d’atteinte portée par les éoliennes. C’est par cette voie de la proportionnalité que la protection du « paysage culturel » ne mène pas nécessairement à une crispation irrésoluble entre écologie et culture, et qu’est permise la recherche d’une harmonie plus englobante à travers une décision contextualisée et nuancée.
Unlocking the Black Box: Navigating the Boundaries of Judicial Review of Regulations Post-Vavilov
Andre Matheusik
This article examines the judicial review of delegated legislation after the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2019 landmark administrative law decision Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. Using environmental regulations as an example, the article focuses on Cabinet-enacted regulations—a delegated instrument that has traditionally demanded significant judicial deference on review—and considers the recent trend of appellate courts to follow Vavilov’s presumption of reasonableness when determining the standard of review. Delegated legislation is an important, but not often discussed, tool for Canadian legislatures to implement and create laws via the executive branch of government. However, because of Canada’s flexible relationship between the legislature and the executive, this important lawmaking tool may sometimes become a backdoor method for governments to create laws that would not be politically desirable for the legislature to pass directly, where they would be open to criticism, debate, and vote. While critics might view judicial interference with the legislature and executive’s delegation relationship as inappropriate, I argue that a more searching judicial review of regulations under Vavilov strengthens the separation of powers and upholds the rule of law. Although courts will not question the policy wisdom of delegates, Vavilov’s reformulated reasonableness constraints may require the executive to more thoroughly justify their delegated lawmaking through the regulatory record. Under this approach, the legislative branch still maintains sovereignty. Subject to the visibility of primary lawmaking, legislatures may ultimately restrict judicial review to the extent constitutional via legislated standards of review.