Principles of enviromental protection

1. Fulfiled:Аdilbek.g Checked:Seitbekova.M

Principles of
enviromental protection
FULFILED:АDILBEK.G
CHECKED:SEITBEKOVA.M

2.

PLAN
Introduction
1.The principle of environmental protection
1.1 The principle of individual responsibility
1.2 The principle of proportionality
Conclusions
Bibliography

3.

Introduction
It is becoming obvious that in the last decades, environmentalism, under
all its forms, ranging from conservation of ecosystems to sustainable
development, is gaining more and more influence upon our daily activities.
Environmental organizations appear every day and promote all sorts of theories
regarding the necessity to protect the environment in which we live. It is also
clear that not only was the public opinion receptive to these ideas, but so were
the political parties, since environmental claims appear in nearly all of the
current political agendas.
Taking these aspects into consideration, the main objectives of this paper
will be, on the one hand, to analyze the environmental legislation (viewed as a
result of the environmentalists’ claims) in light of five universally valid ethical
principles and on the other hand, to propose a better juridical alternative for
solving conflicts regarding environmental protection. Based on the works of W.
Block (2008, p. 42-62) and M. N. Rothbard (1997, p. 121-170), I will underline
the necessity of a better definition and enforcement of private property rights. I
will also mention the disadvantages of the current environmental legislation
versus the advantages of the former Anglo-Saxon method of private individuals
pressing charges in court against polluters. Moreover, in this paper I will try to
interpret the unbelievable success of the current environmental movement in
light of the decay of natural rights theory.

4.

5.

1.The principle of private property
It is extremely important to mention the fact that in
order to solve any legal dispute regarding environmental
aspects one must start from the distribution of property
rights involved. Thus, the statement A claims that B
“pollutes the environment” must necessarily involve the
following: a certain action undertaken by B has as an
effect the invasion and damaging of A’s property. In this
case, it seems just that B must compensate A for the
damages that he is responsible for. We can ask now a
fundamental question: is it possible in the above
mentioned case for a certain individual C to accuse B of
polluting, even though the actions of B have not affected
C’s property in any way? If we want to respect private
property rights, the answer would be no.

6.

However, nearly all the environmental NGOs
who
lobby
against
polluters
(and
for more environmental legislation), in nearly all the
cases, do not have any property rights in the
polluted areas. An interesting example here would
be the claims made by Greenpeace and Agent Green
that the road 66A is “destroying the last forest
landscape left intact in Europe” and therefore it
must be stopped (Stop DN 66A – Salvaţi munţii
Retezat de Asfalt 2010). If we stick to the property
right paradigm, this claim has no substance because
the environmental NGOs do not have any property
in the respective forest. Their claims are thus null
and void.

7.

8.

1.1 The principle of individual responsibility
This third principle is probably the simplest and most
obvious of them all. It can be best expressed in the words
of Ludwig von Mises „Only individuals think. Only
individuals act.” (Von Mises 1951, p. 133). Thus, the
principle of individual responsibility is nothing more than
the application of the concept of methodological
individualism in juridical matters. If we would elaborate
on this point we could say that the individual must be held
responsible strictly for his own actions before the law.
However, the above mentioned principle, although
intuitively correct, is totally ignored when it comes to
pollution. The best examples in this case are global
warming and the depletion of the ozone layer (Reisman
2002)

9.

10.

1.2 The principle of proportionality
In order to answer this question we can invoke
the principle of restitution. According to this principle, if
a certain individual A damages through pollution the
property of B, A is obliged to pay B the value of the
damages he has caused. The method of pressing
charges in court remains in the paradigm of restitution
and proportionality while environmental legislation
does not. Although legislation puts forward the correct
idea that “the polluter pays”, we can go further and
ask who does the polluter pay? According to the
principle of restitution the polluter must repay
the victim for the damages he has caused, but
according to almost every environmental law the
money taken from the polluters automatically goes to
the state budget

11.

12.

Conclusions
The article has made an analysis, based on the
fundamental ethical principles, underlining the advantages and
disadvantages of the actual environmental legislation. As
alternative I have proposed the legal method used in the
former Anglo-Saxon countries between 1820 and 1830 – the
right of every individual to press charges against the polluter –
thus treating pollution as a conflict between two or more
individuals. Furthermore, the paper observed that the current
legal system does not always respect the principle of private
property, that the polluter is not obliged to pay damages to the
victims and that the plaintiff is not held responsible to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that a strict causality relation exists
between the actions of the polluter and his victimization.