The process of ‘constitutionalisation’ of the Community legal order is taking place through the interpenetration of different systems of human/fundamental/environmental rights protection in Europe (multi-level constitutional space). This has implications for all areas of competence of the EU, with the environmental sector being an especially rich laboratory. The question of linking the protection of the environment with human rights – ‘environmental rights’ – has gained prominence during the last three decades at the national, regional and international levels. The legal solutions put in practice in Europe in order to tackle such a linkage are threefold. A first solution mobilized existing human rights, such as the right to life, to achieve environmental protection. This has been the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. A second possibility passed by the establishment of a substantive fundamental right to environmental protection, belonging to the theoretical category of the so-called ‘solidarity rights’ or ‘third generation rights’. This approach has been followed at the national level in the constitutional law of some of member states of the EU. A last prospect considers the difficulty of establishing an operational, substantive, environmental right and, therefore, focuses instead on procedural/collaborative manifestations of such a right, such as access to information or public participation in environmental matters. Such rights have their legal basis in the Aarhus Convention, which has been recently implemented into EC law, given that the EC along with most of its member states is a party to it. This paper will, first, provide a brief overview of the EU’s ‘multilevel-constitutional space’ and its evolution. Secondly, it will analyse the different legal avenues used in Europe, to shape fundamental environmental rights. Lastly, it will focus on one of such avenues: that of fundamental environmental rights as procedural rights. In particular, it will analyse the regime of the right to environmental information as a proof of a concrete, effective, fundamental environmental right.
Anka D. Mason
nation-states and their allies often act with impunity, using threats of sexual violence as part of the violent subjugation of men, as demonstrated in the findings of fact in Al-Nashiri v. Poland , where the European Court of Human Rights addressed the cia ’s use of torture against Abd al-Rahim al
suffering life) – a principle that seemed to be admitted in Bland . In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights disagreed with a determination of the House of Lords that rights under Article 8(1) were not engaged by the blanket ban upon assisted suicide. 43 However, Article 8(2) provides for an
Jon Braddy and Billy Huff
appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, but what they failed to recognise was that Templeman’s statement is actually quite accurate. The practice of sadomasochism threatens the fundamental fantasy through which society is organised. The practice of sadomasochism situates one against the social