In terms of the research experience, it was incredibly positive for me. I enjoyed the research process and came to the conclusion that it is something I would like to pursue in the future. I struggled with the nature of research, in that I found it difficult to turn my brain 'off' and set boundaries between research and my personal time. I also struggled with self-doubt and confidence about the quality of my work. I would need to find healthier coping mechanisms and approaches if I want to pursue research further. Moreover, the research experience taught me self-discipline in that I am now able to conduct a completely self-directed project and produce a thoughtful contribution to the field. Another aspect I improved was my time-management skills; through trial and error, I was able to work out a system which worked for me. During my research period, I reached out to and connected with a few people in my field. Although I was nervous at first, I found that most people are very receptive and willing to discuss things with me! I made some wonderful connections with other researchers both at Laidlaw and in the wider academic community, which made me feel less isolated as my research was very much an individual activity. It was also helpful to get various perspectives on questions I had. Acknowledgements: Thank you to the Laidlaw Foundation for the opportunity to complete this research, as well as the financial support. Further thanks to Dr. David Kenny who supervised the research.
Summer 1 Research: Reflective Blog Post
This summer I completed my research project, A Right to a Healthy Environment in Ireland: A Contribution, which argued for its recognition within the Irish jurisprudence as a mechanism for more effective protection of both the environment and us as individuals.
Like
Liked by Trinity College Dublin
and 1 other
My research was split into three sections: Ireland, South Africa and the Netherlands. In the end, I cut out the Dutch section for several reasons. Firstly, I did not anticipate enjoying the first two sections as much as I did, which led to these sections being very detailed. I didn't want to include the Dutch section and give up some of the detail, which I believed it was worthwhile, nor did I want to include the section and it look sparse in comparison. Secondly, I believe that its inclusion was somewhat ambitious in the first place. I think that its a lesson of always starting small and building up - rather than overestimating what can be done in a smaller time frame like six weeks. Finally, I believe that the comparison works better when it is only between two jurisdictions. Other than this setback, my research went exactly as planned. I used a combination of primary sources, mainly caselaw and reports from organisations such as the UN, as well as secondary sources (academic commentary) to form the theoretical basis for my argument. The final findings of my project were as follows. Firstly, the right to a healthy environment has not been recognised in Ireland for two reasons (as identified by analysis of the Friends of the Irish Environment decision): the right is superfluous as it does not extend the right to life or bodily integrity, or the right is impermissibly vague as its nature, parameters and applicability have not been concretely shown. Through analysis of the right in South African jurisprudence, as well as the constitutional structures built to support it, the research found that the right has the potential to not only offer higher and more effective protection of the environment, but it additionally strengthens protections for other rights which depend on a healthy state of the environment to be actualised. This concept, the interdependency of rights, intimately affects other socio-economic rights such as access to housing, water and healthcare. The manner in which the environmental right is construed and interpreted has allowed for broad and encompassing protections, including of facets such as religion and culture (the link between environment and religious beliefs was demonstrated through analysis of the Wild coast NPC decision). Central to this is the definition of ‘environment’ under the South African Constitution, which takes an anthropocentric view, reflecting the complex interrelationships between people and their environment, and how it relates to concepts of well-being, psychological safety and economic dimensions. The right is also balanced by negative and positive obligations, meaning that a theoretical baseline of protection is allowed on top of the explicitly set-out duties upon the State. The negative aspects of the right protect both ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ which is significant as it creates a generous variety of circumstances which are protected – including more than simply physical health, but encompassing mental health, psychological and cultural well-being, and senses of identity stemming from a person’s conception of their immediate environment. This is important as it shows clearly the range of protections which the environment right extends beyond simply rights to life and bodily integrity.
A further important aspect of the right was identified, that of intergenerational equity. It plays an important role in preserving the environment for future generations, as well as accurately reflecting the nature of climate change – the actions taken today may only be realised in decades to come. Moreover, the legal procedures are adjusted to allow climate litigants access to courts, where normative standing rules may have prevented them from doing so, as was the case in Ireland. Standing rules are relaxed, yet balanced by realistic barriers, to allow for litigants to gain access despite not personally experiencing infringement. This is because the fundamental purpose of said rules is to facilitate the effective enforcement of constitutional rights, which are regarded as the highest order of rights in the land. Broader standing rules in comparison to Ireland are mitigated by reasonable limitations, such as the doctrines of public interest, mootness and ripeness. This means that a fair balance is struck between allowing litigants to gain access to courts, as well as preventing frivolous and hypothetical lawsuits. Therefore, the overall finding is that the approach to not only the inclusion of a fundamental environmental right, but also the legal procedures which assist it, is more preferential than the current approach in Ireland if the goal is to allow climate litigants to access courts and remedies.
Hannah Viljoen
(She/Her)
Student, Trinity College Dublin
Law student at Trinity with a passion for human and environmental rights! Love cooking and developing recipes in my free time.
Please sign in
If you are a registered user on Laidlaw Scholars Network, please sign in