We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
View all Google Scholar citations for this article.
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.
Dublin City University, School of Law & Government, Dublin (Ireland). Email:
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.
Dublin City University, School of Law & Government, Dublin (Ireland). Email:
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.
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 .
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 .
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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 ; O’Gorman, R., ‘The Case for Enshrining a Right to Environment within EU Law’ (2013) 19(3) European Public Law, pp. 583–604 ; 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 ; Thorme, M., ‘Establishing Environment as a Human Right’ (1990–91) 19(2) Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, pp. 301–342 ; Nash, J., ‘The Case for Biotic Rights’ (1993) 18(1) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 235–249 ; 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 ; Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights or Environmental Rights? A Reassessment’ (2006–7) 18(3) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 471–511 . 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 .
16 Kotzé, L.J., ‘Arguing Global Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 199–233 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 613–642 .
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 .
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); 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 .
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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , at 300.
46 Schauer, F., ‘On the Migration of Constitutional Ideas’ (2004–05) 37 Connecticut Law Review, pp. 907–919 , at 910.
47 Lutz, D., ‘Towards a Theory of Constitutional Amendment’ (1994) 88(2) American Political Science Review, pp. 355–370 , at 358; Arato, A., ‘Forms of Constitution Making and Theories of Democracy’ (1995) 17(2) Cardozo Law Review, pp. 191–231 , 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 .
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 , 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 , 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 , at 266.
57 Landau, D., ‘The Importance of Constitution Making’ (2012) 89(3) Denver University Law Review, pp. 611–633 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; Simmons, B.A., Dobbin, F. & Garrett, G., ‘The International Diffusion of Liberalism’ (2006) 60(4) International Organisations, pp. 781–810 ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , at 1175.
79 See Vogel, D., Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Harvard University Press, 1995).
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 , 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 , 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 .
86 Davison, J., ‘America’s Impact on Constitutional Change in Eastern Europe’ (1992) 55 Albany Law Review, pp. 793–814 .
87 Feldman, N., ‘Imposed Constitutionalism’ (2005) 37(4) Connecticut Law Review, pp. 857–889 , 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 , 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 .
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 , 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 ; Gellers, ‘Explaining the Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights’, n. 15 above.
109 Ackerman, B., We the People: Foundations (Belknap Press, 1991); Elster, J., Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
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 , at 6–7.
111 Nicol, D., ‘Progressive Eras, Periods of Reaction, and Constitutional Change’ (2014) 15(3) German Law Journal, pp. 437–459 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 .
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 .
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 , 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 , 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 , at 219.
124 Quint, P.E., ‘What Is a Twentieth-Century Constitution?’ (2007) 67(1) Maryland Law Review, pp. 238–257 , 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 , 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 .
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 .
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 , 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 .
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 .
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 , at 542; Go, J., ‘Globalizing Constitutionalism? Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000’ (2003) 18(1) International Society, pp. 71–95 , 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 ; Munslow, B., ‘Why Has the Westminster Model Failed in Africa?’ (1983) 36(2) Parliamentary Affairs, pp. 218–228 ; Huntington, S.P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (University of Oklahoma Press, 1993), pp. 20–21 .
142 Sprinz, D. & Vaahtoranta, T., ‘The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy’ (1994) 48(1) International Organization, pp. 77–105 , 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 .
144 Mazurski, K.R., ‘Communism and the Environment’ (1991) 5(4) Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, pp. 39–44 ; Stec, S., ‘Ecological Rights Advancing the Rule of Law in Eastern Europe’ (1998) 13(1) Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, pp. 275–358 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; Bekerman, W., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?’ (1992) 20(4) World Development, pp. 481–496 ; Grossman, G.M. & Krueger, A.B., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment’ (1995) 110(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 353–377 .
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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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); Matthiasson, T., ‘Spinning Out of Control, Iceland in Crisis’ (2009) 34(3) Nordic Journal of Political Economy, pp. 1–19 .
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 , 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 .
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 , 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 .
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.
* 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.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Loading metrics...
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
Loading metrics...
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th September 2017 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
