Reviews for Environmental Law In Switzerland

The average rating for Environmental Law In Switzerland based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-08-24 00:00:00 Julie James On p107, we have: 'Other organisations with a higher environmental profile include...and the American Convention on Human Rights, which is the only such instrument to state expressly that people have a right to a clean and healthy environment.' - to what extent is that strictly accurate? What else may be significant in this context? And more generally? -ty. Am mindful that the arguments in the Legal groups section of p115 are far above this one's station; some of them seem to be left dangling, and it may be possible to handle those and resolve them (nearly) satisfactorily by reading them through Shaw's International Law at pp389-91; 618-20 and 641-4 of the seventh edition. On p316, we have: 'In relation to human rights, notwithstanding the fact that most human rights treaties do not expressly refer to environmental considerations, practice under those conventions recognises that a failure to adequately protect the environment may give rise to human rights [at this point, there seem to be some words missing], particularly in relation to rights associated with the enjoyment of a person's home and property.' So, to what extent might this observation beg the question: in order to secure the person's fundamental rights jus cogens, which measures are required beyond ensuring that the person's proximate environment is free from coercion? What else may be significant in this context? At p366, we have: 'Annex II parties undertake specific financial commitments' which would relate to parties to what, sorry? Have we moved on from Montreal by this stage- if so, where are we now,pls?-ty. To what extent are the arguments raised in the Commitments- financial resources and technology transfer section of pp366-7 addressed satisfactorily in article 10(c) of the Kyoto protocol? Which improvements may be possible to secure at COP26?-ty. It might be worth considering: how did we end up with so much plastic pollution in the sea? pp440-5 discusses the Protocol to the 1978 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, usually referred to as MARPOL 73/78. (In general, on the surface at p442, we have "Chapter III [of Annex I] establishes provisions on 'Requirements for minimising oil pollution from oil pollution due to side and bottom damages', and includes Regulations on the tank size limitation and damage stability.', and, in the air at p444, we have 'When [Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 comes] into force, [it] will set limits on [SOx and NOx] emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.') At p443, we have 'The disposal from ships into the sea of all plastics is prohibited; dunnage, lining and packing materials which float cannot be disposed of within twenty-five nautical miles of land; disposal of food waste and other garbage is prohibited within twelve nautical miles of land, unless it has passed through a comminuter or grinder in which case it may not be disposed of within three nautical miles of land.' It may be worth considering which disposal and recycling alternatives are available once plastic material has been put through a grinder on land. What else may be significant in this context?-ty. On p458, we have: 'The emphasis in Agenda 21 on improving coastal zone management and regulating human habitats recognises that the protection of the oceans and seas will ultimately be achieved only by integrating considerations requiring the protection of the marine environment into activities which are carried out on land. This suggests the need for a cradle-to-grave regulatory approach which would also require greater use of environmental impact assessment procedures and the integration into those procedures of a consideration of the consequences on the marine environment. Regulating the oceans currently targets the rubbish dump; it will be more effective when it targets the sources.' Who would like to go first?

Review # 2 was written on 2016-08-24 00:00:00 Alfonso Enrique Bonilla read for my school.