Armelle Gouritin is currently Maitre de Conférences at the Université libre de Bruxelles where she lectures on environmental law.

She is finalising her Ph.D. dissertation. The public defence is expected to take place before the end of the academic year 2011/2012.

Can International Environmental Law and Human Rights Law Fill the Gaps of EU Environmental Law? The Case of Environmental Responsibility.

Keywords: environmental damage, environmental harm, ecological values, human rights, protection obligation. 

Executive summary of the Ph.D. dissertation 

   The dissertation aims to answer the question of whether international environmental law and Council of Europe human rights law (European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights) fill gaps identified in Directive 2004/35 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage and Directive 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The research is exclusively concerned with private persons’ environmental responsibility. The answer to the question is “rather poorly”.

   The first part of the dissertation is built upon the premise that tensions initially occurred when the EU legislator adopted the Directives. The hypothesis that tensions resulted in some gaps in EU environmental responsibility texts is explored and verified. Three aspects are researched: first, environmental damage and harm; second, grounds for responsibility; and third, grounds for exceptions to the responsibility principle.
The first part is devoted to the critical appraisal of Directive 2004/35 and Directive 2008/99. The critical assessment of the legal constructs enshrined in the Directives enables us to identify a whole series of gaps. Three main lines of analysis reveal and explain the gaps. Firstly, how law approaches the environment. Environmental features are not protected and endorsed in the responsibility text for their instrumental or inherent value. Secondly, the impact of the regulatory approach on EU environmental responsibility law, i.e. the consequences of the dependence of EU environmental responsibility law upon EU environmental law. Responsibility or exceptions to the responsibility principle are based upon EU existing regulation of human activities. The greatest weight of significance does not rest upon environmental damage and harm and the corresponding harmlessness obligations are phrased under due diligence or obligation of results. Thirdly, the shift from responsibility (breach of an obligation and of victims’ rights) to cost-allocation. As a consequence of the regulatory approach, which is not centred on the notions of environmental damage and injury, the Directives address cost-allocation matters instead of identifying due diligence or harmlessness obligations towards the environment. The gaps that best reflect these three lines of analysis are studied in the second part of the study. These are the limited notion of natural resources, the exclusion of diffuse pollution from the scope of application of the Directives, deference to international law when international law norms regulate private persons’ responsibility -despite these norms being severely criticised, reliance upon public authorities and environmental NGOs in order to set responsibility procedures in motion, and the development risk defence as an exception to the responsibility principle.

   The second part of the dissertation is devoted to the “gap filling” exercise, conducted through the analysis of international environmental law and Council of Europe Human Rights Law. The substantive norms of Council of Europe human rights law and international environmental responsibility law are tested in order to fill the gaps found in EU environmental responsibility texts. The second hypothesis, that international environmental law and Council of Europe human rights law can fill the gaps identified in the Directives, is partially verified: the formers are gap-fillers to a limited extent.
From the outset, the limits of the approach adopted in order to fill the Directives’ gaps are acknowledged. On the one hand, only a small few international environmental law norms are mobilised. The reason is that few norms addressing environmental responsibility of private persons have actually entered into force. On the other hand, the limits of Council of Europe human rights law in relation to the purpose of filling the Directives’ gaps cannot be ignored. Indeed, Council of Europe human rights law does not guarantee the right to a healthy environment. This law remains largely anthropocentric and individualistic. The gap-filling exercise nevertheless delivered some outcomes. Analysis of the UN Convention on Biodiversity and subsequent Biosafety Protocols reveal that the Directives’ notion of natural resources does not fit with the formers’ notion of biodiversity. Also, Directive 2004/35 should not defer to the international framework that applies to oil spills, since this framework is believed to infringe the requirements of Council of Europe human rights law with regard to right to property. Also, the Council of Europe frames the application of the environmental responsibility mechanisms put in place by the Directives. Impartiality and independence requirements limit the margin of discretion of public authorities when they set environmental responsibility into motion. Eventually, the scope of application of the development risk defence is challenged against international environmental law and human rights requirements. It is contended that an obligation to monitor and research risk is a prerequisite which must be respected in order to respect the precautionary principle’s scope of application. This obligation in turn limits the scope of application of the defence. Also, a breach of the obligation would amount to fault, had the operator not fulfilled the monitoring and research obligation. Being at fault, the operator would no longer be in the position to invoke the defence and would be found responsible for damage and harm.

The thesis, that the gap-filling exercise can support a return to the responsibility paradigm which is opposed to the cost-allocation paradigm endorsed in the Directives, is not verified: the comparative approach does not support a return to the responsibility paradigm or the autonomy of environmental responsibility law from environmental law.

All in all, the results of the gap-filling exercise can be viewed as rather limited. The research started with an open question and this limited result was, to some extent, predictable. Nevertheless, this lacklustre performance is not entirely unproductive, and can rather be seen as scientific evidence of the current limits of international environmental law and Council of Europe human rights law. Consequently, were international environmental law and Council of Europe human rights law to fulfil the gap-filling exercise, potential paths for improvement are identified. In addition, the interplay between EU environmental responsibility law, international environmental law and human rights law can be systematised under six cases.
A first set of three cases is identified when focussing on the interplay between EU environmental responsibility law and international environmental law. A second set of three cases is identified when attention is directed to the interplay between EU environmental responsibility law and Council of Europe human rights law. First, EU environmental responsibility law cannot defer to international law. This hypothesis is identified in chapter 8, where particular attention is paid to the international framework that applies to oil-spills. Secondly, EU environmental responsibility law has influenced international environmental law. The infiltration of EU law into international environmental law is demonstrated in chapter 6 where international environmental law that addresses damage and harm to biodiversity is considered. Thirdly, international environmental law supports the identification of inconsistencies between EU environmental law and EU environmental responsibility law. In turn, these inconsistencies conflict with human rights requirements. This is dealt with in chapter 9. In this chapter, the boundaries of the development risk defence endorsed in Directive 2004/35 are questioned.
In the fourth instance, the comparative approach is applied and EU environmental responsibility law is confronted with Council of Europe human rights law. Conflict arises in this case. The deference of EU environmental law to international environmental law is in conflict with human rights requirements, particularly right to property. In the fifth case, Council of Europe human rights law calls for a specific interpretation of supplementary legal tools regarding EU environmental responsibility law. In chapter 9, where the focus rests on the development risk defence endorsed in Directive 2004/35, it is argued that respect for the scope of application of the precautionary principle calls for a research and monitoring obligation. The sixth case identified relates to the practical putting into motion of EU environmental responsibility law. In this hypothesis, no conflict can be identified between the provisions of EU environmental responsibility law and human rights. Human rights law requirements do not call for a specific interpretation of the provisions of the Directives, but rather for specific safeguards to be respected in the practical operation of the provisions. Council of Europe human rights law frames EU environmental responsibility law. In this case, the choice to rely upon public authorities -the main actors in setting the wheels of environmental responsibility in motion- is not challenged as such, but is framed by procedural requirements in terms of independence and impartiality.






Environment … The question to be answered in the dissertation is whether international environmental law and ECHR law fill gaps EU identified in Directives 2004/35 and 2008/99. The dissertation focuses on environmental/ecological damage, harm, grounds for responsibility, and grounds for exceptions to the responsibility principle. The dissertation explores environmental protection law and questions environmental responsibility’s shift of paradigm: from the breach of primary obligations identification to the cost-allocation exercise. International environmental law and human rights law are tested as operating a return towards a protection approach as opposed to a management approach.

…Sustainable development. As for the link between the dissertation and sustainable development, this dissertation directs its attention towards environmental and ecological values protection under a rights language. The effect on sustainable development matters is twofold. Firstly, using such a right language enables to put environmental/ecological values on an equal footstep with social and economic values phrased under a rights language. In other words, the “equation” would comprise a series of rights instead of having environmental/ecological values part of the equation as “interests” vs. social or economic rights. Secondly, the dissertation argues for the recognition of environmental/ecological values inherent and intrinsic dimension. In turn, this inherent and intrinsic dimension reflects an eco-centric approach. So that sustainable development’s “equation” would not only embody and be triggered by anthropocentric rights.

• Gouritin, Armelle. “Testing limited environmental liability against human rights requirements”, Institute for  European Studies, Working Paper 3/2009.

• Gouritin Armelle (2012). “Commentaires sous C-347/10, CJUE (Grande Chambre)”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public. Forthcoming
• Gouritin, Armelle (2012). “Year in a review, Council of Europe”, in Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press. Forthcoming
• Gouritin, Armelle (2012). “Droits environnementaux et répartition des compétences entre le droit administratif et l’ordre législatif: l’arrêt « Boxus »”, Journal de Droit Européen. Forthcoming
• Gouritin, Armelle (2012). “Vers une normativité du droit à l’alimentation devant les Cours régionales des Droits de l’Homme? Complémentarité, paradoxes et apports du « droit à l’environnement »”, in Changements globaux environnementaux et Droits de l’Homme, C. Cournil and C. Fabregoule (Eds.). Forthcoming summer 2012
• Gouritin, Armelle (2012). “Water management and protection in France”, in Environmental law in multi-layered systems. Comparative lessons from the water sector, Francesco Palermo et Mariachiara Alberton (Eds). Forhtcoming summer 2012
• Gouritin, Armelle (2012). Book review, “Kerri Woods. 2010. Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar” in Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 12, No. 2, May 2012, pp. 116-117
• Pallemaerts, Marc and Gouritin, Armelle (2011). “Environmental Rights Standards. The EU’s Self Proclaimed Global ‘Green’ Leadership in Question?”, in L. Serena Rossi (ed.), La protezione dei diritti fondamentali: Carta dei diritti UE e standards internazionali, Atti del XV Convegno della Società Italiana di Diritto Internazionale, Edioriale scientifica, Roma, 2011, pp. 93-112
• Gouritin, Armelle (2011). “The international regime for the compensation of oil-pollution damage: a good candidate to have a human rights law approach?”, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol. 20 n°2, pp. 194-207
• Gouritin, Armelle (2010). “La Jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme sur les obligations positives en matière environnementale peut-elle s’appliquer aux changements climatiques?”, in Les changements climatiques et les défis du droit, Actes de la journée d’études du 24 mars 2009, Christel Cournil et Catherine Colard-Fabregoule (eds), Bruylant, February 2010, pp. 251-276
• Gouritin, Armelle (2009). “Potential liability of European States under the ECHR for failure to take appropriate measures with a view to adaptation to climate change”, Ius Commune Workshop Environmental Law, 27 November 2009, published in Climate Change Liability, M. Faure and M. Peeters (Eds.), Edward Elgar, 2011, pp. 134-162
• Gouritin, Armelle and De Hert, Paul (2009). “Directive 2008/99/EC: A new start for criminal law in the European Community?”, Environmental Law Network International, No 1/2009
• Gouritin, Armelle and De Hert, Paul (2009). “La Directive relative à la protection de l’environnement par le droit pénal: première realisation du “nouveau” système de droit pénal européen”. Journal de Droit Européen, Bruxelles, June 2009, N° 160, pp. 164-170
• Pallemaerts, Marc and Gouritin, Armelle (2007). “La stratégie de l’Union européenne en faveur du développement durable”. Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1961 45p. October 2007

• Sentinelle (working group of the French Society of International Law), the weekly and free online bulletin (ISSN 2116-3634. Editor, drafting the following notes:

- Changements climatiques et émissions de l'aviation internationale. L'OACI et l'environnement: une "avancée historique".
- L'arrêt de la CEDH du 16 décembre 2010 sur la législation en matière d'avortement en Irlande: violation du droit à la vie privée et familiale.
- Nations Unies, changements climatiques et droits de l’homme substantiels: les insuffisances de Copenhague.
- Le procureur de la République et la CEDH. Une nécessaire réorganisation de l’ordre judiciaire français?
- CEDH, Paksas c. Lituanie, Destitution – ou « impeachment » – d’un Président de la République et inéligibilité du destitué: violation de l'Article 3 du Protocole 1 (droit à des élections libres).
- Forages pétroliers et catastrophes environnementales : projet de règlementation présenté par la Commission Européenne.
- La Convention d'Aarhus relative au droit à l'information du public en matière environnementale est dépourvue d'effet direct en droit de l'UE.
- Droits environnementaux: le droit de l’Union Européenne sanctionné par le «Comité d’Aarhus».
- La reconnaissance d’intérêts collectifs : l’UE prend acte de la décision du « Comité d’Aarhus».
- Bosnie-Herzégovine, la partie serbe retire son projet de referendum.
- « Droit des changements climatiques » : légalité du droit de l’Union Européenne au regard du droit international.
- Vers une territorialisation du plateau continental de l’UE ?