Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Big Bad EU? Species Protection and European Federalism: A Case Study of Wolf Conservation and Contestation in Sweden
Uppsala universitet, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Juridiska fakulteten, Juridiska institutionen.
2017 (engelsk)Doktoravhandling, med artikler (Annet vitenskapelig)
Abstract [en]

This dissertation examines how eco-knowledge intersects with the changes to EU legal cultures and practices known as eurolegalism. This conjunction has created a mechanism for the extension of EU law in the Member States even in the face of a weakened EU.

Through a portfolio of six articles, controversies over the protection of wolves in Sweden are used to illustrate and explicate the changing roles and responsibilities of various actors in protecting species, and the centralization of competence for environmental protection in Europe at the EU level. In doing so, some substantive requirements of the Habitats Directive are also analyzed. The first article maps the movement of competence to determine conservation policy towards the EU level and away from international and Member State actors. The second article examines what the EU requires of its Member States by analyzing the Habitats Directive’s key concept, favourable conservation status. It also makes normative arguments for how contested aspects of this concept should be interpreted to best achieve the Directive’s conservation goals. The third article deepens this analysis by applying these arguments to the Swedish wolf population. The fourth article is a case commentary illustrating the enforcement of the Habitats Directive through public interest litigation to stop the hunting of Swedish wolves. The fifth argues that the greater availability of public interest standing in the US than in the EU has led to the greater implementation of federal law. The sixth argues that greater availability of public interest litigation in Sweden than previously is also leading to the greater enforcement of “federal” EU law. Each of these articles demonstrates or explains factors that lead to the hollowing out of state power in favor of the EU and interest groups.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Uppsala: Department of Law , 2017. , 63 s.
Emneord [en]
Habitats Directive, species protection, subsidiarity, Endangered Species Act
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-318698ISBN: 978-91-506-2632-2 (tryckt)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-318698DiVA: diva2:1085395
Disputas
2017-05-19, Room 4573, Gamla Torget 6, Uppsala, 10:15 (engelsk)
Opponent
Veileder
Forskningsfinansiär
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Merknad

Cover photo by Guillaume Chapron

Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-04-26 Laget: 2017-03-28 Sist oppdatert: 2017-05-02
Delarbeid
1. The Habitats Directive and Bern Convention: Synergy and Dysfunction in Public International and EU Law
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>The Habitats Directive and Bern Convention: Synergy and Dysfunction in Public International and EU Law
2014 (engelsk)Inngår i: Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, ISSN 1042-1858, Vol. 26, nr 2, 139-174 s.Artikkel i tidsskrift (Annet vitenskapelig) Published
Abstract [en]

The Bern Convention of the Council of Europe and the European Union’s Habitats Directive are the primary legal instruments driving species protection in Europe. The Habitats Directive implements the Bern Convention in the EU. While the Habitats Directive has stronger enforcement mechanisms than the Bern Convention, it covers a smaller geographical region. Through cooperation, each has used the other’s strength to compensate for its weaknesses. This dynamic interplay between these two legal regimes has most often been beneficial to the pursuit of both instruments’ conservation goals, particularly with regards to enforcement, funding, and capacity building. As the EU has grown in size and competence, however, it now essentially has the ability to direct the application of the Bern Convention. This outsized influence presents challenges to the institutional synergy between the two instruments and the continued functioning of the Bern Convention as an independent legal regime with policy preferences separate from those of the EU.

HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-207934 (URN)
Tilgjengelig fra: 2013-09-21 Laget: 2013-09-21 Sist oppdatert: 2017-03-28bibliografisk kontrollert
2. A legal-ecological understanding of Favourable Conservation Status for species in Europe
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>A legal-ecological understanding of Favourable Conservation Status for species in Europe
2016 (engelsk)Inngår i: Conservation Letters, ISSN 1755-263X, E-ISSN 1755-263X, Vol. 9, nr 2, 81-88 s.Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Legislation for the preservation of biodiversity has been instrumental to the recovery of multiple species and habitats. The European Habitats Directive 92/92/EEC is one of the strongest legal tools in nature conservation. This Directive seeks to achieve its biodiversity goals by requiring EU Member States to take measures to reach or maintain Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) of natural habitats and species in Europe. FCS is a legal concept, but must be understood and applied by scientists, managers and policy makers, and therefore a proper interpretation of this concept is crucial for biodiversity conservation and wildlife management. However, its definition contains several aspects that can lead to misinterpretation, being the core of controversies in determining whether or not populations have reached FCS. In this review, we provide legal and ecological clarifications of the most contested aspects of FCS that have not yet been conclusively settled by analyzing and weighting a variety of sources.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016
Emneord
Environmental law; favourable conservation status, Habitats Directive
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-260447 (URN)10.1111/conl.12200 (DOI)000374778600001 ()
Eksternt samarbeid:
Prosjekter
Claws and Laws
Forskningsfinansiär
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, NV-06589-113
Tilgjengelig fra: 2015-08-19 Laget: 2015-08-19 Sist oppdatert: 2017-03-28bibliografisk kontrollert
3. Favourable Conservation Status for Species: Examining the Habitats Directive’s Key Concept through a Case Study of the Swedish Wolf
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Favourable Conservation Status for Species: Examining the Habitats Directive’s Key Concept through a Case Study of the Swedish Wolf
2016 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal of environmental law, ISSN 0952-8873, E-ISSN 1464-374X, Vol. 28, nr 2, 221-244 s.Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

One of the key issues in the current controversy over the hunting of wolves in Sweden is whether the wolf population has reached favourable conservation status (FCS). FCS is a legal concept, created and defined in law, but like many legal concepts within environmental law, can only be understood by reference to ecological concepts such as species viability. These ecological determinations in turn often require some sort of legal or policy judgment, such as how great an extinction risk is acceptable for a viable population. This article interrogates contested legal and ecological aspects of FCS and argues for how they might be applied to the Swedish wolf in potential litigation.

Emneord
Habitats Directive, Favourable Conservation Status, Wolf, Recovery, Sweden, EU Law, FCS
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-280472 (URN)10.1093/jel/eqw006 (DOI)000382055500002 ()
Prosjekter
Claws and Laws
Forskningsfinansiär
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, NV-06589-113
Tilgjengelig fra: 2016-03-10 Laget: 2016-03-10 Sist oppdatert: 2017-03-28bibliografisk kontrollert
4. The Wild Has No Words: Environmental NGOs Empowered to Speak for Protected Species as Swedish Courts Apply EU and International Environmental Law
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>The Wild Has No Words: Environmental NGOs Empowered to Speak for Protected Species as Swedish Courts Apply EU and International Environmental Law
2013 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, ISSN 1613-7272, Vol. 10, nr 3, 250-261 s.Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

The Stockholm Administrative Court recently ruled that Sweden’s wolf management policies are incompatible with the Habitats Directive. These policies are also the subject of an on-going infringement proceeding by the European Commission. The administrative court’s decision has been appealed. This case is significant for two reasons. First, it interprets controversial provisions of the Habitats Directive. But perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates the growing impact of EU law in a member state. This was the first major case in which the national courts were able to review a hunting decision pertaining to a species protected under EU law because standing to bring public interest lawsuits for the protection of species has been recognized only very recently. Under traditional Swedish procedural law, only the government can represent the public interest in administrative decision making and in court. Here, Swedish courts finally applied to hunting decisions the CJEU’s holding in Slovak Brown Bear, which says that national procedural law must be interpreted so as to allow environmental NGOs to challenge administrative decisions that might contravene EU environmental law. The court did not request a preliminary ruling despite that fact that controversial questions of EU law were implicated however. While the court applied EU law, it preferred to maintain control over its interpretation.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013
Emneord
standing, Habitats Directive, species, wolves, Aarhus Convention
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-206068 (URN)10.1163/18760104-01003004 (DOI)
Tilgjengelig fra: 2013-08-27 Laget: 2013-08-27 Sist oppdatert: 2017-03-28bibliografisk kontrollert
5. Killing Wolves to Save Them? Legal Responses to 'Tolerance Hunting' in the European Union and United States
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Killing Wolves to Save Them? Legal Responses to 'Tolerance Hunting' in the European Union and United States
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, ISSN 2050-0386, E-ISSN 2050-0394, Vol. 26, nr 1, 19-29 s.Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Wolves are protected by law in both the United States (US) and European Union (EU). These laws restrict the harming or killing of individual members of protected species, but allow it in selective circumstances, such as when killing some individuals would benefit the species. In both unions, some states have argued that allowing the public hunting of wolves would in fact benefit the species by improving social tolerance for wolves, a claim that is currently the subject of controversy among scientists. In the absence of clear evidence that hunting is favourable for wolf populations, US courts have repeatedly struck down policies that allowed it. While hunting wolves to achieve their social acceptability is likely to also violate EU law, the EU court has not yet resolved the question and hunting for social acceptance continues in some Member States, such as Sweden and Finland. This article contrasts these legal responses to social ‘tolerance hunting’ and argues that the Habitats Directive should not be interpreted to allow tolerance hunting of strictly protected species. It then uses the contrasting legal situations to engage with the claim that the EU has become more ‘precautionary’ than the US on environmental matters.

Emneord
wolves, Habitats Directive, Endangered Species Act, precautionary principle
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317868 (URN)10.1111/reel.12188 (DOI)000398845200003 ()
Prosjekter
Claws and Laws
Forskningsfinansiär
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-03-21 Laget: 2017-03-21 Sist oppdatert: 2017-05-15bibliografisk kontrollert
6. Through the Eyes of the Wolf: Adversarial Legalism, Federalism, and Biodiversity Protection in the United States and European Union
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Through the Eyes of the Wolf: Adversarial Legalism, Federalism, and Biodiversity Protection in the United States and European Union
(engelsk)Manuskript (preprint) (Annet vitenskapelig)
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-318765 (URN)
Tilgjengelig fra: 2017-03-28 Laget: 2017-03-28 Sist oppdatert: 2017-03-28

Open Access i DiVA

fulltext(821 kB)146 nedlastinger
Filinformasjon
Fil FULLTEXT01.pdfFilstørrelse 821 kBChecksum SHA-512
611fe1184faf9a45efff1666727ac77c20957894306a62bcdbb91a78df49f2e9921d04950cd3c9f2b678c15b54c32a3416a2167b8ec80cf2333dcf2062be85c7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Epstein, Yaffa
Av organisasjonen

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Totalt: 146 nedlastinger
Antall nedlastinger er summen av alle nedlastinger av alle fulltekster. Det kan for eksempel være tidligere versjoner som er ikke lenger tilgjengelige

Totalt: 2283 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf