Application of the Aarhus Convention in Southeast Europe
Our survey showed that there have not been many examples of the direct application of the Aarhus Convention by the courts in SEE countries. In situations where the Aarhus Convention could be applied, the courts would rather apply the rules of domestic legislation that are relevant to the merits of the case, or the provisions of the EU directives that regulate access to information, public participation in decisionmaking and access to justice in environmental matters. In addition, in many environmental cases the Aarhus Convention will not be applicable, since it does not contain any substantive rules regarding the right to a healthy environment.
Judicial Application of International Law in Serbia
In the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, international relations are regulated in Article 16. According to the Serbian Constitution, foreign policy rests on generally recognised principles and rules of international law. Ratified international treaties, as well as generally recognised principles and rules of international law, form an integral part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia and are directly applicable. In order to be a part of the legal order, a ratified international agreement must be in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. The Constitution also stipulates the hierarchy of domestic and international general legal acts. Emphasising the unity of the Serbian legal order, Article 194 also regulates that the Constitution is the supreme legal act. To this effect, all laws and other general legal acts promulgated in the Republic of Serbia must comply with the Constitution and may not contradict ratified international treaties and generally recognised rules of international law. We may conclude that ratified international treaties and generally accepted rules have precedence in relation to domestic legislation, and only the Constitution stands above them in terms of hierarchy.
Environmental Ideologies
Environmentalism as a social and political movement mirrors the dualities existing within mankind generally in failing to connect desired aims with daily deeds. This is partly because environmentalism has emerged from two contrasting schools of thought, the one nature-orientated, the other centred on technique and mode of organisation. But it is also due to the takeover of much of environmentalist philosophy by groups, both well-meaning and selfish, who either fail to recognise their own hypocrisies or simply shield narrow political aims with the armour of environmental morality. The potential for conflict is therefore great as new patterns of political and economic power emerge but cannot be accommodated by an existing order that finds compromise difficult.