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.
National Courts and EU Environmental Law
Direct effect, consistent interpretation and state liability are instruments developed by the CJEU for national courts to remedy conflicts between national and EU law (and may also be used in some jurisdictions to resolve national law and international law). This book examines the "remedial capacity" of these doctrines/tools from the perspective of the national court applying them. In short: what are their strengths, weaknesses, unexplored opportunities at grassroot level, and what can we learn from comparative experience in practice within Member States. The study reveals considerable differences in the way these doctrines are handled at national level. And it is clear that these differences go beyond the challenges facing newly joined Member States where the judiciary might be expected to still be learning its way with EU law. Even within long standing EU Members there is by no means a consistency in approach.
The development of biological systematics : Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system
A reevaluation of the history of biological systematics that discusses the formative years of the so-called natural system of classification in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Shows how classifications came to be treated as conventions; systematic practice was not linked to clearly articulated theory; there was general confusion over the "shape" of nature; botany, elements of natural history, and systematics were conflated; and systematics took a position near the bottom of the hierarchy of sciences.