英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心 我要定制

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

Environmental law essay:印度环境法 [8]

论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2015-10-26编辑:chenyuting点击率:16278

论文字数:4775论文编号:org201510241617469013语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文

关键词:precautionary Principle生态平衡环境法

摘要:摘要:本文主要讲述了印度的环境法。文章写了原则的起源、含义和性质、预防原则和国际法以及该法在印度的地位。

ental harm was presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature, 1982, the emphasis shifted to the ‘Precautionary Principle’, and this was reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15.
 
Explaining the cause for the emergence of ‘Precautionary Principle’ the Court referred Charmian Barton, who argued “ it makes sense to err on the side of caution and prevent activities that may cause serious or irreversible harm”. The Court opined that the inadequacies of science was the real basis that had led to the Precautionary Principle. It was based on the theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm which may indeed become irreversible.


The principle of precaution involved the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. The Court adopted the view that ‘Environmental Protection should not only aim at protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by justified concern or risk potential”.
 
The concept of burden of proof in environmental cases recognised in Vellore Case that ‘the onus of proof’ is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign”, was further elaborated by the Supreme Court in the Nayudu case, M. Jagannadha Rao, J. noticed, while the inadequacies of science had led to the ‘Precautionary Principle’, the said principle in its turn led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed, was placed on those who wanted to change the status quo. This is often termed as a reversal of burden of proof, because otherwise, those opposing the change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore, the Court observed, “it is necessary that the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden”.
 
The Supreme Court favours the view that if the environmental risks being run by regulatory inaction are in some way ‘uncertain but non-negligible’, then regulatory action is justified. According to the Court-
 
In such a situation, the burden of proof is to be placed on those attempting to alter the status quo. They are to discharge this burden by showing the absence of a ‘reasonable ecological or medical concern’. That is the required standard of proof. The result would be that if insufficient evidence is presented by them to alleviate concern about the level of uncertainty, then the presumption should operate in favour of environmental protection.
 
In Narmadda Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court decided the issues relating to construction of dam on Narmada river which was a part of the Sardar Sarovar Project. Explaining the new concept of burden of proof the Court held that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the corresponding burden of proof on the person who wants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of polluting or o论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非