Why We Need A Constitutional Right To Healthy Environment In Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The increasing demand for constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment (‘RTHE’) has been a matter of public concern and debate in many countries, including Canada.2 This paper asks, will a constitutional RTHE within the Canadian Constitution add any value when statutes already exist to protect the environment (and thereby health)? The present environmental statutes work towards protecting the environment, and by protecting the environment, public health can be protected.3 Together, both of them form a ‘healthy environment’, ie., an environment that fosters a healthy life.4 This paper will argue that there is additional value in recognizing a RTHE in the constitution despite these statutes being in force. To be able to understand this question, this paper will investigate the efficiency of present statutes in dealing with current environmental problems and if there are any benefits of recognizing a constitutional right. The paper will begin with examining the development of international RTHE, and how it impacts Canada (and vice versa) in protecting a healthy environment in Part I of the paper. In this section, this paper will also look at current international law trends and how Canada draws from the international RTHE. Subsequently, in Part II of this paper, various statutes and domestic developments regarding the RTHE will be evaluated. The purpose of this section is to see how people can protect a healthy environment in Canada currently as there is no expressed RTHE in the Constitution. The narrower question dealt with in this section is if the statutes are enough to protect a healthy environment. The gaps in this structure will be pointed out to form a basic understanding of the risks that a constitutional right will most likely eliminate. In Part III, this paper will also look at the RTHE as a constitutional right and how it functions as an expressed as well as an implied right in other jurisdictions after mapping out some advantages of a constitutional right over a statutory right. This paper will also touch upon the Constitutions of various countries like Brazil, Pakistan, India and the USA. This comparative analysis is being undertaken to evaluate how the same RTHE exists in different characters, i.e., as a constitutional right, as a statutory right and as an international right. This will show us how this right is recognized in different jurisdictions owing to different factor that influence the decision of which character should this right adopt. Moreover, this analysis will help in figuring out which is the best model for Canada. It will also help in identifying any lessons from constitutions that do recognize this right as a constitutional right that could be productive in contemplating a constitutional RTHE in Canada in Part IV.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».