Search

The process of political shaping of the right to a healthy environment, started with the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration in 1972, basically ended only fifty years later, when the United Nations Assembly adopted the Resolution declaring access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. At the beginning of the long journey, the responsibilities for implementing the decisions expressed in the Stockholm Declaration were divided between the member states, on the one hand, and the international community, on the other.The dominant position was given to state authorities. It was agreed that they must be entrusted with the task of planning, managing and controlling ecological resources, in order to improve the quality of the environment, and that states have the right to sovereignly exploit their own resources in accordance with their environmental protection policy. On the other hand, the belief was expressed that the international community will find a source of strength for later concrete action in the Stockholm Declaration. Since then, very modest progress has been made at international level. Official UN statements noted that the 2022 Resolution is not legally binding for 193 member states, but that its proponents hope it will encourage countries to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in national constitutions and regional treaties and encourage them to implement laws that relate to that right, and that it will help people fight for their right to a safe climate, their right to breathe clean air and their rights to access clean and safe water, adequate food, healthy ecosystems and a non-toxic environment. In the global context, the right to a healthy environment is still aspirational (imperfect, unfinished), something that still needs to be fought for at the national level. It will remain so until the consumer society model is replaced by a new form of social organization, which will be based on a different value system. Such a conclusion is also indicated by the reasonable, well-balanced judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union at the end of 2022, in the case of JP v. Ministre de la Transition écologique (C-61/21). It stated that the provisions of the directives related to air quality must be interpreted in the sense that they do not aim to give individuals the right to seek compensation from the member state for loss and damage caused by the state’s violation of EU law, but that it does not excludes the possibility of an individual claiming compensation from the state on the basis of national law. During the past half century, about 150 countries around the world have constitutionalized the right to a healthy environment. It thus, at the national level, gained a significantly different physiognomy and more effective protection not only before the courts of general jurisdiction, but also before the constitutional courts, in proceedings regarding constitutional appeals. However, some new problems arise here. Among them, the competition (conflict) of property rights and certain sectoral rights included (integrated) within universal human right to a healthy environment, such as the right to water, which is discussed in this paper, is particularly significant. In conditions where it is not possible to satisfy the interests of everyone, states will be forced to prioritize their own citizens, and that means civil (private) rights, over universal human rights for the sake of social stability and the preservation of internal order. The process of constitutionalization will be slowed down, and it is possible that in some countries a kind of deconstitutionalization will be carried out, by amending the constitution or informally, through a more restrictive application of universal human rights and more restrictive decision-making regarding constitutional appeals. In the final part of the paper, it was stated that the boundaries between traditional subjects and objects of law are gradually being erased and that the environment must eventually be understood as a community of all living beings, which has a specific legal subjectivity and the right to be healthy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In international and national jurisprudence it can be noticed that, under certain circumstances, courts are prone to limit some of the owners’ entitlements with regard to their immovable property' so as to enable the use of such property by' other persons or families as their home. This Wend is due to the growing population on the planet, a drastic social stratification, mass migration and etc., on the one hand, and efforts to mitigate problems and growing tensions in society by pursuing appropriate social and legal policies, on the other hand. There are legal loopholes in this area that courts tend to eliminate by extensively intetpre-ting international conventions, sometimes even referring to something that is not stipulated therein. For instance, courts colloquially and in a simplified manner speak of limitations ofthe ownership right by the right to home. Systematic analysis of the relevant international documents, nevertheless, reveals that this subject matter is indeed covered by' three rights: 1. the right to adequate conditions for establishing home; 2. right to respect home and 3. right to protect home. Even though they are neither exhaustively• enumerated as such in intentional documents, nor terminologically determined, theyt make a logical sequence that undoubtedly emanate from the human rights catalogue and court decisions that have been rendered in past seventy years. In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and national courts, ownership right has been mainfy constrained so as to enable an uninhibited life in the space considered home and so as to prevent eviction from that space. In such circumstances, the court shall give the preference to one of the two fundamental rights: the ownership right or the right to home. This is achieved through the so-called balancing of interests. In order for the outcome of such balancing to be as fair as possible, it is primarily necessary to determine whether a particular space can be considered home. In this respect there often exist certain dilemmas. They' are the consequence of the absence of a precise definition, or even of a more widely accepted terminological determina-tion of the notion home. In this paper, this phenomenon is diSRussed in detail in a broader historical and comparative context. The analysis has revealed that in Europe from ancient times to the end ofXIUI century, home was considered a community of persons and goods (univesitas rerum et personarum), and that it consisted of two components: tangible (referring to the space and things) and intangible, spiritual (referring to the connections between community• members and their emotional connection to the space). The emergence of liberal ideology; associated with materialism and an individualised concept of law, influenced the change in its perception. In the modern world, and especially in the field of economy, home has been reduced to the living space. Nevertheless, when considering the request to limit the ownership right so as to preserve home, the court shall establish if there are spiritual attachments of the user to the specific living space thatjustify preferring his/her needs over material interests ofthe owner. Eventually', provided that the court decides to limit the ownership right, it shall determine how the owner will be compensated for the use of his/her space. As a ride, that burden shall be borne by the person who continues using that space. If, however, that turns out to be impossible, financial means for the use of living space shall be secured by' the state from the finds aimed at financing social programs. By• way of ratified international conventions, the state is, in general, obliged to do that. Besides, the article also gives an overview of the examples of active legal policies and examples of good practice in comparative law. The legal policy of the Republic of Serbia and its court practice in this respect are also examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]