No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the implementation of the principles of openness, transparency and public participation in the decision-making regarding the conditions for uranium mining in Greenland from a legal and political perspective. The time frame covers the period from the exploration for minerals before World War II to 2016–2017 when the current Greenlandic authorities prepared a licence for a project of extraction of rare earth elements and uranium in Kvanefjeld. It is shown that the issue of openness, transparency and public participation in Greenland is a longstanding issue and that the current governance does not permit public access to a draft environmental impact assessment report, impairing public participation in decision-making, and preventing the environmental consequences of these activities from being considered as a public concern. It is argued that sovereignty–its consolidation and the accession to it–has impacted the design of governance in Greenland and that the constraints put on the full implementation of the legal principles of openness, transparency and public participation in the governance of uranium mining in Greenland, amongst other factors, point to a current hybrid political and legal order in the context of a political agenda of independence.

This article explores how the conflict between the interests of protecting water quality in the coastal waters of the Baltic Sea from nutrient emissions on one hand, and supporting blue growth in the aquaculture sector on the other, has played out in the Nordic legal systems and industry practice. It does so by reviewing the legal and industrial developments in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Åland Islands with a focus on interpretation and application of the common EU regulatory framework, mainly the Water Framework Directive and the ecj Weser ruling, and the response from the aquaculture sector. The study shows that the four studied jurisdictions have taken disparate regulatory approaches in balancing ecological status of waters and blue growth. As a consequence of these legal developments, the aquaculture industry faces difficulty in attaining required permits for their operations in all four jurisdictions and significant uncertainty on how to develop the sector to meet the set growth objectives has arisen.

No abstract