IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/envlaw/v35y2023i3p455-466..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting the Habitats of Endangered Species Through Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: Lessons Learned from Peafowl Versus the Dam

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Chu

Abstract

Green Peafowl stands as a landmark lawsuit in China where environmental NGOs successfully halted a project threatening habitat of endangered species. By examining this case, this analysis evaluates the promise and limitations of China’s civil environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) in protecting habitat. Under civil EPIL’s broad and flexible framework, environmental NGOs can convince the courts that a government-approved project would destroy the ‘biological habitat’ for endangered species and hold project developers accountable. By arguing that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) institution is jointly liable by preparing a flawed report, environmental NGOs can also use civil EPIL as an alternative avenue to challenge the quality of an approved EIA report. However, the timing of judicial intervention, uncertainties of litigation outcomes, the scope of protection, and the court’s attitude towards EIA claims limit the effectiveness of civil EPIL. This analysis highlights the need to address regulatory failures revealed by Green Peafowl.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Chu, 2023. "Protecting the Habitats of Endangered Species Through Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: Lessons Learned from Peafowl Versus the Dam," Journal of Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 455-466.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:envlaw:v:35:y:2023:i:3:p:455-466.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jel/eqad031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:envlaw:v:35:y:2023:i:3:p:455-466.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jel .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.