en-US | el-GR
Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making and Access to Justice In Environmental Matters (The Aarhus Convention)
Hartley N. and Wood C. (2005), “Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment – Implementing the Aarhus Convention”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 319-340.
Abstract: This article explores the nature of public participation in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process in the context of the potential integration of the Aarhus Convention principles into the UK EIA system. Although the Convention advocates dearly and deffective participation, these terms remain undefined and questions persist about exactly how to implement the Aarhus principles. Ten practice evaluation criteria derived from the Aarhus Convention are used to analyse the public participation procedures used in four UK waste disposal EIA case studies. The paper reports the extent to which the practice evaluation criteria were fulfilled, explores the types and effectiveness of the participation methods used in the EIAs, and highlights some of the key barriers that appear to impede the execution of dearlyT and deffectiveT participation programmes. It concludes that the Aarhus Convention will undoubtedly lead to a strengthening of participation procedures but that the level of improvement secured will depend upon how its ideals are interpreted and incorporated into legislation and practice.

Mason M. (2010), “Information Disclosure and Environmental Rights: The Aarhus Convention”, Global Environmental Politics, 10:3, 10-31.
Abstract: Access to information is the first 'pillar' of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998). This article examines how the information disclosure obligations on states within the Aarhus Convention express a particular blend of human environmental rights, conjoining procedural entitlements (and duties) with a substantive right to an environment adequate to human health and well-being. 'Aarhus environmental rights' have been lauded for increasing citizen access to environmental information, helping to secure more transparent and accountable regulatory processes. However, the information rights are rendered inconsistent in practice by three properties: 1) the discretion accorded to Convention Parties in interpreting Aarhus rights; 2) the exclusion of private entities from mandatory information disclosure duties; and 3) the indeterminate coupling of procedural and substantive rights. These tensions reflect a structural imbalance in the articulation of Aarhus rights between social welfare and market liberal perspectives.