UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

ՇՐՋԱԿԱ ՄԻՋԱՎԱՅՐԻ ԻՐԱՎՈՒՆՔԻ ԿԻՐԱՌՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՀԻՄՆԱԽՆԴԻՐՆԵՐԸ

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-48

Auteurs

KAREN TUMANYAN

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.580126+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:06:53.199912+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

This article provides a comprehensive constitutional law analysis of the nature of the right to a favorable environment and the mechanisms for its protection. This right is examined as a systemic precondition for the realization of the rights to life, health, and dignified existence. Through comparative analysis, the article presents anthropocentric constitutional models (France, Germany, Portugal, South Africa, India), where the environment is viewed as a condition for the realization of human rights, and ecocentric models (Ecuador, Bolivia, New Zealand), which recognize the subjective rights of nature. It is noted that while the Republic of Armenia’s constitutional law model corresponds to the anthropocentric approach, it does not include direct constitutional guarantees for intergenerational justice, climate protection, or rights of nature. The article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (López Ostra v. Spain, Taşkín v. Turkey, Hamer v. Belgium, Tătar v. Romania, Di Sarno v. Italy), which confirms the state’s positive obligations to prevent environmental threats and ensure a proportionate balance between economic interests and the protection of human rights. Particular emphasis is placed on the Court’s position in Taşkín, according to which economic expediency cannot justify the exploitation of natural resources that creates a real threat to human health and life. The judicial practice of the Republic of Armenia is presented, particularly the 2011 decision of the Court of Cassation (VD/3275/05/09), which restricted the ability of civil society organizations to bring environmental cases to court by requiring the contestation of direct individual rights. It is noted that the 2010 Constitutional Court decision (SDO-906) also received ambiguous interpretation in law enforcement practice, which demonstrates the need to develop the actio popularis institute to ensure judicial protection of environmental rights in the public interest. A preventive constitutional law approach is substantiated, according to which the state’s positive obligations should be directed not only at compensating damage, but primarily at the early prevention of environmental risks. In this context, mandatory integration of impact assessment tools is proposed: Health Impact Assessment (HIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). As a scientific contribution, an expanded model of the objective and subjective nature of the right to a favorable environment is proposed, emphasizing the potential of subjective rights in protecting collective and public interests. It is argued that this right should be viewed not as a secondary social right, but as a systemic precondition for constitutional order and the effective realization of fundamental human rights. The article proposes the development of the actio popularis institute, improvement of administrative proceedings, and strengthening of preventive mechanisms of state control to ensure effective protection of the public interest in environmental protection.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7124847630

DOI

10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-48

OPENAIRE

doi_________::af23ef769d448f92fd9fba5b43dfa068

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

Article · article

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

BO · DE · EC · FR · IN · NZ · PT · ZA

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Mer

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAIRE · Document 1

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-48
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7124847630

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1555716347 · CITES
• openalex:w4385722121 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.