Abstract
Two interrelated questions have arisen in New Zealand’s jurisprudence: (1) what should be the meaning of the rule of law (ROL), as a constitutional principle; and (2) how should the emerging environmental crisis of climate change affect law generally? This thesis will examine whether a recently proposed version of ROL—called environmental rule of law (EROL)—that expands ROL to include protection of the natural environment may provide a response to both questions.
This thesis first addresses objections that have been raised against EROL, and then those raised more broadly against substantive theories of the ROL (the class of ROL theories that include EROL). Once it has been shown that a substantive theory may be defended and developed that allows for the expansive view of the ROL contained in EROL, this thesis will address whether such a theory is appropriate to give definition to the ROL in New Zealand. This thesis will conclude by arguing that New Zealand’s ROL tradition is substantive in nature, and should be evolved, given the imminent crisis of climate change, to include specific elements that correspond to a duty to protect the rights of current and future generations by working to ensure a liveable environment.