Godden, Lee; Dale, Pat --- "Interdisciplinary Teaching in Law and Environmental Science: Jurisprudence and Environment" [2000] LegEdRev 9; (2000) 11(2) Legal Education Review 239
TEACHING NOTE
Interdisciplinary Teaching in Law and Environmental Science:
Jurisprudence
and Environment
LEE GODDEN &PAT DALE*
I INTRODUCTION
Griffith University introduced an integrated Law and Environmental Science degree in 1992. Students who successfully complete the five-year course receive both a Bachelor of Law and a Bachelor of Science degree. The first graduates entered the work force in 1997. With burgeoning regulation of the environment these graduates will help fill a growing demand for legally qualified environmental scientists or scientifically qualified lawyers. The first years of the degrees of the course are devoted to studying the two discipline areas, with integration across disciplines wherever possible. One example is that many of the core legal subjects set an integrated law and environmental science assignment that, for instance, might include the environmental and legal aspects of toxic torts. The theoretical and philosophical frameworks of law and environmental science are integrated in the fourth year subject, Jurisprudential Theories of Law and the Environment. This subject, together with a final year integrated research project, represents a culmination of the interdisciplinary study across the two degrees. The subject is a novel one, being the first of its kind in Australia, and is the focus of this article. We outline the aims of the subject, its approach, content, teaching and assessment methods, summarise innovative student achievements, and provide illustrative feedback from students.
AIMS
The general aims of the subject are to provide an interdisciplinary framework for the study of Law and Environmental Science. The approach combines both theoretical issues and substantive Law and Science. Currently, the subject dovetails with a first semester jurisprudence subject. In the first few years of offering the general jurisprudence section was not separated from the integrated law/science component. Instead, the subject commenced with a ten week jurisprudential section and then the integrated focus continued thereafter across two semesters. Under the new structure, the first-semester subject, (and the former 10-week component) applies a theoretical and analytical perspective from a range of jurisprudential schools of thought. Ultimately, it examines how law is relevant to human experience.1 This focus is common to all integration areas, not only the Law/Environmental Science integration.2 In addition, Environmental Science students are already familiar with the basics of the philosophy of science which is taught in earlier years in the context of hypothesis testing and experimental design in various Environmental Science subjects. The second semester subject is developed and implemented by academics from each of the disciplinary integration areas. What follows is an account of the way the Law-Environmental Science integration is developed.
APPROACH TO INTEGRATION OF LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
The principal aim of this subject is to develop a conceptual framework to
assist the evolution of an integrated approach to the study
of Law and
Environmental Science. As such the approach pursues a theoretical understanding
of central issues concerning the environment
that arise in Science, in Law and
also as a result of the interaction between the two areas. On completing the
subject, students
should have an understanding of how and why the legal process
regulates, or fails to regulate, the complex interaction between human
behaviour
and the biophysical/social milieu.
Objectives of the subject are to:
(a) examine the relevance of law to human experience in the context of the “environment”;
(b) explore the extent to which theories can provide an explanatory basis for understanding issues that arise in relation to law and the environment;
(c) discuss limitations of the theories and propose alternative bases of explanation;
(d) examine the appropriateness of substantive law and legal reasoning to environmental issues; and
(e) consider whether the legal framework is sufficiently flexible to provide
just outcomes in environmental disputes.
The specific themes of the subject
were developed in association with a “core” common part of the
jurisprudence subject.
Key concepts and issues from a jurisprudential
perspective, such as rights, ethics, justice, individual and community
interests,
sanctions and punishment, and their application to environmental
issues, are covered. In addition, various approaches to interpretation
and the
construction of meaning from a disciplinary standpoint are discussed. An example
here is the section which considers the
interaction of legal and scientific
procedures and methodologies for establishing “truth”. As a further
example, the
section on “interpreting the environment” resonates
with the discussion of postmodern interpretations of legal texts
from the core
jurisprudence section but adapts these approaches to an environmental planning
context.
The subject is not designed to be a comprehensive environmental law
subject, although various aspects of environmental law, both legislation
and
case law, are highlighted. Students are encouraged throughout to “bring
across” information from subjects taught
in both degrees and to examine it
from an interdisciplinary perspective.
The content for weekly topics was
designed to illustrate various jurisprudential issues, or to provide a point of
departure to consider
vexed ethical or moral dilemmas confronting persons who
practise in the fields of law and environmental science. For example, the
content dealing with biodiversity protection illustrates issues about the
“value” that law ascribes to the natural world.
The discussion
hinges around the relationship between law and morality in terms of legal norms
prescribing how people “should”
act when confronted with rapidly
diminishing natural species. A further theme considered in relation to this
substantive content
is whether the emergence of biodiversity protection laws,
incorporating concepts such as the precautionary principle, constitutes
a form
of natural law. A discussion of natural law as a point of comparison with
positivist law, reinforces the analysis conducted
in the common jurisprudential
section, while providing a uniquely environmental “twist” to the
theme.
CONTENT
To provide a succinct summary of the content, the subject overview is shown in Figure 1 and the content is summarised in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the integration of legal “theory”3 into environmental issues such as policy development. In effect, the development of theoretical constructs about law, environmental science and their inter-action presides, and permeates the other topics and environmental issues. All of this affects the practical issues and ultimately the “grass roots” where policy decisions are put into effect and environmental and legal outcomes occur.
FIGURE 1
A qualitative model of the relationships between
subject components.
TABLE 1
Topics and Content of Jurisprudential Theories
of
Law and Environment: integration in the
second part of the subject
|
Topic
|
Content
|
|---|---|
|
Property Rights and the
Environment |
|
|
The Individual, the Community and “Environmental Rights”
|
Examines the balance between the rights of the individual, the public
interest and the needs of the environment by examining:
|
|
Environmental
Ethics/Professional Ethics |
|
|
Valuing the
Environment |
The theme of “values” discusses:
|
|
Case Studies – The Clash of
Instrumental vs Intrinsic Environmental Value |
Examines and discusses, in the context of specific examples:
|
|
Environment, Sustainability and Justice
|
Considers the problem of achieving a just balance between the often
conflicting demands of environmental conservation and development,
given the
“rights” of the interested parties. Cases studies are used to focus
discussion (eg, World Heritage issues)
|
|
Scientific Methodology for Interpreting and Assessing the Environment
|
|
|
Environmental
Perception |
Explores and examines:
|
|
Integration:
Objectivity/ Subjectivity |
How Law and Science conceive of objectivity by considering concepts such as
the reasonable person test and the scientific method.
Questions addressed
include:
|
|
Environmental Impact Assessment: Approaches and Theoretical basis
|
Focus on Government and environmental regulation.
Environmental impact statements are central to the Government’s
decision making process.
Examines the problems and limitations associated with the Environmental
Impact Statement process as an exemplar of conceptions of
“risk”,
reviewing relevant legislation.
|
|
New Approaches to Environmental Protection: From Policy to Practice
|
Examines recent Queensland policy and statutory initiatives which seek to
reform procedures, such as the Integrated Planning Act 1997
(Qld).
Critique focuses on whether the proposed reforms ensure greater
environmental protection and at the same time allow for an expedition
of
decision making processes?
Practical exercises include drafting and inputs to recent draft legislation
or policy documents as available.
|
|
Courts Versus Other Means of Dispute Resolution.
|
The growing trend is to reconcile environmental differences through
processes other than the adversarial court system. Dispute resolution
is a less
adversarial approach to environmental problems. Discussion focuses on case
studies which utilise alternatives to the courts.
|
|
Punishment and Deterrence
|
What happens to the environmental offender?
We introduce a theoretical framework for punishment, deterrence and
rehabilitation and discuss pragmatic solutions and ethics.
We refer to basic concepts of culture (values, beliefs and norms, of which
norms are the behavioural outcome).
We consider how such concepts apply to environmental offenders, and how
penalties may reflect the values held by a society and also
how these have
changed, and are changing.
|
|
Review and
Synthesis: a Conceptual Framework |
A conceptual model is developed to synthesise and analyse the theoretical
framework.
A general qualitative “model” is developed (Figure 1) to
provide an interdisciplinary framework for the study of law and
environment. The
“model” is presented as one of a possible range of conceptual
frameworks and students are encouraged
to develop their own “model”
to aid in understanding the application of jurisprudential theories to the
environment.
|
TEACHING METHODS
The subject is taught by two hours allocated to lectures and a student-lead
seminar each week. In the first two years, the student
numbers were around
8–10 but this number has increased in succeeding years to a steady state
of approximately 15–20 students.
The lecture format is informal. The
normal process is for one teacher from the two faculties involved to give an
overview “lecture”
while the other “interferes”,
stimulating discussion amongst all participants. With a small and motivated
class this
format is an effective way to achieve the subject objectives and
provides students with opportunities to develop their advocacy skills.
From the
teaching perspective we are fortunate in having two different academic
perspectives (one lecturer from Law and the other
from Environmental Science)
yet both lecturers’ first degrees were in Geography and each also has a
Bachelor of Laws. The interaction
between faculty is important in facilitating
active student involvement in the lectures and recognising the need to
communicate effectively
across disciplines.
The second hour may include
further informal lecturing or a guest lecture, but commonly uses more innovative
and entertaining methods
to convey understanding. Typically students are given a
scenario and asked to develop a case from various perspectives, using both
legal
and environmental arguments. In other instances they are asked to critically
examine environmental policy, draft legislation
to give effect to policy, or
comment on draft legislation culminating in providing a written response to the
relevant government
department. As well, practical “experiments” are
conducted to investigate the group attitude to issues such as punishment
or
perception of environment. These are then compared in class to the results of
published research on the same issues and discussed
in the light of current
theory.4
The seminar is student driven. At the start
of semester a list of seminar topics is distributed. Each week’s topic
relates to
the lecture theme for the week and is organised by students. Each
student selects topics from a designated list and a small number
of students
present their work each week. How the students organise the topic for a
particular seminar is for them to choose. Some
split the topic, others may focus
on contrasting examples. Occasionally innovative activities such as role-plays
are arranged by
the students involving the whole class, including the
lecturers.
ASSESSMENT
The Law/Environmental Science integration part of the subject has three
assessment items. These are based on class participation,
seminar presentations,
and a major assignment. The items test a range of skills and are designed to
enhance the students’ ability
to analyse and present material in an
interdisciplinary manner.
The seminar presentations are initially given on
the basis of pre-set topics related to the lecture component each week and which
covers both law and environment. The major assignment may be based on a seminar
topic or students may select a topic, subject to
it being approved by one of the
lecturers. One criterion for approval is that the topic involves both legal and
environmental issues.
It may, for example, focus on an area of law and discuss
environmental implications or it may take an environmental issue and discuss
the
relevance of law and legal process to its resolution.
INNOVATIVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTS
Students surprise us with the degree of insight they show on difficult
theoretical issues, both from the legal and environmental perspective.
Topics
covered in the major assignment have included: comparing indigenous peoples
rights with respect to environmental management
in Australia and overseas, a
detailed examination of evidentiary processes in environmental disputes, a
feminist critique of pollution
legislation, an examination of changing attitudes
to rural land use practices, and an examination of social contract theory and
environmental
justice. Some of the work is of publishable quality. Importantly,
the assignments provide an introduction to independent research
for the students
who all have to conduct a major interdisciplinary research project in their
final year of study.
In seminars, the work has ranged from an intensive
analysis of case law on the application of the precautionary principle in
environmental
disputes as an example of the permeation of “risk”
concepts in modern society, video presentations of world heritage
management
issues on the Barrier Reef, to a role play on negotiation for a toxic waste
dump, to a philosophical discussion between
two “trees” providing an
analysis of Stone’s classic argument – Should Trees Have
Standing?
STUDENT FEEDBACK
It is essential to have student feedback to guide the future development of the subject, given its innovative concept, the breadth of topics covered and the interdisciplinary context. The subject is evaluated each time it is completed. Overall there has been a positive response to the subject and generally student evaluations indicate that students perceive that the subject achieves most of its stated aims. Evaluations reveal that the most positive aspects of the subject are in making theory less intimidating and more interesting. A small selection of student comments follows:
I have always baulked at the theoretical content of the course since first year – due to my own mental block! I found jurisprudence finally gave me the confidence to feel I was capable of forming my own ideas and reflecting on others. I think that this was mainly due to the use of examples and relating jurisprudence to substantive issues.
Materials and subject were interesting and well structured.
In particular
students found the student seminars useful, commenting that they are:
A good way to look at issues in depth and see new ideas – of other
students.
There have been no serious negative criticisms although one comment
suggests possible improvement:
I’d make it more relevant to practical issues – probably more
theory but relate it back to stuff we’ve done in Law/
ENS(Environmental
Science).
Making sure the examples are relevant to the “real
world” issues which students will face when they graduate can accommodate
this objective. But perhaps the most rewarding aspect is the ad hoc
comments that arise in class discussion which reveal that students have been
able to draw together the sometimes disparate strands
to offer a new insight
based upon their “environmental grounding” in two disciplines.
CRITICAL EVALUATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Given the positive response from students and the generally high standard of
the students’ assigned work there is no apparent
need for major changes.
However there is still some fine-tuning which is driven by experiences in the
subject itself.
For instance, we propose to augment the essay with a
document showing the “chain of research” pursued in developing one
of the seminars (eg literature search, use of legal digests, Case Annotator,
on-line data bases etc).5 This would show the process
by which information was sought – a factor of extreme importance when
undertaking interdisciplinary
study where there is a need to be very wide
ranging in obtaining information from diverse sources beyond the standard
case and statute
laws. Moreover, the “chain of research” illustrates
a student’s ability to effectively find research information
and assists
in preparing for a major interdisciplinary research project that is undertaken
in the fifth year of the degree. It also
gives recognition to the work that goes
into researching for the essay and would help avoid the temptation for students
to include
what is not particularly relevant just to demonstrate that they have
been diligent in their studies. In some complex areas competent
research may
yield a lot of material (much of which is not very relevant) or a very little.
Indeed the impetus for this development
was from one of the students who
attached such a “chain” to her seminar report, mainly because she
wished to show the
paucity of material available on her subject, despite having
carried out an extensive and “appropriate” search.
Further, as
changes occur in current issues it will be necessary to modify the content to
ensure that it remains relevant and incorporates
topical issues. One such issue
is the relationship between the rights of indigenous people and policies for
environmental protection.
Timeliness is particularly important when students
make submissions on draft policy documents or evaluate environmental policies
in
areas of current concern such as coastal management.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, in considering the subject as a whole, there is perhaps a need
for more collaborative work between the teachers in the
subject to increase the
consistency of emphasis between the core jurisprudence section and the later
integrated section. It remains
challenging to bring together the very complex
and fundamental questions about how law operates in society, and how it can be
made
meaningful to human experience in the late twentieth century using an
interdisciplinary perspective. It is a perspective that considers
law in the
light of particular experiences – the interaction of humans and the
environment and, moreover of law as itself part
of that environment.
It is
acknowledged that tensions exist between examining issues from a predominantly
jurisprudential or law perspective when some
critical environmental science
issues have no direct equivalent expression in jurisprudential traditions.
Further, and perhaps surprisingly,
any difficulties in providing a holistic
integrated framework for understanding arise not so much from a substantive
content basis
but from the need to coalesce the two very different
methodological approaches from the disciplines of law and science. To the extent
that disciplinary methodology imposes a way of ordering knowledge and
“seeing” the world, then it has been very instructive
to have to
work together to accommodate these approaches in a single subject. The
“accommodation” of the two disciplinary
bases more often than not
comes from the students themselves, who having been trained in both disciplines
are able to make the necessary
links.
By its very nature, any consideration
of the environment ranges over a diversity of issues, interests and concerns. It
would seem
then, that this requires a broad understanding as a prerequisite to
working as a professional in this field. Further, it is often
noted that the
resolution of environmental problems needs to be approached from various
standpoints, not least, the disciplines of
law and science. Such issues need not
just an understanding of relevant substantive content but an appreciation of the
values, ethics
and methodologies that can be brought to bear upon such
problems.6 While many forms of “modern”
knowledge tend toward specialisation, the scope of the environment seems to
compel an interdisciplinary,
comprehensive focus.7 The
subject, Jurisprudential Theories of Law and the Environment, in its aims,
content and teaching methods represents a still formative
attempt to equip
students with this interdisciplinary and broad approach to environmental
questions.
* Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Griffith
University; Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith
University, respectively.
©2001. (2000) 11 Legal Educ Rev
239.
1 The authors acknowledge the substantial work that was undertaken by Shaun McVeigh in developing the core jurisprudence element that comprises an introductory jurisprudential section prior to the students undertaking the specific interdisciplinary section.
2 Other disciplines involved in the integrated degree courses include: Public Policy, International Business, Media, Accountancy, and Modern Asian Languages.
3 We prefer to use the term “theory” rather than jurisprudence as many matters discussed in an interdisciplinary subject of this type range more broadly than traditional jurisprudential topics. It is acknowledged that “theory” also is open to a wide range of interpretations.
4 For example, students are asked to “map” their perception of the campus. These “cognitive” maps are compared with research on the cognition of space and its incorporation in environmental planning concepts.
5 Since writing the first draft of this paper the “chain of research” has been included in the assessment, with great success.
6 G Morgan, The Dominion of Nature: Can Law Embody a New Attitude? (1993) 18 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy 60.
7 For a discussion of the need for a broad approach to environmental problems see S Molesworth, The Integration of Environmental Imperatives into Decision Making, paper delivered at Courting the Environment: National Environmental Law Association Conference, Coolum Qld, 1996, Collected papers, 1.1 at 1.1.2.