@book {8180, title = {Global Environmental Change and Innovation in International Law}, year = {Accepted}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, organization = {Cambridge University Press}, author = {Craik, Neil and Jefferies, C. and Seck, S. and Stephens, T.} } @inbook {7057, title = {Environmental Impact Assessment}, booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Environmental Law - Principles of Environmental Law}, year = {2018}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, organization = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @governmentreport {8179, title = {Developing a National Strategy for Climate Engineering Research in Canada}, volume = {CIGI Papers}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.cigionline.org/publications/developing-national-strategy-climate-engineering-research-canada} } @article {1685, title = {Process and Reconciliation: Integrating the Duty to Consult with Environmental Assessment}, journal = {Osgoode Hall Law Journal }, volume = {53}, year = {2016}, month = {1 November }, abstract = {

As the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples becomes operationalized within the frameworks of government decision-making, the agencies responsible for these decisions are increasingly turning to environmental assessment (EA) processes as one of the principal vehicles for carrying out those consultations. This article explores the practical and theoretical dimensions of using EA processes to implement the duties to consult and accommodate. The relationship between EA and the duty to consult has arisen in a number of cases and a clear picture is emerging of the steps that agencies conducting EAs must carry out in order to discharge their constitutional obligations to Aboriginal peoples. The paper examines the implementation of the duty to consult through various stages of the EA processes, identifying the EA practices that are best able to satisfy the legal requirements and the aspirations of the duty to consult, as well as to identify areas that are likely to present challenges moving forward. The paper also considers the broader approach to EA that is more likely to contribute to the overarching goal of reconciliation. Here the central claim is that greater attention must be paid to the deliberative and justificatory qualities of EA.

}, url = {http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/122/?utm_source=digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca\%2Folsrps\%2F122\&utm_medium=PDF\&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {1689, title = {International EIA Law and Geoengineering: Do Emerging Technologies Require Special Rules?}, journal = {Climate Law}, volume = {5}, year = {2015}, pages = {111-141}, abstract = {

This article explores the adequacy of the\ international\ rules\ on environmental impact assessment to contribute to\ geoengineering\ governance, with a focus on three fundamental challenges. First, the near-universal trigger for\ EIA\ is the likelihood of significant environmental impact, which may prove to be insufficiently precautionary in light of current risk preferences surrounding\ geoengineering. Second, the scope of\ eia\ has traditionally focused narrowly on the assessment of direct physical impacts; however, many of the concerns that\ geoengineering\ research raises relate to environmental and social risks associated with downstream technological implications. A third and related challenge is the consultation requirements under\ EIA\ laws, which focus on affected states and affected members of the public. Because many\ geoengineering\ activities are anticipated to impact the global commons, there is no clear institutional mechanism for implementing notification and consultation. Additionally, the broader sets of concerns that\ geoengineering\ raises are spatially unbounded, again making the identification of consultation partners uncertain. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the challenges and limitations of the\ rules\ of\ EIA\ for\ geoengineering.\ 

}, author = {Craik, N} } @inbook {1215, title = {Principle 17- Environmental Impact Assessment}, booktitle = { Jorge Vinuales (ed,) The Rio Deceleration on Environment and Development: A Commentary}, year = {2014}, pages = {451-470}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, organization = {Oxford University Press}, edition = {1st}, address = {England}, url = {https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-rio-declaration-on-environment-and-development-9780199686773?cc=ca\&lang=en\&}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @book {1211, title = {Climate Change Policy in North America: Designing Integration in a Regional System}, year = {2013}, pages = {376}, publisher = {University of Toronto Press}, organization = {University of Toronto Press}, edition = {1st}, address = {Toronto}, abstract = {

While no supranational institutions exist to govern climate change in North America, a system of cooperation among a diverse range of actors and institutions is currently emerging. Given the range of interests that influence climate policy across political boundaries, can these distinct parts be integrated into a coherent, and ultimately resilient system of regional climate cooperation?

Climate Change Policy in North America is the first book to examine how cooperation respecting climate change can emerge within decentralized governance arrangements. Leading scholars from a variety of disciplines provide in-depth case studies of climate cooperation initiatives {\textendash} such as emissions trading, energy cooperation, climate finance, carbon accounting and international trade {\textendash} as well as analysis of the institutional, political, and economic conditions that influence climate policy integration.

}, url = {http://www.utppublishing.com/Climate-Change-Policy-in-North-America-Designing-Integration-in-a-Regional-System.html}, editor = {Craik, Neil and Studer, Isabel and VanNijnatten, Debora} } @article {1216, title = {Regulating Geoengineering Research through Domestic Environmental Protection Frameworks: Reflections on the Recent Canadian Ocean Fertilization Case}, journal = {Carbon and Climate Law Review}, volume = {7}, year = {2013}, pages = {117-124}, abstract = {

Field experiments related to the development of geoengineering technologies are now occurring in an increasing number of countries. Such projects are raising important questions about the adequacy of national environmental protection laws (EPLs) for regulating geoengineering activities, including their ability to enforce emerging international norms for geoengineering research. This article considers the application of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to a recent controversy over ocean iron fertilization off the coast of British Columbia.\ This incident provides an important precedent for analyzing existing domestic legislation and administrative measures being called upon to regulate geoengineering activities outside of the laboratory. To date, the attention of legal scholars has mostly focused on the content and adequacy of international rules.\ However, as this case illustrates, the interpretation and implementation of these rules in domestic legal systems is critically important, as it is predominantly within domestic frameworks that such rules have direct legal effect on private and nongovernmental actors. Our analysis highlights some key challenges for EPLs in regulating geoengineering activities, and draws some tentative conclusions regarding the structure of domestic environmental protection frameworks for regulating geoengineering research

}, author = {Craik, Neil and Blackstock, J and Hubert, A} } @article {1684, title = {Governing Information: A Three Dimensional Analysis of Environmental Assessment}, journal = {Public Administration}, volume = {90}, year = {2012}, month = {20 March 2012}, pages = {19-36}, abstract = {

This article examines the institutional, political and regulatory dimensions of environmental assessment (EA) processes. While EA is most often conceptualized as a regulatory instrument, this article contends that viewing EA in this narrow fashion obscures the broader implications and significance of EA as a distinct form of governance. When conceived as a mode of governance, EA varies considerably in terms of the key governance characteristics emphasized in this symposium. The empirical evidence rests upon three cases studies looking at very different multi-level governance contexts: the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill in Australia, the Whites Point Quarry in Canada, and the Bystr{\"o}e Canal Project in the Ukraine. The case study analysis identifies large variations in the institutional, political and regulatory form that EAs take, indicating that approaches identifying EA as a form of {\textquoteleft}New Governance{\textquoteright} are overly simplistic. The analysis also points to the multi-directional influence of different governance dimensions. The insights derived from the use of the three dimensional framework validate its value as an analytical tool.

}, author = {Craik, N and Doelle, M and Gale, F} } @inbook {1686, title = {Regional Climate Policy Facilitation: The Role of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation}, booktitle = {Neil Craik, Isabel Studer, Debora VanNijnatten (ed,) Climate Change Policy in North America: Designing Integration in a Regional System}, year = {2012}, pages = {213-245}, publisher = {University of Toronto Press}, organization = {University of Toronto Press}, address = {Toronto}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt5hjwbf}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {1693, title = {Bundled transgovernmentalism: North American climate governance and the lessons learned from the Security and Prosperity Partnership}, journal = {Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences }, volume = {14}, year = {2011}, pages = {156-166}, abstract = {

This paper takes stock of the current nature and form of climate governance (or its absence) with a view to considering the adequacy of current governance approaches to meet more rigorous greenhouse gas mitigation requirements. In recognition of the need to retain flexibility and informality while progressively integrating climate law and policy, the paper considers the potential lessons learned from the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The form of governance institutionalized in the SPP sought to impose greater coherence and stronger executive oversight across a sprawling integration agenda; a form of governance that can be described as {\textquotedblleft}bundled transgovernmentalism{\textquotedblright}. The results of the SPP process were mixed at best, but the process has valuable lessons, both positive and negative, for the future of North American climate governance. The potential benefits of implementing a form of bundled transgovernmentalism are discussed, along with the requirements necessary to avoid the pervasive legitimacy concerns that characterized the SPP.

}, author = {Craik, N} } @book {1214, title = {Public Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary}, year = {2011}, pages = {508}, publisher = {Emond Montgomery Publishers}, organization = {Emond Montgomery Publishers}, edition = {2nd}, address = {Toronto}, editor = {Craik, Neil and Forcese, Craig and Bryden, Philip and Carver, Peter and Haigh, Richard and Ratushny, Ed and Sullivan, Ruth} } @article {1692, title = {Subsidiary Decision-Making under the Espoo Convention: Legal Status and Legitimacy}, journal = {Review of European Community and International Environmental Law}, volume = {20}, year = {2011}, pages = {258-266}, abstract = {

As the Espoo Convention responds to an evolving policy context, the Parties have increasingly turned to subsidiary means of decision making under the Convention. This article considers the kinds of activities that the Meeting of the Parties and the Implementation Committee are being called upon to perform and the ambiguous normative status of these decisions in international law. In light of these developments, it is argued that if the continued vitality and robustness of the Espoo regime complex is to be maintained, careful attention must be paid to questions of accountability, procedural justice and the quality of justification provided by subsidiary bodies.

}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {1691, title = {Transboundary Environmental Assessment in Canada: International and Constitutional Dimensions}, journal = {Journal of Environmental Law and Practice}, volume = {21}, year = {2010}, pages = {107-138}, abstract = {

At a time of reassessment and possible retrenchment of domestic EIA requirements, this paper considers whether international law may provide a set of baseline requirements against which the adequacy and legality of Canadian EA law may be measured. The paper considers Canada{\textquoteright}s international legal obligations to perform EIAs and how the implementation of that duty is affected by the constitutional division of powers over environmental matters. This examination is undertaken with the specific goal of considering whether CEAA conforms to Canada{\textquoteright}s international legal obligations, and how the international rules may impact the exercise of discretion under CEAA. The conclusion of the paper is that the structure of transboundary EA rules under CEAA fails to implement international legal requirements in a number of important areas and, as result, misses an opportunity to strengthen transboundary environmental cooperation.

}, author = {Craik, N} } @magazinearticle {1958, title = {Watershed Years: Developments in International Climate Change Governance}, journal = {Exchange Magazine}, volume = {27}, year = {2009}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @book {1212, title = {The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Substance and Integration}, year = {2008}, pages = {350}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, organization = {Cambridge University Press}, edition = {1st}, address = {Cambridge}, abstract = {

The central idea animating environmental impact assessment (EIA) is that decisions affecting the environment should be made through a comprehensive evaluation of predicted impacts. Notwithstanding their evaluative mandate, EIA processes do not impose specific environmental standards, but rely on the creation of open, participatory and information rich decision-making settings to bring about environmentally benign outcomes. In light of this tension between process and substance, Neil Craik assesses whether EIA, as a method of implementing international environmental law, is a sound policy strategy, and how international EIA commitments structure transnational interactions in order to influence decisions affecting the international environment. Through a comprehensive description of international EIA commitments and their implementation with domestic and transnational governance structures, and drawing on specific examples of transnational EIA processes, the author examines how international EIA commitments can facilitate interest coordination, and provide opportunities for persuasion and for the internalisation of international environmental norms.

}, url = {http://www.cambridge.org/ca/academic/subjects/law/environmental-law/international-law-environmental-impact-assessment-process-substance-and-integration?format=HB\&isbn=9780521879453}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @article {1688, title = {Presumed Innocent: Navigation Rights and Risk-Based Activities in the Passamaquoddy Bay}, journal = {University of New Brunswick Law Journal }, volume = {58}, year = {2008}, pages = {167-198}, author = {Craik, N} } @inbook {1217, title = {Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in North America: Obstacles and Opportunities}, booktitle = {Kees Bastmeijer and Timo Koivurova (ed,) Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment}, volume = {1st}, year = {2008}, pages = {93-118}, publisher = {Martinus Nijhoff Publishers}, organization = {Martinus Nijhoff Publishers}, edition = {1st}, address = {Leiden}, abstract = {

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a well-established instrument of Environmental Law and policy that aims to ensure that potential adverse environmental effects of human activities are assessed before decisions on such activities are made. The instrument is increasingly being applied in respect of activities that may cause environmental effects across the borders of a state. In this book, thirteen systems of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) are assessed that exist or are in development in different parts of the world. Although TEIA is generally associated with EIA between territorial states, this book takes a broader approach and is divided into three sub-parts: Transboundary EIA between states, EIA for activities in international and shared areas, and EIA required by international financial institutions. Knowledgeable experts (scholars and practitioners) provide an overview of the history, content, and practice of the individual systems and, based on these discussions, the state of the art concerning TEIA and possible future developments are discussed.

}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {1687, title = {Genetically Modified Crops and Nuisance: Exploring the Role of Precaution in Private Law}, journal = {Bulletin of Science, Technology \& Society }, volume = {27}, year = {2007}, month = {June 2007}, pages = {202-214}, abstract = {

This paper critically considers calls for the precautionary principle to inform judicial decision-making in a private law context in light of the claims in Hoffman v. Monsanto, where it is alleged that the potential for genetic contamination from GM crops causes an unreasonable interference with the rights of organic farmers to use and enjoy their lands, giving rise to an actionable nuisance. Applying the precautionary principle in this context would likely privilege non-GM land uses over GM uses, in light of the latter{\textquoteright}s uncertain environmental impacts. Through a comparison of the institutional characteristics and respective roles of public and private regulation, we argue that the private law context, which lacks democratic accountability and has a limited ability to address complex scientific issues, is poorly suited to apply the diffuse, policy-based risk allocation considerations raised by the precautionary principle.

}, author = {Craik, N and Siebrasse, N and Culver, K} } @inbook {1690, title = {Transboundary Pollution, Unilateralism and the Limits of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Second Trail Smelter Dispute}, booktitle = {Rebecca M. Bratspies \& Russell A. Miller (ed,) Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration}, year = {2006}, pages = {109-121}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, organization = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, url = {http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521856430}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {1959, title = {Deference and Discretion under NB Environmental Legislation}, journal = {Solicitor{\textquoteright}s Journal}, volume = {21}, year = {2005}, month = {Winter 2005}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @book {1957, title = {Canadian Municipal and Planning Law}, year = {2004}, pages = {273}, publisher = {Thomas Carswell}, organization = {Thomas Carswell}, edition = {2nd}, address = {Toronto}, abstract = {

This is your key to a confident understanding of the structure, organization and authority of municipal and planning law in Canada. The book analyzes the purpose and role of municipal councils, courts and provincial agencies, giving you the basis for the interpretation of municipal legislation. It includes references to the planning and municipal statutes of a number of Canadian jurisdictions, keeping you abreast of the most current legislative developments in this area of law. This new edition is fully updated to reflect the changes and developments that have occurred over the last 20 years, and since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

}, url = {http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/canadian-municipal-and-planning-law-2nd-edition/}, author = {Craik, Neil and Makuch, S. M. and Liesk, S} } @article {1960, title = {Compliance Procedures and mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol}, journal = {Canadian Council on International Law Bulletin}, volume = {29}, year = {2003}, author = {Craik, Neil} } @article {2096, title = {Case Comment: Hudson v. Spraytech}, journal = {Digest of Municipal and Planning Law }, volume = {6}, year = {2001}, author = {Craik, Neil and Kemerer, M} } @article {2097, title = {Motions to Dismiss and the Ontario Municipal Board}, journal = {Digest of Municipal and Planning Law }, volume = {5}, year = {2000}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {2099, title = {Case Comment: CRTC Decision Re: Exclusive Access to Subdivision Trenches}, journal = {Municipal and Planning Law Reports}, volume = {4}, year = {1999}, pages = {225}, author = {Craik, N} } @article {2098, title = {Municipal Fees and Taxation: Clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada }, journal = {Digest of Municipal and Planning Law }, volume = {5}, year = {1999}, author = {Craik, N and Podrebarac, C} }