Law for social‐ecological resilience International and transdisciplinary conference 17‐19 November 2010, Stockholm University  ECO‐TERRORISTS FACING ARMAGEDDON: THE IMPACT OF THE DEFENCE OF NECESSITY ON  LAW’S NORMATIVE RIGIDITY IN A CONTEXT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS Hugo Tremblay, PhD student Workshop on Environmental  Governance: Structures and Theories  Thursday 18/11, 15.00‐16.30 UNDERLYING ARGUMENT • Law’s normative role requires minimal rigidity • Legal norms inevitably rely on generalisations • Unique and unforeseeable events constitute an inherent challenge for law • Specific mechanisms provide flexibility in exceptional cases • The application domain of these mechanisms may expand critically in  times of crisis and emergency • The resulting increase in legal flexibility may threaten law’s role as a  framework of normative rules In a context of environmental crisis and climate change, can  mechanisms for legal flexibility diminish law’s normative rigidity  enough to damage its resilience? A CASE STUDY ON NECESSITY 1 PLAN 1. Introducing necessity 2. Defining the defence of necessity in Canadian law 3. Increasing legal flexibility: A case law review 4. Dissolving law’s normativity? Necessity in environmental crisis 2 1 ‐ INTRODUCING NECESSITY DEFINITION: Necessity relates to the situation where an offence is committed  to avoid a greater evil which would result from objective dangers  in exceptional circumstances AMBIVALENCE BETWEEN NECESSITY AND LAW: 1 – Law must recognise necessity «The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.» St.  Thomas Aquinas 2 – Necessity threatens law’s normativity «In terms of policy necessity is a dangerous doctrine. For one thing it allows an individual, as judge in his own cause, to put his own before another's good; for another, it opens the door to all manner of self-serving pleas – (…) it is invoked equally by despots and by rebels.» Law Reform  3 Commission of Canada 2 ‐ DEFINING NECESSITY IN CANADIAN LAW HISTORY: • Tributary to English common law • XVIII  century: clearly defined by Blackstone • XIX century: marginalised by the English drive to codify criminal law  – excluded from the English Draft Code of 1879  • Excluded from the 1st Canadian Criminal Code in 1892 • Preserved as a residual and inarticulate common law defence to  justify or excuse an act otherwise illegal: subsection 8 (3) CCC • In 1976, its acceptance is still uncertain ‐ Morgentaler v. The Queen «No system of positive law can recognize any principle which would entitle a person to violate the law because in his view the law conflicted with some higher social value.» 4 2 ‐ DEFINING NECESSITY IN CANADIAN LAW DEFENCE RECOGNISED: PERKA v. THE QUEEN, 1984 Facts: Ship leaves Columbia for Alaska with a cargo of cannabis. En route in  international waters off the coast of British Columbia, the engine breaks  down and a storm force the ship on Canadian shore, where the crew are  arrested and cargo seized. Charge: Importing drug in Canada for trafficking. Defence: Never wanted to import in Canada. Planned to repair ship and  leave. Grounding the ship was necessary. Evidence: Expert witnesses testify that grounding was prudent and essential. Judgement: The defence of necessity exists in Canadian law. The facts give rise to the defence. However, a new trial is ordered because of errors in  instructions to jury. 5 2 ‐ DEFINING NECESSITY IN CANADIAN LAW DEFENCE RECOGNISED: PERKA v. THE QUEEN, 1984   (Continued) Necessity renders punishment unjust. The sanction of a necessary offence is  not acceptable. Dissuasion is useless to deal with a necessary act. The offence would have  been committed by any other reasonable person in the same situation. Danger: Necessity can reduce the universality of law and make its  application relative. Solution: Necessity is an excuse. The offence committed under necessity  remains wrongful. The universal character of law is preserved. • Justification: challenges the wrongfulness of an action which  technically constitutes a crime. • Excuse: concedes the wrongfulness of the action but asserts that the  circumstances under which it was done are such that it ought not to  be attributed to the actor. 6 2 ‐ DEFINING NECESSITY IN CANADIAN LAW LIMITATIONS ON THE DEFENCE : PERKA + LATIMER v. THE QUEEN, 2001 3 cumulative requirements for the defence to succeed: 1 – Urgent situation and imminent peril 2 – Impossibility to comply with the law 3 – Proportionality requirement Proof: Prosecution bears the burden of repelling doubts raised that the accused  was acting out of necessity Application domain: Criminal law as well as statutory and regulatory offences  Applicable to strict and absolute liability offences 7 3 ‐ INCREASING LEGAL FLEXIBILITY: CASE LAW REVIEW APPREHENSIONS ABOUT NECESSITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: •The courts could question the social utility and value of legal frameworks •Circumvent legislative decisions to impose absolute liability for some  offences •Statutes already provide for necessity exceptions when required •Easier to invoke necessity with respect to environmental regulatory  offences because environmental harms are more difficult to assess than  harms to socio‐economic interests «where it is impossible to carry on an undertaking in accordance with the law the undertaking must be abandoned rather than the law be violated […]. Purely economic difficulties involved in complying with the law have never been accepted as an excuse for non-compliance.» R. v. Toronto Refiners & Smelters Ltd, 1977 8 3 ‐ INCREASING LEGAL FLEXIBILITY: CASE LAW REVIEW SUCCESSFUL DEFENCES OF NECESSITY (Continued): The Queen v. Municipality of Saint‐Cajetan D’Armagh In the fall of 1986, a municipality does dredging works to avoid flooding in a  river without the authorisation required under the Environment Quality Act The defence of necessity is allowed because flooding in the spring of 1986  had damaged properties, there was a chance that similar flooding would  reoccur in 1987, the municipality had required an authorisation earlier in  1986, and the ministry was not diligent in granting the authorisation Issues: •Flooding was caused by the remnants of a dike that collapsed in 1979 •Since 1979, flooding was an annual occurrence •Was flooding unforeseeable? Was there no other legal avenue? 9