I am curious if you have given any thought as to how NEPA may have played out differently in a civil law system? It seems to me that much of NEPA burden was not in the statute but developed through common law. Would NEPA have become so burdensome in a civil law system that didn't rely on the never-ending growth of precedent?
theoretically, I think it would have still been very burdensome as regulatory scope creep would have still played a role. Also I think the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) would still be enacted in a civil law system. Lawsuits based on the APA have driven up the burden and length of environmental impact documents, even without the influence of precedent, because people try to safeguard themselves from potential lawsuits by including anything and everything in their documentation
So in short, maybe it would've turned out slightly better, but it would most likely still would be extremely burdensome and obstructionist
I am curious if you have given any thought as to how NEPA may have played out differently in a civil law system? It seems to me that much of NEPA burden was not in the statute but developed through common law. Would NEPA have become so burdensome in a civil law system that didn't rely on the never-ending growth of precedent?
theoretically, I think it would have still been very burdensome as regulatory scope creep would have still played a role. Also I think the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) would still be enacted in a civil law system. Lawsuits based on the APA have driven up the burden and length of environmental impact documents, even without the influence of precedent, because people try to safeguard themselves from potential lawsuits by including anything and everything in their documentation
So in short, maybe it would've turned out slightly better, but it would most likely still would be extremely burdensome and obstructionist
Thanks for this. I am not very familiar with civil law, this is some useful insight.