The right to environmental protection in India: Many a slip between the cup and the lip?

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 274-286

  Rajamani, Lavanya ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN RIGHTS; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 38349195101     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: 14679388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00573.x     Document Type: Article

References (195)

1. A. Chekov, Uncle Vanya (Methuen, 1987), Act I.
2. United Nations Environment Programme, India: State of the Environment Report (UNEP, 2001), available at .
3. Ibid., at 97.
4. Ibid., at 78.
5. Ibid., at 115.
6. See Dialogue on Long-Term Cooperative Action to Address Climate Change by Enhancing Implementation of the Convention, India Country Presentation to UNFCCC COP-12 (16 November 2006), available at . This prediction is based on the assumption that India will continue to grow at the current rate. India's growth rate for 2006-2007 is 9.2% and it has averaged just above 8% in the last 4 years.
7. See Ministry of Finance, Economic Surveys (Government of India, undated), available at .
8. For a list of relevant legislation, see the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, available at .
9. See for instance, the website of the Central Pollution Control Board, Government of India, available at .
10. The Supreme Court of India traces in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayadu (2001), 2 SCC 62, para. 6
11. the origins of environmental rights in India to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), 3 SCC 161, para. 10.
12. M.R. Anderson, 'Individual Rights to Environmental Protection in India', in A. Boyle and M.R. Anderson (eds), Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (Oxford University Press, 1996), at 199.
13. Hereinafter all instances of the 'the Court' refer to the Supreme Court of India.
14. U. Baxi, 'Preface', in S.P. Sathe (ed.), Judicial Activism in India 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2002), at xv.
15. C. Wolfe, Judicial Activism: Bulwark of Freedom or Precarious Security (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1997), at 3 and 4.
16. Ibid.
17. S. Halpern and C.M. Lamb, Supreme Court Activism and Restraint (Lexington Books, 1984), at 45.
18. Ibid.
19. See C. Wolfe, n. 13 above.
20. Ibid.
21. This refers to an 18-month period between 1975 and 1977 during which then-Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency in India on grounds of internal political instability, and suspended certain fundamental rights.
22. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), Supp SCC 87.
23. In Re Sidebottam (1880), 14 ChD 458. Lord Justice James defined an aggrieved person as 'a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which wrongly deprived him of something, or wrongly affected his title to something';
24. ibid., at 465.
25. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980), 3 SCC 488.
26. Ibid., at paras 4, 25 and 50.
27. C.D. Cunningham, 'Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court: A Study in the Light of American Experience', 29 J. Indian. L. Inst (1987), 494, at 499.
28. This terminology is also adopted by A. Rosencranz and S. Divan, Environmental Law and Policy in India (Oxford University Press, 2002), at 135.
29. See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, n. 20 above, para. 20. That which constitutes sufficient interest would have to be determined by the Court in each individual case.
30. Ibid., at para. 23.
31. Ibid.
32. Cf. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1981), 1 SCC 568, para. 40.
33. See C.D. Cunningham, n. 24 above, at 501.
34. Public interest litigation in India can be pursued either in the High Court or Supreme Court. If the complaint is of a legal wrong, Article 226 of the Constitution of India (26 January 1950) (available at ) permits recourse to the High Court of the State. If the complaint alleges a violation of fundamental rights, Article 32 of the Constitution permits direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
35. In the context of public law litigation in the USA, Abram Chayes observed that this new phenomenon 'is recognizable as a lawsuit only because it takes place in a Courtroom before an official called a judge'. See A. Chayes, 'The Role of a Judge in Public Law Litigation', 89:7 Harvard Law Review (1976), 1281, at 1302.
36. The Supreme Court has extensive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is empowered to 'make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it'. See the Constitution of India, n. 30 above, Article 142.
37. See also Articles 142(2) and 144.
38. The Court, according to Rule 9, 'may, if it thinks fit, grant such ad interim relief to the petitioner, as the justice of the case may require, upon such terms, if any as it may consider just and proper': The Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Gazette of India (15 January 1966), available at .
39. Upendra Baxi describes the phenomenon as 'creeping jurisdiction', which he argues 'typically consists of taking over the direction of administration in a particular arena from the executive'. See U. Baxi, 'Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India', in R. Dhavan et al. (eds), Judges and Judicial Power (N.M. Tripathi Ltd, 1985), 289, at 298-300.
40. See, for instance, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case) Writ Petition Number 13029 of 1985 (ongoing).
41. See n. 12 above.
42. Cited in A.H. Desai and S. Muralidhar, 'Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems', in B.N. Kirpal et al. (eds), Supreme but not Infallible - Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (Oxford University Press, 2000), 159.
43. N. Sethi and M. Singh, 'Govt Plans Special Courts to Curb SC's Green Blitz', The Times of India (19 March 2007).
44. See also R. Jayaswal and M.K. Venu, 'Now Green Tribunals to Look into Protection Laws', The Economic Times (10 November 2006).
45. Article 32 guarantees 'the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part'. See the Constitution of India, n. 30 above.
46. Article 21 reads '[n]o person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. There is no explicit reference to an environmental right in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. See ibid.
47. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), 1 SCC 608, paras 7 and 8.
48. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), 3 SCC 545, para. 32.
49. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), 3 SCC 666, para. 12
50. and J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), 1 SCC 645, para. 166 which were decided much before the introduction of Article 21A guaranteeing free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of 6 and 14.
51. See Constitutional Amendment, Eighty-sixth Amendment Act (12 December 2002), available at .
52. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995), 3 SCC 42, paras 24 and 25.
53. Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), 1 SCC 598, para. 7
54. See also M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1992), 3 SCC 256, para. 2,
55. and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995), 2 SCC 577, para. 7.
56. See the Constitution of India, n. 30 above, Part IV, Articles 36-51.
57. Article 47 creates a duty for the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. See ibid., Article 47.
58. Ibid., Article 48A reads, '[T]he State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country'.
59. Ibid., Article 39.
60. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), 3 SCC 625, para. 56.
61. Article 51A (g) imposes a duty on every citizen 'to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures ...'. See the Constitution of India, n. 30 above, Article 51A(g).
62. The Court, in a series of directives spanning over two decades, responded by banning coal-based industries in the Taj's immediate vicinity, closing 230 other factories, requiring 300 factories to install pollution control devices, and ordering the creation of a traffic bypass and a tree belt to insulate the Taj. See M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), Writ Petition Number 13381 of 1984.
63. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), Writ Petition Number 3727 of 1985.
64. Including by mandating conversion of Delhi's public transport system from conventional fuel to compressed natural gas (see M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case), n. 35 above) and ordering the closure and/or relocation of hazardous and noxious industries operating within Delhi
65. (see M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi Industrial Relocation Case Writ Petition Number 4677 of 1985).
66. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition Number 202 of 1995, the Court has passed numerous orders including, inter alia: That no forests, national park or wildlife sanctuary can be de-reserved without its explicit permission; and no non-forestry activity will be permitted in a national park or wildlife sanctuary even if prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been obtained. It has also imposed complete bans on the movement of cut trees and timber from the seven north-eastern States, and on felling of trees in 'any forest, public or private' in Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and the hill regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
67. Almitra Patel v. Union of India, Writ Petition Number 888 of 1996.
68. See M.R. Anderson, 'Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection: An Overview', in A. Boyle and M.R. Anderson, n. 10 above, at 7-8.
69. Chapter II, Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No 108 of 1996, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa - Constitutional Law, South African Government, available at .
70. See, for instance, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of AP (2006), 3 SCC 549.
71. Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development (UN Doc. A/CONF.151/ Rev.1, 14 June 1992), Principle 11.
72. See the text accompanying notes 102-107 below.
73. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (1985), 2 SCC 431, para. 12.
74. The emphasis on 'ecological balance' is also evident in Narmado Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), 10 SCC 664, para. 120
75. and Virender Gaur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1995), 2 SCC 577, para. 7.
76. Narmado Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, n. 62 above, paras 1 and 77.
77. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Glossary of Statistical Terms (OECD, 2004), at 203, available at .
78. The ecocentric approach may be at odds with the nature of human rights approaches to environmental protection, which have been criticized for their anthropocentricity. Casting environmental protection in the language of a human right suggests that the protection of the environment is for and in the service of human beings. See A. Boyle, 'The Role of International Human Rights Law in the Protection of the Environment', in A. Boyle and M.R. Anderson, n. 10 above, at 43 and 51.
79. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimala Totame and Others (1990), 1 SCC 520, para. 9.
80. Virender Gaur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, n. 62 above, para. 6.
81. K.M. Chinnappa and T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India (2002), 10 SCC 606, para. 18
82. and State of MP v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd, (2003) 7 SCC 389, para. 9.
83. See Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, n. 45 above, para. 7.
84. See K.M. Chinnappa and T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India n. 68 above, para. 18.
85. Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990), 1 SCC 613, para. 137.
86. Water as a basic human need is now recognized as part of Article 21 in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, n. 62 above, para. 244.
87. Vellore Citizens Forum v. Union of India (1996), 5 SCC 647, paras 16 and 17.
88. Ibid.
89. See OECD, n. 64 above, at 544.
90. Cited approvingly in Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Another (2005), 13 SCC 186 (noting that the 'Government and authorities have, thus to motivate the public participation').
91. See M.R Anderson, n. 57 above, at 1 and 11.
92. Ibid.
93. See Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, n. 45 above, para. 7.
94. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others (2006), 1 SCC 1, para. 1.
95. K.M. Chinnappa and T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, n. 68 above.
96. Article 48A obliges the State to 'endeavour to protect and improve the environment ...'. See the Constitution of India, n. 30 above, Article 48A.
97. See text accompanying n. 88 below.
98. F. du Bois, 'Social Justice and the Judicial Enforcement of Environmental Rights and Duties', in A. Boyle and M.R. Anderson, n. 10, at 153, 163.
99. Ibid.
100. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, para. 11.
101. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and Others (2006), 6 SCC 371, para. 32.
102. Research Foundation for Science Technology & National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Another (2005), 13 SCC 186, para. 24.
103. Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., n. 49 above, para. 63.
104. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, para. 11
105. S. Jagannathan v. Union of India (1997), 2 SCC 87, para. 41.
106. See also for a recent case Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and Others, n. 87 above, para. 32.
107. Ibid., at para. 11.
108. Ibid.
109. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), 3 SCC 212, para. 67.
110. See also M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997), 2 SCC 411, para. 19
111. and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000), 6 SCC 213, para. 10.
112. Ibid.
113. For an early analysis of this doctrine pre-dating its adoption by the Court, see L. Rajamani, 'Doctrine of Public Trust: A Tool for Effective State Management of Natural Resources', 38:1 Journal of the Indian Law Institute (1996), 72.
114. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), 1 SCC 388, para. 25.
115. See also Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., n. 59 above, paras 59 and 60
116. and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and Others, n. 87 above, paras 32-37.
117. See M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath, ibid. at para. 22, citing Joseph Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan.
118. State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995), 6 SCC 363, para. 46.
119. Ibid. See also Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India (1996), 5 SCC 281, para. 26
120. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu and Others (1999), 2 SCC 718, para. 52
121. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others, n. 80 above, paras 88 and 89.
122. See State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, n. 98 above.
123. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others (2006), 3 SCC 434, para. 217,
124. quoted with approval in Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2006), 6 SCC 543, para. 11.
125. In a different context, the Court has declared the 'right to development' as integral to Article 21. See Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997), 8 SCC 191, paras 74-78;
126. Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), 5 SCC 125, para. 12.
127. See also on the right to development Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, (1995) Supp (2) SCC 549, para. 16 (noting that 'economic empowerment' is a fundamental right as part of right to life);
128. R. Chandevarappa and Others v State of Karnataka (1995), 6 SCC 309, para. 7
129. and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others (1996), 3 SCC 545, para. 28.
130. In the case of N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (2004), 9 SCC 362, para. 23, the Court argued that the right to development is more than a 'mere right to economic betterment' and defined it as including 'the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples' well being and realization of their full potential'.
131. See Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, para. 10.
132. See also M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) (1996), 8 SCC 462, paras 27 and 29,
133. and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, n. 62 above, para. 120.
134. See n. 87 above, para. 11.
135. Essar Oil Ltd v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Others (2004), 2 SCC 392, para. 27.
136. See N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, n. 102 above, para. 24,
137. quoted with approval in Milk Producers Association v. State of Orissa (2006), 3 SCC 229, para. 16.
138. See Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others, n. 101 above, para. 200.
139. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, n. 102 above, para. 24.
140. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India, n. 73 above.
141. Ibid., at paras 13, 14 and 15.
142. Ibid., at paras 13 and 14.
143. Ibid., at para. 10.
144. See for an incisive contra-argument V. Lowe, 'Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments', in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press, 1999), 19.
145. Ibid.
146. Ibid., at para. 11.
147. Ibid., at paras 11 and 15.
148. See, e.g., Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Another, 9 SCALE (2003) 303,
149. and quoted with approval in Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Another (2005), 13 SCC 186, para. 33.
150. See, for a extensive list of references, N. de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (Oxford University Press, 2002), at 91-223.
151. See C. Sunstein, Beyond the Precautionary Principle, University of Chicago Legal Theory and Public Law Working Paper No 38 (2003), available at .
152. Ibid.
153. Ibid. See also L. Bergkamp, 'Understanding the Precautionary Principle (Part II)', 10:2 Environmental Liability (2002), 67.
154. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, para. 11.
155. See Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, n. 60 above, Principle 15.
156. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, para. 11.
157. Ibid.
158. See C. Sunstein, n. 118 above.
159. A. Jordan and T. O'Riordan, The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Law and Politics, Paper presented at the the Wingspread Conference on Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Wisconsin, 23-25 January 1998).
160. See also N. de Sadeleer, n. 117 above, at 91.
161. See Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, n. 73 above, paras 1 and 4.
162. Ibid., at para. 27.
163. See A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu and Others, n. 99 above. The Court in paras 26-34 traced the development of the precautionary principle and identified the 'uncertainty of science in the environmental context' as the real basis of the principle. The Court proceeded after a lengthy explanation of this principle to use it primarily to highlight the value of technical inputs, and to recommend the addition of technical and judicial members on environmental appellate authorities and tribunals. This is another judgment that merits more considered analysis for, although it fleshes out the precautionary principle, it uses 'inadequacies' and 'uncertainties' of science interchangeably.
164. See T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others, n. 80 above, para. 3 (advocating 'all precautionary measures when forest lands are sought to be directed for non forest use').
165. See Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and Others, n. 87 above, para. 32.
166. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, 3 SCALE (2000) 354, para. 63.
167. See N. de Sadeleer, n. 117 above, at 91.
168. Ibid.
169. Ibid.
170. Ibid.
171. Ibid.
172. The Court in N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, following Narmada, also held that the precautionary principle was not engaged as there was 'no difference of opinion among the experts'.
173. See N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, n. 102 above, para. 20. Justice Dharmadhikari (dissenting) emphasized 'scientific uncertainty' but used the precautionary principle to support additional safeguards to ensure the safety of the Tehri dam located in an earthquake-prone zone in the Himalayan valleys.
174. See ibid., at paras 120-126. The issue, however, was not one of scientific uncertainty, but of the need for and feasibility of (for want of competent expertise in India) conducting the 3-D non-linear analysis on the dam.
175. See Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, n. 62 above, para. 120.
176. Ibid.
177. Ibid.
178. See text and references accompanying nn. 102-107 above.
179. In Re Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High Volume Producing Sound Systems (2005), 5 SCC 733, para. 9.
180. Dr Ashok v. Union of India (1997), 5 SCC 10, para. 4.
181. This phrase is borrowed from P. Alston, 'Conjuring up New Human Rights', 78:3 American Journal of International Law (1984), 607, at 608.
182. L. Rajamani, 'Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability', 16 Journal of Environmental Law (2007), 1.
183. There are many concerns with the judiciary annexing policy making in this way. I have identified some of them elsewhere. See ibid. An additional concern highlighted by Ran Hirchl is that the trend toward what he terms 'juristocracy' is 'part of a broader process whereby political and economic elites, while they profess support for democracy and sustained development, attempt to insulate policymaking from the vicissitudes of democratic politics'. See R. Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy (Harvard University Press, 2004).
184. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), 3 SCC 592, at 648.
185. See L. Rajamani, n. 146 above, at 10, and references contained therein.
186. Almitra Patel v. Union of India (2000), 2 SCC 679.
187. A connection that is not readily self-evident to the tutored - per capita waste generation per day in Delhi is 420 gms for those in the high income group, 240 gms for those in the middle income group, 150 gms for those in the lower middle income group, and only 80 gms for those in the slums: COWI & Kadam Environmental Consultants, Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi based on Public Private Partnership Solutions (April 2004), Executive Summary.
188. U. Ramanathan, Illegality and Exclusion: Law in the Lives of Slum Dwellers, International Environmental Law Research Centre, Working Paper 6 (International Environmental Research Centre, 2004).
189. See Almitra Patel v. Union of India, n. 150 above, para. 14. A 'jhuggi' is a slum dwelling.
190. See U. Ramanathan, n. 152 above.
191. See Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh v. Union of India, MANU/ DE/2140/2002, para. 44. The Delhi High Court noted that, '[o]ne cannot but use the expression as stated in the said judgment' and quashed a Union of India policy providing alternate sites for slum dwellers.
192. See also Okhla Factory Owners Association v. The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, MANU/DE/2210/2002, para. 45.
193. There are fascinating socio-legal, political and empirical questions yet to be explored. How meaningful are these environmental rights at the level of enforcement? Are they capable of actualization? If yes, how and under what conditions? If not, do they play any other role? The Vellore Citizens' Forum Case (n. 73 above), drawing from the polluter-pays principle, directed the polluting tanneries to pay compensation both to the affected individuals as well as to restore the degraded environment. In 2002, 6 years after the judgment, only 13% of the compensation had been collected and none of it had reached the victims.
194. See A. Krishnakumar, 'An Award and Despair', 19:16 Frontline (12 August 2002).
195. M. Gallanter and J. Krishnan, 'Debased Informalism: Lok Adalats and Legal Rights in Modern India', in T. Heller and E. Jensen (eds), Beyond Common Knowledge: Empirical Approaches to the Rule of Law (Stanford University Press, 2003).