Dictum of the Day, or Who Protects Ospreys?

An individual may be personally affected in his private interests by the environmental issues to which an application for planning permission may give rise. Noise and disturbance to the visual amenity of his property are some obvious examples. But some environmental issues that can properly be raised by an individual are not of that character. Take, for example, the risk that a route used by an osprey as it moves to and from a favourite fishing loch will be impeded by the proposed erection across it of a cluster of wind turbines. Does the fact that this proposal cannot reasonably be said to affect any individual’s property rights or interests mean that it is not open to an individual to challenge the proposed development on this ground? That would seem to be contrary to the purpose of environmental law, which proceeds on the basis that the quality of the natural environment is of legitimate concern to everyone. The osprey has no means of taking that step on its own behalf, any more than any other wild creature. If its interests are to be protected someone has to be allowed to speak up on its behalf.

Walton v. The Scottish Ministers, Supreme Court (of UK), 17 October 2012, Judgment of Lord Hope, para. 152.

Dictum of the day, or on vita brevis

The often prolonged delays in the operation of human justice seem to disclose an indifference to the brevity of human existence, to the time of human beings [...] It is high time to bridge the unfortunate décalage between the time of human justice and the time of human beings [...] [E]veryone lives within time, - the existential time of each one. The irreversible passing of time not only leaves its marks in the aging body, but also marks its flow in one’s conscience. Each person is ineluctably linked more to her own existential time (which cannot be changed) than to the space where she lives (which can be changed). Each person lives inevitably within her own time, conscious that it will come to an end. If one’s life-time is marked by injustice and impunity, one is left with the impression, after the occurrence of all the atrocities, that nothing seems to have happened at all. 

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ, 20 July 2012, Separate Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, para. 146, 149, 152.

Dictum of the day, iskurikaj ovaj vitae!

Usporedno sa stjecanjem školskih referencija ili djelomice i, poredbeno s njima dr. Pranjić je izgrađivao, bez obzira na znanstveno oblikovanje, jednako bitnu empirijsku supstancu djelatnog bića, obavljajući raznovrsne poslove. U idejnoj sferi, Stjepo dr. Pranjić je mislio i djelovao protiv monizma - za pluralizam i konkurenicju. Na toj idejnoj premisi a zatim i na njoj lično izgrađnoj i vrednovanoj praksi odlikovan je Spomenicom domovinske zahvalnosti...

From the CV of the President of the Competition Council of BiH