“A comparative legal analysis of the ‘U.S Clean Air Act (CAA), 1970, 1990 (Amended)’ and ‘Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), 1997’”

Abstract

Air pollution has always been an important issue to the community health and constitutional rules such as the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) and Pakistan’s Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) are designed to respond this issue. In spite of sharing parallel objectives, sustainable air-quality is achieved through CAA which is statutory execution, On the other hand, PEPA is unpredictable in getting results rather it mainly rely on judicial interference. This study discovers the reason of discrepancy by means of inquiring: why CAA beat PEPA for achievement of constant air quality perfections; which structure of legal, governmental and technical developments powerfully regulates success; how both systems designed compliance enforcement through judicial activism; and what lessons can be learned in development of Pakistan’s framework. The aims are to compare statute constructions, participating instruments, judicial roles plans, and implementation tracks to identify execution gaps, and recommended workable transformations. The research exhibits a doctrinal and limited qualitative approach based on comparative legal investigation of primary sources (CAA and PEPA manuscripts, principles, and case law) and secondary data including scholarly articles and various revolutionary court verdicts within six years. The outcomes expose that strict anticipated fines, robust organizational capability, supportive federalism, environmental integrity implements, and community involvement strengthen the CAA’s success, and despite the fact Pakistan’s structure is volatile and judiciary driven. Recommendation in the study prevails that changes are necessary in PEPA for organizing compulsory ambient targets and penalties, firming federal and provincial EPA capability, making law of community involvement. It also suggests that modern compliance tools are urgently needed with the addition of fact that role of judiciary should shift from judicial activism to amendments of systemic inaccuracies.