199 The reviewed literature demonstrates substantial progress in understanding post-mining transitions from technical, environmental, social, and planning perspectives. However, a common limitation emerges across all lines of research: the absence of an integrated legal framework that treats the post-mining stage as a problem of territorial governance. This structural gap provides the analytical basis for the contribution of this article: the need to articulate a legal framework for governance of post-mining territories capable of integrating planning, rights, responsibility, and justice within a coherent institutional architecture. 3. IMPROVEMENT: WHY CURRENT APPROACHES FAIL TO GOVERN POSTMINING TERRITORIES AND WHERE CRITICAL INNOVATION IS REQUIRED 3.1 From technical selection to legally constituted decision-making As noted, Pershke and Elliott (2019) recognize that strategic land use planning is necessary, but they do not specify how such strategies become binding or how conflicts between competing land use claims are resolved. Similarly, regional assessments (Worden et al., 2024) identify desirable trajectories for land use without clarifying which institutions have, or should have, the authority to approve, review, or enforce them. Consequently, there is no legal framework that defines post-mining land use decisions as formally constituted territorial decisions, subject to procedural guarantees, determination by competent authorities, and periodic legal review. Without such a framework, even the most sophisticated planning tools remain merely consultative and non-decisive. 3.2 Regional analysis without territorial governance As summarized in Table 2, the literature increasingly recognizes that post-mining transitions must be addressed at the regional or territorial level (Cooper, 2024; Worden et al., 2024). This represents a clear conceptual advance over site-based closure planning. However, this change has not been accompanied by an evolution in governance. Regional post-mining planning is presented as an analytical exercise—such as mapping opportunities, constraints, and cumulative effects—rather than a legally binding process integrated into landuse planning systems. As a result, decisions are analyzed at the regional level but legally authorized at the project or sectoral level. This leads to institutional fragmentation, and visions are reduced to the content of what was approved in the specific closure plans for each mine and the respective sectoral permits. Consequently, current approaches lack legal instruments that translate regional postmining analysis into territorial decisions, coordinated between different administrative levels and policy areas. 3.3. Post-closure responsibility, rehabilitation, and land management The third area requiring urgent attention concerns long-term liability; as shown in Table
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2