The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future by Craig M. Kauffman and Pamela L. Martin

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Global Environmental Politics Pub Date : 2022-03-09 DOI:10.1162/glep_r_00661
Mary E. Witlacil
{"title":"The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future by Craig M. Kauffman and Pamela L. Martin","authors":"Mary E. Witlacil","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The argument for recognizing the rights of nature (RoN) is hardly new—the late Christopher Stone first made the case for granting legal rights to environmental entities in 1972. Beginning with a 2006 RoN ordinance in the United States and an Ecuadoran constitutional amendment in 2008, the movement for the rights of nature has recently caught fire. This is the puzzle driving Craig Kauffman and Pamela Martin’s research in their book The Politics of the Rights of Nature. Why has the RoN movement gained so much momentum in the past two decades, and what accounts for the “salience” and unexpected diffusion of the RoN norm? To address these questions, Kauffman and Martin employ a sophisticated mixed methodological approach, including case studies and several years of fieldwork in five of the six countries they profile. Beyond interviews and surveys, they engaged in comparative historical analysis, process tracing, and social network analysis to explore the emergence and diffusion of RoN. Kauffman and Martin contribute to the growing body of literature on RoN, as well as building on existing theories of norm diffusion and contestation. RoN norm emergence challenges leading explanations of norm diffusion, given the independent but “nearly simultaneous” development of RoN norms at multiple levels of government (from local to national). The authors draw on evolutionary biology, using convergent evolution theory, to explain the concurrent development of normatively similar but institutionally distinct RoN legislation. Akin to convergent evolution theory in evolutionary biology, they argue that “functionally similar RoN laws ... emerged independently in response to common environmental pressures” (19). Part of what makes Kauffman and Martin’s work so expansive is their thorough coverage of the major cases of RoN legislation in Ecuador, Bolivia, the United States, and New Zealand, as well as the recent emergence of environmental personhood in India and Colombia. They begin their case study analysis with a most-similar-systems comparison between Ecuador and Bolivia—both of which incorporated RoN clauses into their constitutions after electing left populist leaders who claimed to support the Indigenous communities in their respective countries. Despite similar cultures and socioeconomic structures, Ecuador’s RoN clause flourished, while Bolivia’s 2012 RoN amendment languished to the point of oblivion. In their exploration of Ecuador’s growing body","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00661","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The argument for recognizing the rights of nature (RoN) is hardly new—the late Christopher Stone first made the case for granting legal rights to environmental entities in 1972. Beginning with a 2006 RoN ordinance in the United States and an Ecuadoran constitutional amendment in 2008, the movement for the rights of nature has recently caught fire. This is the puzzle driving Craig Kauffman and Pamela Martin’s research in their book The Politics of the Rights of Nature. Why has the RoN movement gained so much momentum in the past two decades, and what accounts for the “salience” and unexpected diffusion of the RoN norm? To address these questions, Kauffman and Martin employ a sophisticated mixed methodological approach, including case studies and several years of fieldwork in five of the six countries they profile. Beyond interviews and surveys, they engaged in comparative historical analysis, process tracing, and social network analysis to explore the emergence and diffusion of RoN. Kauffman and Martin contribute to the growing body of literature on RoN, as well as building on existing theories of norm diffusion and contestation. RoN norm emergence challenges leading explanations of norm diffusion, given the independent but “nearly simultaneous” development of RoN norms at multiple levels of government (from local to national). The authors draw on evolutionary biology, using convergent evolution theory, to explain the concurrent development of normatively similar but institutionally distinct RoN legislation. Akin to convergent evolution theory in evolutionary biology, they argue that “functionally similar RoN laws ... emerged independently in response to common environmental pressures” (19). Part of what makes Kauffman and Martin’s work so expansive is their thorough coverage of the major cases of RoN legislation in Ecuador, Bolivia, the United States, and New Zealand, as well as the recent emergence of environmental personhood in India and Colombia. They begin their case study analysis with a most-similar-systems comparison between Ecuador and Bolivia—both of which incorporated RoN clauses into their constitutions after electing left populist leaders who claimed to support the Indigenous communities in their respective countries. Despite similar cultures and socioeconomic structures, Ecuador’s RoN clause flourished, while Bolivia’s 2012 RoN amendment languished to the point of oblivion. In their exploration of Ecuador’s growing body
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《自然权利的政治:建设更可持续未来的战略》克雷格·m·考夫曼和帕梅拉·l·马丁著
承认自然权利的争论并不新鲜——已故的克里斯托弗·斯通(Christopher Stone)在1972年首次提出了赋予环境实体合法权利的案例。从2006年美国的罗恩法令和2008年厄瓜多尔的宪法修正案开始,保护自然权利的运动最近火了起来。这是推动克雷格·考夫曼和帕梅拉·马丁在他们的著作《自然权利的政治》中进行研究的难题。为什么RoN运动在过去的二十年中获得了如此大的动力,是什么解释了RoN规范的“突出”和意想不到的扩散?为了解决这些问题,考夫曼和马丁采用了一种复杂的混合方法,包括案例研究和在他们所描述的六个国家中的五个国家进行的几年实地调查。除了访谈和调查之外,他们还进行了比较历史分析、过程追踪和社会网络分析,以探索RoN的出现和传播。考夫曼和马丁为罗恩的文献体系的发展做出了贡献,并建立在规范扩散和争论的现有理论基础上。考虑到RoN规范在各级政府(从地方到国家)独立但“几乎同时”发展,RoN规范的出现挑战了规范扩散的主要解释。作者利用进化生物学,使用趋同进化理论,来解释规范上相似但制度上不同的罗恩立法的同时发展。类似于进化生物学中的趋同进化理论,他们认为“功能相似的罗恩定律……在共同的环境压力下独立出现”(19)。考夫曼和马丁的著作之所以如此广泛,部分原因是他们对厄瓜多尔、玻利维亚、美国和新西兰的主要环境立法案例进行了全面的报道,同时也对印度和哥伦比亚最近出现的环境人格进行了报道。他们以最相似的制度比较厄瓜多尔和玻利维亚作为案例分析的开始,这两个国家都在选出了声称支持本国土著社区的左翼民粹主义领导人后,将RoN条款纳入了宪法。尽管有着相似的文化和社会经济结构,厄瓜多尔的RoN条款却蓬勃发展,而玻利维亚2012年的RoN修正案却逐渐被遗忘。在他们探索厄瓜多尔不断增长的身体
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Politics examines the relationship between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change for world politics. Each issue is divided into research articles and a shorter forum articles focusing on issues such as the role of states, multilateral institutions and agreements, trade, international finance, corporations, science and technology, and grassroots movements.
期刊最新文献
Generative AI and Social Media May Exacerbate the Climate Crisis The Public Legitimacy of Multistakeholder Partnerships in Global Environmental Governance: Evidence from Survey Experiments in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United States Climate Change Isn’t Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism by Mike Hulme Continuity and Change in Norm Translations After the Paris Agreement: From First to Second Nationally Determined Contributions The Ecocentrists: A History of Radical Environmentalism by Keith Makoto Woodhouse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1