和谐的假象:权力、政治与自然权利的分配含义

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Transnational Environmental Law Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1017/s2047102523000262
Matthias Petel
{"title":"和谐的假象:权力、政治与自然权利的分配含义","authors":"Matthias Petel","doi":"10.1017/s2047102523000262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article argues that the Rights of Nature (RoN) framework is compatible with various ideological outlooks and political options. As a result, those initiatives may translate into extremely diverse institutional implementations with contrasted outcomes in terms of power distribution. The institutional design of RoN has deep political implications for various social groups who hold conflicting claims over certain territories. Hence, rather than transforming human-nature relations, RoN primarily transform the power relations between human communities. I delve into three conceptual frameworks that could shape the recognition of RoN and explore their respective distributive implications: green colonialism, environmental justice, and the focus on Indigeneity. Through this critical engagement, I wish to warn against the illusion of a post-political ecology where an ecocentric legal declaration would deliver human-nature harmony without deep political battles, social tensions, and economic confrontations. RoN as an abstract notion does not offer a ready-made toolkit to dismantle the legal architecture of fossil capitalism; nor does it provide clear guidance on the distribution of costs and benefits of the green transition.</p>","PeriodicalId":45716,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Illusion of Harmony: Power, Politics, and Distributive Implications of Rights of Nature\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Petel\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s2047102523000262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article argues that the Rights of Nature (RoN) framework is compatible with various ideological outlooks and political options. As a result, those initiatives may translate into extremely diverse institutional implementations with contrasted outcomes in terms of power distribution. The institutional design of RoN has deep political implications for various social groups who hold conflicting claims over certain territories. Hence, rather than transforming human-nature relations, RoN primarily transform the power relations between human communities. I delve into three conceptual frameworks that could shape the recognition of RoN and explore their respective distributive implications: green colonialism, environmental justice, and the focus on Indigeneity. Through this critical engagement, I wish to warn against the illusion of a post-political ecology where an ecocentric legal declaration would deliver human-nature harmony without deep political battles, social tensions, and economic confrontations. RoN as an abstract notion does not offer a ready-made toolkit to dismantle the legal architecture of fossil capitalism; nor does it provide clear guidance on the distribution of costs and benefits of the green transition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transnational Environmental Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transnational Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102523000262\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102523000262","RegionNum":1,"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: 0

摘要

本文认为,"自然权利"(RoN)框架与各种意识形态观点和政治选择是兼容的。因此,这些倡议可能会转化为极其多样的制度实施,在权力分配方面产生截然不同的结果。RoN 的制度设计对不同的社会群体有着深刻的政治影响,这些社会群体对某些领土有着相互冲突的主张。因此,与其说 RoN 改变了人与自然的关系,不如说它主要改变了人类社区之间的权力关系。我深入探讨了可能影响对 RoN 的认识的三个概念框架,并探讨了它们各自的分配影响:绿色殖民主义、环境正义和对土著的关注。通过这种批判性的参与,我希望警惕后政治生态学的幻觉,在这种幻觉中,以生态为中心的法律宣言将带来人与自然的和谐,而不会引发深刻的政治斗争、社会紧张和经济对抗。RoN 作为一个抽象概念,并不能为拆除化石资本主义的法律架构提供现成的工具包;也不能为绿色转型的成本和收益分配提供明确的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Illusion of Harmony: Power, Politics, and Distributive Implications of Rights of Nature

This article argues that the Rights of Nature (RoN) framework is compatible with various ideological outlooks and political options. As a result, those initiatives may translate into extremely diverse institutional implementations with contrasted outcomes in terms of power distribution. The institutional design of RoN has deep political implications for various social groups who hold conflicting claims over certain territories. Hence, rather than transforming human-nature relations, RoN primarily transform the power relations between human communities. I delve into three conceptual frameworks that could shape the recognition of RoN and explore their respective distributive implications: green colonialism, environmental justice, and the focus on Indigeneity. Through this critical engagement, I wish to warn against the illusion of a post-political ecology where an ecocentric legal declaration would deliver human-nature harmony without deep political battles, social tensions, and economic confrontations. RoN as an abstract notion does not offer a ready-made toolkit to dismantle the legal architecture of fossil capitalism; nor does it provide clear guidance on the distribution of costs and benefits of the green transition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
16.30%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Hope-Bearing Legislation? The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 Transnational Governance of Soybean Land Use in South America: A Polycentric Approach Value Chains and Environmental Impact Assessments: Lessons from Two French Legal Cases on Bioenergy Facilities Looking to Livestock: Gauging the Evolution of the EU's Agri-Climate Law and Policy A Critical Review of the Energy Charter Treaty from an Earth System Law Perspective
×
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