跨国矿业正义运动:对美洲二十年法律改革运动的反思

Charis Kamphuis
{"title":"跨国矿业正义运动:对美洲二十年法律改革运动的反思","authors":"Charis Kamphuis","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2020.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article tracks the activism of the mining justice social movement since the late 1990s. As a starting point, this movement is conceptualized as a transnational political project that seeks to transform the terms of corporate resource extraction pursuant to the political and legal arrangements of neo-liberal economic globalization. In this context, the author reflects on the movement’s most significant human rights-oriented law reform projects in the Americas: Indigenous peoples’ right-to-consultation legislation in several Latin American countries and a series of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Canada in response to the right to remedy norm in international law. Drawing on existing research, the author concludes that in both cases the state has responded with law and policy reforms that fall far short of achieving advocates’ objectives. The author argues that these shortcomings are due in part to the persistence of three liberal/neo-liberal ideologies in the reforms in question: formalism, voluntarism, and privatism. To better understand and explain these findings, the author turns to three critical theories of human rights legal activism: pragmatism, left critique/critical legal liberalism, and counter-hegemony. Examining the work of a range of scholars writing under the banner of each theory, the author identifies key debates and insights that may be instructive as the mining justice movement, and related social and environmental justice movements, continue to aspire towards a law reform agenda capable of addressing pressing global environmental and social justice issues.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"57 1","pages":"286 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cyl.2020.17","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Transnational Mining Justice Movement: Reflecting on Two Decades of Law Reform Activism in the Americas\",\"authors\":\"Charis Kamphuis\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cyl.2020.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article tracks the activism of the mining justice social movement since the late 1990s. As a starting point, this movement is conceptualized as a transnational political project that seeks to transform the terms of corporate resource extraction pursuant to the political and legal arrangements of neo-liberal economic globalization. In this context, the author reflects on the movement’s most significant human rights-oriented law reform projects in the Americas: Indigenous peoples’ right-to-consultation legislation in several Latin American countries and a series of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Canada in response to the right to remedy norm in international law. Drawing on existing research, the author concludes that in both cases the state has responded with law and policy reforms that fall far short of achieving advocates’ objectives. The author argues that these shortcomings are due in part to the persistence of three liberal/neo-liberal ideologies in the reforms in question: formalism, voluntarism, and privatism. To better understand and explain these findings, the author turns to three critical theories of human rights legal activism: pragmatism, left critique/critical legal liberalism, and counter-hegemony. Examining the work of a range of scholars writing under the banner of each theory, the author identifies key debates and insights that may be instructive as the mining justice movement, and related social and environmental justice movements, continue to aspire towards a law reform agenda capable of addressing pressing global environmental and social justice issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"286 - 352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cyl.2020.17\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2020.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2020.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要本文追踪了20世纪90年代末以来矿业正义社会运动的积极性。作为一个起点,这场运动被概念化为一个跨国政治项目,旨在根据新自由主义经济全球化的政治和法律安排,改变公司资源开采的条件。在这方面,作者回顾了该运动在美洲最重要的以人权为导向的法律改革项目:几个拉丁美洲国家的土著人民协商权立法,以及加拿大针对国际法中的补救权规范建立的一系列非司法申诉机制。根据现有研究,作者得出结论,在这两种情况下,国家的法律和政策改革都远远达不到倡导者的目标。作者认为,这些缺点部分是由于三种自由主义/新自由主义意识形态在有关改革中的持续存在:形式主义、自愿主义和私有化。为了更好地理解和解释这些发现,作者转向人权法律激进主义的三个批判理论:实用主义、左翼批判/批判法律自由主义和反霸权。通过研究一系列打着每种理论旗号写作的学者的工作,作者确定了可能具有指导意义的关键辩论和见解,因为采矿正义运动以及相关的社会和环境正义运动继续渴望制定一项能够解决紧迫的全球环境和社会正义问题的法律改革议程。
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 Transnational Mining Justice Movement: Reflecting on Two Decades of Law Reform Activism in the Americas
Abstract This article tracks the activism of the mining justice social movement since the late 1990s. As a starting point, this movement is conceptualized as a transnational political project that seeks to transform the terms of corporate resource extraction pursuant to the political and legal arrangements of neo-liberal economic globalization. In this context, the author reflects on the movement’s most significant human rights-oriented law reform projects in the Americas: Indigenous peoples’ right-to-consultation legislation in several Latin American countries and a series of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Canada in response to the right to remedy norm in international law. Drawing on existing research, the author concludes that in both cases the state has responded with law and policy reforms that fall far short of achieving advocates’ objectives. The author argues that these shortcomings are due in part to the persistence of three liberal/neo-liberal ideologies in the reforms in question: formalism, voluntarism, and privatism. To better understand and explain these findings, the author turns to three critical theories of human rights legal activism: pragmatism, left critique/critical legal liberalism, and counter-hegemony. Examining the work of a range of scholars writing under the banner of each theory, the author identifies key debates and insights that may be instructive as the mining justice movement, and related social and environmental justice movements, continue to aspire towards a law reform agenda capable of addressing pressing global environmental and social justice issues.
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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Investissement Le Scotland Act Reference, les référendums sur l’indépendance et le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples The Negotiation, Diffusion, and Legacy of NAFTA Chapter 11: An Empirical Eulogy Recovering the Dimensions of Dignity in Religious Freedom: Protecting Religious Proselytization in International Human Rights State International Agreements: The United States, Canada, and Constitutional Evolution
×
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