自由主义与自然权利:法律与历史的比较视角

Seth Epstein, Marianne Dahlén, Victoria Enkvist, Elin Boyer
{"title":"自由主义与自然权利:法律与历史的比较视角","authors":"Seth Epstein, Marianne Dahlén, Victoria Enkvist, Elin Boyer","doi":"10.1177/17438721211065735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing number of jurisdictions have recently granted rights to nature. This article places the potential disruptions generated by this legal development in historical, comparative perspective. The questions that scholars are asking about rights of nature (RoN) are similar to many of those asked by historians and legal scholars about human rightsholders. These questions arise from some of the tensions within liberalism. Placing these tensions in comparative context offers a framework with which to interpret RoN developments. Doing so demonstrates, first, the capacity of the existing liberal order to incorporate challenges into already functioning structures and, second, that such efforts to manage the claims of new subjects of rights nonetheless can transform relations. In our conclusion, we argue that a comparative perspective may allay the tendency to exoticise rights of nature by examining the extent to which their development in sometime contentious and sometimes complementary relationship with democratic institutions is reflected in historical efforts to define and make meaningful the rights of human rightsholders.","PeriodicalId":43886,"journal":{"name":"Law Culture and the Humanities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberalism and Rights of Nature: A Comparative Legal and Historical Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Seth Epstein, Marianne Dahlén, Victoria Enkvist, Elin Boyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17438721211065735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A growing number of jurisdictions have recently granted rights to nature. This article places the potential disruptions generated by this legal development in historical, comparative perspective. The questions that scholars are asking about rights of nature (RoN) are similar to many of those asked by historians and legal scholars about human rightsholders. These questions arise from some of the tensions within liberalism. Placing these tensions in comparative context offers a framework with which to interpret RoN developments. Doing so demonstrates, first, the capacity of the existing liberal order to incorporate challenges into already functioning structures and, second, that such efforts to manage the claims of new subjects of rights nonetheless can transform relations. In our conclusion, we argue that a comparative perspective may allay the tendency to exoticise rights of nature by examining the extent to which their development in sometime contentious and sometimes complementary relationship with democratic institutions is reflected in historical efforts to define and make meaningful the rights of human rightsholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721211065735\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Culture and the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721211065735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

最近,越来越多的司法管辖区授予自然权利。本文将从历史和比较的角度来看待这一法律发展所产生的潜在破坏。学者们对自然权利(RoN)提出的问题与历史学家和法律学者对人权所有者提出的许多问题相似。这些问题源于自由主义内部的一些紧张关系。将这些紧张关系放在比较的背景下提供了一个解释罗恩发展的框架。这样做首先表明,现有的自由秩序有能力将挑战纳入已经运作的结构,其次,这种管理新权利主体要求的努力可以改变关系。在我们的结论中,我们认为,通过考察自然权利在与民主制度之间时而有争议、时而互补的关系中的发展程度,比较的视角可以减轻将自然权利异国化的倾向,这种发展反映在定义人权所有者权利并使其有意义的历史努力中。
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
Liberalism and Rights of Nature: A Comparative Legal and Historical Perspective
A growing number of jurisdictions have recently granted rights to nature. This article places the potential disruptions generated by this legal development in historical, comparative perspective. The questions that scholars are asking about rights of nature (RoN) are similar to many of those asked by historians and legal scholars about human rightsholders. These questions arise from some of the tensions within liberalism. Placing these tensions in comparative context offers a framework with which to interpret RoN developments. Doing so demonstrates, first, the capacity of the existing liberal order to incorporate challenges into already functioning structures and, second, that such efforts to manage the claims of new subjects of rights nonetheless can transform relations. In our conclusion, we argue that a comparative perspective may allay the tendency to exoticise rights of nature by examining the extent to which their development in sometime contentious and sometimes complementary relationship with democratic institutions is reflected in historical efforts to define and make meaningful the rights of human rightsholders.
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Our mission is to publish high quality work at the intersection of scholarship on law, culture, and the humanities. All commentaries, articles and review essays are peer reviewed. We provide a publishing vehicle for scholars engaged in interdisciplinary, humanistically oriented legal scholarship. We publish a wide range of scholarship in legal history, legal theory and jurisprudence, law and cultural studies, law and literature, and legal hermeneutics.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: The Living from the Dead: Disaffirming Biopolitics Book Review: King Leopold’s Ghostwriter: The Creation of Persons and States in the Nineteenth Century Book Review: The Pen, The Sword, and the Law: Dueling and Democracy in Uruguay Book Review: Earthbound: The Aesthetics of Sovereignty in the Anthropocene Diagnosing Dignity’s De-Realization: Lessons From The ‘Laws Of Captivity’ Thesis
×
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