转基因生物、有害生物和新西兰转基因活动决策中的参与和代议制民主

IF 0.3 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.4337/apjel.2019.02.04
Nicola R. Wheen, Heidi Baillie
{"title":"转基因生物、有害生物和新西兰转基因活动决策中的参与和代议制民主","authors":"Nicola R. Wheen, Heidi Baillie","doi":"10.4337/apjel.2019.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pests, especially rats, stoats and possums, pose a significant threat to New Zealand's endemic biodiversity. Genetic modification (GM) offers a potential new means of controlling these pests. However, GM is a ‘hot’ environmental problem (it has complex and controversial social, cultural and economic dimensions) in this country. No genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been released into the New Zealand environment, other than in vaccines. GM developments and field tests have been approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, but the Authority is criticized as having a science bias, resulting in it over-emphasizing representative rather than participatory approaches to GM regulation. Consequentially, communities opposed to GM have turned to the Resource Management Act 1991's participatory planning scheme to block GMO releases using rules in local policies and plans. To ensure that these rules did not impede the release all GMOs in New Zealand, including GMOs in vaccines, Parliament moved to allow the Minister to veto local anti-GMO rules, except rules about GM crops. The extent to which this amendment results in a re-assertion of representative democracy over participatory democracy in GM regulation in New Zealand depends on how widely the courts interpret the Minister's new power.","PeriodicalId":41125,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GMOs, pests and participatory and representative democracy in decision-making about GM activities in New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"Nicola R. Wheen, Heidi Baillie\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/apjel.2019.02.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Pests, especially rats, stoats and possums, pose a significant threat to New Zealand's endemic biodiversity. Genetic modification (GM) offers a potential new means of controlling these pests. However, GM is a ‘hot’ environmental problem (it has complex and controversial social, cultural and economic dimensions) in this country. No genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been released into the New Zealand environment, other than in vaccines. GM developments and field tests have been approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, but the Authority is criticized as having a science bias, resulting in it over-emphasizing representative rather than participatory approaches to GM regulation. Consequentially, communities opposed to GM have turned to the Resource Management Act 1991's participatory planning scheme to block GMO releases using rules in local policies and plans. To ensure that these rules did not impede the release all GMOs in New Zealand, including GMOs in vaccines, Parliament moved to allow the Minister to veto local anti-GMO rules, except rules about GM crops. The extent to which this amendment results in a re-assertion of representative democracy over participatory democracy in GM regulation in New Zealand depends on how widely the courts interpret the Minister's new power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/apjel.2019.02.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/apjel.2019.02.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

害虫,尤其是老鼠、白鼬和负鼠,对新西兰特有的生物多样性构成了重大威胁。基因改造(GM)为控制这些害虫提供了一种潜在的新手段。然而,在这个国家,转基因是一个“热门”的环境问题(它具有复杂和有争议的社会、文化和经济层面)。除疫苗外,没有任何转基因生物被释放到新西兰的环境中。转基因发展和实地试验已根据1996年《有害物质和新生物体法》获得批准,但管理局被批评有科学偏见,导致它过分强调转基因管理的代表性方法,而不是参与性方法。因此,反对转基因的社区转向1991年《资源管理法》的参与性规划方案,利用当地政策和计划中的规则来阻止转基因生物的释放。为了确保这些规定不妨碍新西兰释放所有转基因生物,包括疫苗中的转基因生物,议会采取行动,允许部长否决当地的反转基因生物规定,但有关转基因作物的规定除外。这一修正案在多大程度上导致了新西兰转基因监管中代议制民主的重新主张,而不是参与式民主,这取决于法院对部长新权力的解释有多广泛。
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
GMOs, pests and participatory and representative democracy in decision-making about GM activities in New Zealand
Pests, especially rats, stoats and possums, pose a significant threat to New Zealand's endemic biodiversity. Genetic modification (GM) offers a potential new means of controlling these pests. However, GM is a ‘hot’ environmental problem (it has complex and controversial social, cultural and economic dimensions) in this country. No genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been released into the New Zealand environment, other than in vaccines. GM developments and field tests have been approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, but the Authority is criticized as having a science bias, resulting in it over-emphasizing representative rather than participatory approaches to GM regulation. Consequentially, communities opposed to GM have turned to the Resource Management Act 1991's participatory planning scheme to block GMO releases using rules in local policies and plans. To ensure that these rules did not impede the release all GMOs in New Zealand, including GMOs in vaccines, Parliament moved to allow the Minister to veto local anti-GMO rules, except rules about GM crops. The extent to which this amendment results in a re-assertion of representative democracy over participatory democracy in GM regulation in New Zealand depends on how widely the courts interpret the Minister's new power.
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
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law (APJEL) is published in two issues each year by the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law (ACCEL). To subscribe please complete the Subscription form and return to ACCEL.
期刊最新文献
Protection of internally displaced people in South Asia: the role the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could play in implementing a convention similar to the Kampala Convention Achieving corporate environmental responsibility through emerging sustainability laws Environmental activism by the Philippine Supreme Court: initiatives and impediments Taking stock of REDD+: a consideration of the experiences of Fiji and Ghana Mainstreaming gender in transboundary water governance: a South Asian 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