{"title":"当环境保护与人权发生冲突:地方法院冲突管理的政治","authors":"Dr John Pearson","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2023.2235167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A role for human rights in the protection of the environment has become a widely accepted concept and reflects our increasing awareness of the reliance of individuals upon both their local and global environments.1 Challenging the validity of this connection—highlighting that it ignores inherent conflicts between environmental exploitation and protection and individual human rights protection—is therefore a brave and undoubtedly contested proposition. This proposition is one from which MarieCatherine Petersmann has not shied away. When Environmental Protection and Human Rights Collide addresses the presumption that human rights and environmental protection are comfortable bedfellows and that their aims are unquestionably aligned. Petersmann critiques this position by revealing the complex strategies used by regional courts to adjudicate and mediate the conflicts between these two fields in order for the two to co-exist in case law. There is certainly scholarship that addresses the inherent anthropocentrism of framing environmental protection as a human rights issue,2 and voluminous work extolling the virtues of this approach and its utility broadly or in specific case studies.3 Despite this, few would deny the benefits of capitalising on any gains in environmental protection that could be achieved through the application of human rights law. Petersmann ably addresses a gap in the literature regarding how we have reached the point at which this is accepted as an ostensibly comfortable interplay between two fields of law that, although seemingly aligned, in fact often collide. In Chapter 1, Petersmann traces the progression from legal protection of the environment. First this maps the move from law being focused upon preserving a ‘pristine wilderness’ to a ‘human environment’ and then also from a disconnected pair of legal fields, human rights and environmental law, to a point of integration between the two. This culminates in Petersmann identifying the ways in which this synergy between human rights and environmental protection has been most commonly framed. She argues that there exists a spectrum of anthropocentrism upon which these framings exist (p 55). This spectrum allows for focus upon the interplay of economic concerns, the ecosystem, conservation, and human health. Thus, Petersmann incorporates varied and sometimes conflicting aims, in spite of a perceived overarching synergy between environmental protection and human rights. The chapter effectively outlines the inherent conflicts upon which the arguments in the rest of the book are based.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Environmental Protection and Human Rights Collide: The Politics of Conflict Management by Regional Courts\",\"authors\":\"Dr John Pearson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13880292.2023.2235167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A role for human rights in the protection of the environment has become a widely accepted concept and reflects our increasing awareness of the reliance of individuals upon both their local and global environments.1 Challenging the validity of this connection—highlighting that it ignores inherent conflicts between environmental exploitation and protection and individual human rights protection—is therefore a brave and undoubtedly contested proposition. This proposition is one from which MarieCatherine Petersmann has not shied away. When Environmental Protection and Human Rights Collide addresses the presumption that human rights and environmental protection are comfortable bedfellows and that their aims are unquestionably aligned. Petersmann critiques this position by revealing the complex strategies used by regional courts to adjudicate and mediate the conflicts between these two fields in order for the two to co-exist in case law. There is certainly scholarship that addresses the inherent anthropocentrism of framing environmental protection as a human rights issue,2 and voluminous work extolling the virtues of this approach and its utility broadly or in specific case studies.3 Despite this, few would deny the benefits of capitalising on any gains in environmental protection that could be achieved through the application of human rights law. Petersmann ably addresses a gap in the literature regarding how we have reached the point at which this is accepted as an ostensibly comfortable interplay between two fields of law that, although seemingly aligned, in fact often collide. In Chapter 1, Petersmann traces the progression from legal protection of the environment. First this maps the move from law being focused upon preserving a ‘pristine wilderness’ to a ‘human environment’ and then also from a disconnected pair of legal fields, human rights and environmental law, to a point of integration between the two. This culminates in Petersmann identifying the ways in which this synergy between human rights and environmental protection has been most commonly framed. She argues that there exists a spectrum of anthropocentrism upon which these framings exist (p 55). This spectrum allows for focus upon the interplay of economic concerns, the ecosystem, conservation, and human health. Thus, Petersmann incorporates varied and sometimes conflicting aims, in spite of a perceived overarching synergy between environmental protection and human rights. The chapter effectively outlines the inherent conflicts upon which the arguments in the rest of the book are based.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2023.2235167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2023.2235167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
When Environmental Protection and Human Rights Collide: The Politics of Conflict Management by Regional Courts
A role for human rights in the protection of the environment has become a widely accepted concept and reflects our increasing awareness of the reliance of individuals upon both their local and global environments.1 Challenging the validity of this connection—highlighting that it ignores inherent conflicts between environmental exploitation and protection and individual human rights protection—is therefore a brave and undoubtedly contested proposition. This proposition is one from which MarieCatherine Petersmann has not shied away. When Environmental Protection and Human Rights Collide addresses the presumption that human rights and environmental protection are comfortable bedfellows and that their aims are unquestionably aligned. Petersmann critiques this position by revealing the complex strategies used by regional courts to adjudicate and mediate the conflicts between these two fields in order for the two to co-exist in case law. There is certainly scholarship that addresses the inherent anthropocentrism of framing environmental protection as a human rights issue,2 and voluminous work extolling the virtues of this approach and its utility broadly or in specific case studies.3 Despite this, few would deny the benefits of capitalising on any gains in environmental protection that could be achieved through the application of human rights law. Petersmann ably addresses a gap in the literature regarding how we have reached the point at which this is accepted as an ostensibly comfortable interplay between two fields of law that, although seemingly aligned, in fact often collide. In Chapter 1, Petersmann traces the progression from legal protection of the environment. First this maps the move from law being focused upon preserving a ‘pristine wilderness’ to a ‘human environment’ and then also from a disconnected pair of legal fields, human rights and environmental law, to a point of integration between the two. This culminates in Petersmann identifying the ways in which this synergy between human rights and environmental protection has been most commonly framed. She argues that there exists a spectrum of anthropocentrism upon which these framings exist (p 55). This spectrum allows for focus upon the interplay of economic concerns, the ecosystem, conservation, and human health. Thus, Petersmann incorporates varied and sometimes conflicting aims, in spite of a perceived overarching synergy between environmental protection and human rights. The chapter effectively outlines the inherent conflicts upon which the arguments in the rest of the book are based.
期刊介绍:
Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.