A physio centric foundation of law - with Latin American Buen Vivir on the way to a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature ?

该项目探讨了一种挑衅性的主张，即我们不仅有义务保护自然，而且有义务将自然本身视为权利的主体。厄瓜多尔2009年的宪法是第一部以自然权利为中心的宪法，并呼吁土著人的自然Pachamama概念，其确切含义必须在项目过程中加以探讨。（Howard-Malverde，1995）认为自然必须被视为一个法律的实体的主张，在这里植根于美好生活，一种安第斯的美好生活概念。虽然厄瓜多尔宪法以及例如深层生态学认为自然本身拥有权利，但德国哲学家最常见的论点是，权利和义务的证明和制定最终始终涉及人类。按照这种怀疑论的观点，最强烈的自然中心主义意义上的自然权利观念是误导性的、不一致的、矛盾的和形而上学上不可接受的。尽管有这种悲观主义，阿尔贝托·阿科斯塔和厄瓜多尔宪法的创始人确实相信以自然为中心的权利定义，目前正在制定一项《世界自然权利宣言》，该宣言可能很快被联合国接受。（Acosta 2010）该项目的目的是分析厄瓜多尔宪法的法律的结构，自然权利的方法，其起源和所涉及的知识推理。自然权利的概念有多重要？涉及哪些背景假设和概念上的困难？我们如何在全球讨论环境权利的范围内进行辩论，以及《世界自然权利宣言》对我们理解权利、人的作用及其与自然的关系会产生什么影响？这是否就是人权从第一代自由权利保护、第二代社会参与权利到第三代身份相关权利的一种演进？《世界自然权利宣言》难道不是对人权理念的冒犯吗？

The project explores the provocative claim that we do not only have the obligation to protect nature but to consider nature as a subject of rights on its own. The constitution of Ecuador from 2009 is the first one that holds a physiocentric version of rights of nature and appeals to the indigenous concept of nature Pachamama, whose precise meaning has to be explored in the course of the project. (Howard-Malverde 1995) The claim that nature has to be regarded as a legal entity, is here embedded in the Buen Vivir, an Andean conception of the good life. While Ecuardors Constituion as well as e.g. the deep ecology holds that nature possesses rights by itself the most common thesis of german philosophers is that the justification and formulation of rights and obligations refer ultimately and always to human beings. Following this skepti-cal argument the idea of rights of nature in the strongest sense of physiocentrism is misleading, incon-sistent, contradictory and metaphysical unacceptable. Despite this pessimism Alberto Acosta and the fa-thers of the Ecuadorian Constitution do believe in the physiocentric definition of rights and are currently working on a Universal Declaration of the Rights of nature, which could soon be accepted by the United Nations. (Acosta 2010) The aim of the project is to analyze philosophically the legal construction of the ec-uadorian constitution, the rights of nature approach, its genesis and the involved intellectual reasoning. How serious is the idea of the rights of nature taken? What background assumptions and conceptual difficulties are involved? How can we situate the debate within the global discussion of environmental rights and what the consequences would have a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature for our understanding of rights, the role of man and his relationship to nature? Will this actually be an evolution of human rights, which continuous the development from the first generation of liberal rights protection, the second generation of social participation rights to the third generation of identity related rights? Is not the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature an affront to the idea of human rights?