Indigenous People and the Protection of Biodiversity

一些国家以不同的方式赋予自然法律的权利：在宪法一级、在法规中、由法院和在地方法律中。在国际一级，美洲人权法院承认自然可能有其自身的权利。联合国大会启动了与自然和谐相处计划，该计划通过了一系列旨在采取非以人为本的治理方法的决议。博士提出了三个广泛的问题。前两者更多的是通过理论语境的方式，而第三个是主要的研究领域。1.为什么自然权利是可取的？这是一个探索地球法学哲学的机会。它被用于与托马斯贝里的写作有关。他认为，我们的整个文化，包括我们的法律的体系，都是以人类为中心的价值观为前提的，这种价值观认为人类与自然是分离的，而且上级于自然。这些需要改变，以使它们与自然世界保持一致，将地球作为一个整体，而不是以人类为中心。Berry（1999）预见了一个“生态纪”，其治理体系将更加以地球为中心。这一理念受到土著文化的影响，并与“深绿色”环保主义产生共鸣。Cormac库利南（2008，2011）以此为基础，讨论了野生法律，这些法律使这种以生态为中心的愿景生效。一些法律的和非法律的作家进一步探讨了地球法学和野生法律。他们认为，这种范式转变是解决世界目前面临的环境灾难的唯一途径。Mari Margil是一位拥有自然权利（罗恩）法律实践经验的美国律师，她认为（2018年，GARN采访），这些法律为自然提供了最高水平的保护，也有助于增强当地社区的权能。从本质上讲，它们有助于改变文化，即人们的观点和与自然的关系。2.那么，罗恩如何适应现有的法律框架呢？一些现行的环境法不是以环境为中心的，保护自然是为了自然本身，而不是为了它对人类的用处。无论如何，可以说这两个目标是重叠的。在国际法中，有些条约是非以生态为中心的，一些软文书如《世界自然宪章》和联合国大会关于与自然和谐相处的决议也是如此。然而，权利的概念，特别是人权的概念，是以人为中心的。赋予自然以权利是为了将这一概念扩展到非人类世界（克里斯托弗·斯通）。权利的授予反映了我们作为一个社会的价值观。最近，美洲人权法院承认《北大西洋公约》可能是人权法的延伸（2017年11月15日第23号咨询意见）。3.赋予自然权利是否有效？这一部分将构成论文的主体。它试图审查和比较世界各地的罗恩法律。它将研究这些法律产生的环境，包括其特定的文化背景，因为其中大多数法律都受到土著或传统思维方式的影响。它将研究这些法律的运作模式，并试图评估它们迄今为止的效力、它们面临的挑战，最后，评估这类法律今后的前景。案例研究可包括：（一）厄瓜多尔-2008年宪法赋予自然权利。迄今为止，已经提起了一些诉讼，虽然有些案件胜诉，但不一定得到执行。（二）哥伦比亚-宪法法院和最高法院已经承认了罗恩，最近在一个关于气候变化的案件中授予了对亚马逊雨林的权利。㈢新西兰-已授予旺格努伊河和特瓦维拉国家公园的权利。（iv）美国及英国-美国多个城市已制定本地法例。在英国，英国小镇弗罗姆也提出了一项条例。

A number of countries have given legal rights to nature in different ways: at constitutional level, in statute, by courts and in local laws. At international level, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has acknowledged that nature may have rights of its own. The UN General Assembly has launched the Harmony with Nature programme which has passed a number of resolutions aimed at a non-anthropocentric approach to governance. The PhD asks three broad questions. The first two are more by way of theoretical context, while the third is the main area of research. 1.Why Is Rights for Nature Desirable? This is an opportunity to explore the philosophy of earth jurisprudence. It is used in relation to the writing of Thomas Berry. He argues that our entire culture, including our legal system, are predicated on anthropocentric values that view humans as separate from and superior to nature. These need to change in order to bring them into alignment with the natural world, putting the earth as a whole, rather than humans at its centre. Berry (1999) forsees an "Ecozoic era" with a more earth-centred system of governance. This philosophy is influenced by indigenous cultures, and has resonances with "deep green" environmentalism. Cormac Cullinan (2008, 2011) builds on this and discusses wild laws, laws that give effect to this ecocentric vision These include rights for nature. Earth jurisprudence and wild law have been further explored by a number of legal and non-legal writers. They argue that this paradigm shift is the only way to resolve the environmental catastrophe the world now faces. Mari Margil, a US lawyer with practical experience of working on rights of nature (RoN) laws, argues (2018, GARN interview) that they provide the highest level of protection for nature and also help to empower local communities. Essentially, they help to change the culture ie .people's views and relationship with nature. 2. How does RoN fit into the existing framework of law? Some current environmental law is non-anthropocentric, protecting nature for its own sake, independent of its usefulness to humans. In any event, it can be argued these two aims are overlapping. In international law, some treaties are non-anthropocentric, as are some soft instruments like the World Charter for Nature and the UN General Assembly resolutions on Harmony with Nature. However, the concept of rights, especially in terms of human rights, is anthropocentric. Giving rights to nature seeks to extend this concept to the non-human world (Christopher Stone). The granting of rights is a reflection of where we, as a society, place value. Most recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognised that RoN may be an extension of human rights law (Advisory Opinion No. 23, 15 November 2017). 3. Is Giving Rights to Nature Effective? This section would form the bulk of the thesis. It seeks to examine and compare selected RoN laws around the world. It will look at the circumstances in which these laws came into being, including their particular cultural context, as most of them have been influenced by indigenous or traditional modes of thinking. It will look at their modes of operation, and attempt to assess their effectiveness to date, the challenges they face and finally, the prospects for these types of laws in the future. Case studies could include: i) Ecuador - the 2008 constitution gives rights to nature. A number of court cases have been brought to date and while some have been successful, they have not necessarily been enforced. ii) Colombia - the Constitutional and Supreme Courts have recognised RoN, most recently in granting rights to the Amazon rainforest in a case on climate change. iii) New Zealand - rights have been granted to the Whanganui River and Te Uruwera National Park. iv) The USA and UK - local laws have been made in various municipalities in the USA. In the UK, a byelaw has also been proposed in the English town of Frome.