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年颁布的宪法是第一部以自然权利为中心的宪法，并呼吁土著自然概念Pachamama，这一概念的确切含义必须在项目过程中加以探讨。(Howard-Malverde 1995)自然必须被视为一个法律实体的主张，在这里植根于Buen Vivir，这是安第斯人对美好生活的概念。虽然厄瓜多尔宪法以及深层生态学认为自然本身就拥有权利，但德国哲学家最普遍的论点是，权利和义务的辩护和表述最终并始终指的是人。在这种怀疑的争论之后，在最强烈的自然中心主义意义上的自然权利的想法是误导的、自相矛盾的、矛盾的和形而上学不可接受的。尽管存在这种悲观情绪，阿尔贝托·阿科斯塔和厄瓜多尔《宪法》的其他成员确实相信以自然为中心的权利定义，目前正在制定《世界自然权利宣言》，联合国可能很快就会接受该宣言。(Acosta，2010年)该项目的目的是从哲学上分析欧共体宪法的法律解释、自然权利的方法、其起源和所涉及的理性推理。人们对自然权利的看法有多严肃？其中涉及哪些背景假设和概念上的困难？我们如何将这场辩论置于环境权利的全球讨论中，以及《世界自然权利宣言》将对我们理解权利、人的作用以及人与自然的关系产生什么后果？这实际上会不会是人权的演变，从第一代自由权利保护、第二代社会参与权到第三代与身份相关的权利？《世界自然权利宣言》难道不是对人权理念的侮辱吗？

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?