Indigenous People and the Protection of Biodiversity

一些国家以不同的方式赋予自然合法权利：在宪法一级、成文法、法院和地方法律。在国际一级，美洲人权法院承认大自然可以有它自己的权利。联合国大会发起了“与自然和谐相处”计划，该计划通过了一系列决议，旨在采用非人类中心主义的治理方法。博士提出了三个广泛的问题。前两者更多的是通过理论背景，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。它与托马斯·贝里的作品有关。他认为，我们的整个文化，包括我们的法律体系，都是以人类中心主义的价值观为基础的，这种价值观认为人类与自然是分离的，而且比自然优越。这些需要改变，以使它们与自然世界保持一致，把地球作为一个整体，而不是人类作为其中心。Berry（1999）预测了一个以地球为中心的治理体系的“生态时代”。这种哲学受到本土文化的影响，并与“深绿色”环保主义产生共鸣。Cormac Cullinan（2008, 2011）在此基础上讨论了野生法，这些法律使这种生态中心的愿景生效，其中包括对自然的权利。许多法律和非法律作家对地球法学和野生法进行了进一步的探索。他们认为，这种模式的转变是解决世界目前面临的环境灾难的唯一途径。Mari Margil是一位具有自然权利（RoN）法律实践经验的美国律师，他认为（2018年，GARN采访），这些法律为自然提供了最高水平的保护，也有助于赋予当地社区权力。从本质上讲，它们有助于改变文化。人们对自然的看法和与自然的关系。2. 罗恩如何适应现有的法律框架？一些现行的环境法是非以人类为中心的，为了保护自然而保护自然，而不考虑它对人类的有用性。无论如何，可以说这两个目标是重叠的。在国际法中，有些条约是非人类中心主义的，例如《世界自然宪章》和联合国大会关于与自然和谐相处的决议等软性文书。然而，权利的概念，特别是在人权方面，是人类中心主义的。赋予自然权利试图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所在。最近，美洲人权法院承认罗恩法可能是人权法的延伸（2017年11月15日第23号咨询意见）。3. 赋予自然权利有效吗？这一部分将构成论文的主体。它试图检查和比较世界各地选定的罗恩法律。它将研究这些法律产生的环境，包括其特殊的文化背景，因为这些法律大多受到土著或传统思维模式的影响。它将审查这些法律的运作方式，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。案例研究可以包括：1)厄瓜多尔——2008年宪法赋予自然权利。迄今为止已经提出了一些法庭案件，虽然有些案件取得了成功，但它们不一定得到执行。哥伦比亚——宪法法院和最高法院承认了罗恩，最近在一起有关气候变化的案件中授予亚马逊雨林权利。（三）新西兰——已授予旺格努伊河和乌鲁维拉国家公园的权利。iv)美国和英国-美国的各个城市都制定了当地法律。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.