The rights of Nature in Europe: Towards new transformative approaches of the environmental protection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.65.03Keywords:
Nature, EU environmental policy, Biocentrism, Nature’s rights, Natura 2000 Network, Access to justice in environmental matters.Abstract
At present, the European Union has one of the strictest environmental regulations in the world, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which constitute the basis of the Natura 2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world. However, environmental problems persist, such as diffuse water pollution, poor air quality in urban areas, unsatisfactory treatment of waste, and the decline of species and habitats.
In this context, the need and the possibility of promoting a transition towards a paradigm shift are raised: from the right to Nature to the rights of Nature. This paradigm rethinking is already being experienced in many parts of the world: from Ecuador or Bolivia, as the first drivers of biocentrism, to Colombia, New Zealand, India, among many other countries.
Considering the progressive recognition of the rights of Nature in many parts of the world, this article analyzes the legal possibilities to favor this biocentric transition in the European Union, as well as the main existing obstacles and the role of social movements to accelerate this process and solve the environmental crisis.
Downloads
References
Alblas, E. (2018). “Conflicting goals and mixed rationales: A closer look at the objectives of EU environmental law in light of the Anthropocene”, RECIEL, 27, 141-152.
Baker, S. (1997). ‘The Evolution of EU Environmental Policy’. Baker et al, The Politics of Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
—— (2007). ‘Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union’. Environmental Politics, 16 (2), 297-317.
Borrás, S. (2016). “New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature”, Transnational Environmental Law, 5 (1), 113-143.
Boyd, D. R. (2017). The Rights Of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World, Ingram Publisher Services.
(2011). The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment, UBC Press; Canadian First edition.
Bozonnet J. P. (2014). L’écocentrisme en Europe: une mise en récit de la nature, postindustrielle et post-religieuse. En Bréchon P, Gonthier F. (eds.), Les valeurs des Européens, Évolution et clivages. (pp. 89–104). París: Armand Colin.
Carwil Bjork J. (2012). “Bolivia’s new Mother Earth Law to sideline indigenous rights” Global Justice Ecology Project.
Chapron, G., Yaffa Epstein, José Vicente López-Bao (2019). "A rights revolution for nature" Science 363, 1392-1393.
Connelly, J. (2012). “Environmental Policy in the European Union and the contested notion of sustainable development”, Marmara Journal of European Studies, 20 (1), 199-217.
Daly, E. (2012). “Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights”, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(1), 63-66.
Davison, I. (2017). “Whanganui River Given Status of a Person under Unique Treaty of Waitang Settlement”. New Zealand Herald, 15 March 2017. Disponible en línea en: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11818858 (consultado el 10 de Octubre de 2017).
Dunlap, R.E., Schmidt, L. y Guerra, J. (2011). Searching for an ecological worldview in Europe. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon.
European Commission (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Brussels.
ECA (2018), Informe Especial n. 31 “Bienestar animal en la UE: reducir la diferencia entre unos objetivos ambiciosos y su aplicación práctica”, 2018. Disponible en línea en: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_31/SR_ANIMAL_WELFARE_ES.pdf (consultada el 1 de marzo de 2019).
EEA (2018) Report No 26/2018, Natural capital accounting in support of policymaking in Europe. A review based on EEA ecosystem accounting work. Disponible en: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/natural-capital-accounting-in-support/ (consultado el 1 de marzo de 2019).
EEA (2018a) Report No 7/2018, “European waters. Assessment of status and pressures 2018”, 3 julio 2018. Disponible en: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water/ (consultada el 1 de marzo de 2019).
Fish, L. (2013). ‘Homogenizing Community, Homogenizing Nature: An Analysis of Conflicting Rights in the Rights of Nature Debate’ Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal, 6, 10.
García Ureta, A. (2005). “Aspectos sobre el acceso a la justicia en el Convenio de Aarhus y su incidencia en el Derecho comunitario”, Ingurugiroa eta Zuzenbidea, 3, 132.
Hovden, K. (2018). “The Best Is Not Good Enough: Ecological (Il)literacy and the Rights of Nature in the European Union”, en Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 15 (3-4).
Hunka AD, De Groot WT y Biela A. (2009). Visions of Nature in Eastern Europe: A Polish Example. Environmental Values 18(4), 429–452.
İzci, R. (2005). ‘The Impact of the European Union on Environmental Policy’, en F. Adaman, Arsel, M., (eds). Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Farnham: Ashgate.
Knauβ, S. (2018). “Conceptualizing Human Stewardship in the Anthropocene: The Rights of Nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(6), 703–722.
Macías Gómez, L. F. (2010). “El constitucionalismo ambiental en la nueva Constitución de Ecuador. Un reto a la tradición constitucional”, Iuris dictio, 12 (14), 151-168.
O'Donnell, E. L., J. Talbot-Jones (2018). “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India”, Ecology and Society, 23(1), 7.
Pagden, A. (2015). “Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe's Imperial Legacy”. The Burdens of Empire: 1539 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roy, E.A. (2017). “New Zealand River Granted Same Legal Rights as Human Being”. The Guardian, 16 March 2017. En: https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being (consultado el 10 de octubre de 2018).
Ruiz De Apodaca Espinosa, A. (2018). “El acceso a la justicia ambiental a nivel comunitario y en España veinte años después del Convenio de Aarhus”, Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental, 9 (1), 1-53.
Schoukens, H. (2018). “Granting Legal Personhood to Nature in the European Union: Contemplating a Legal (R)evolution to Avoid an Ecological Collapse (Part 1)”, J. Eur. Envtl. & Plan. L., 15, 309.
Shelton, D. (2015). “Nature as a legal person”, VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16188; DOI: 10.4000/vertigo.16188 (consultado el 1 de marzo de 2019).
TNS Political & Social (2015). Attitudes of European towards biodiversity. Flash Eurobarometer n. 436. European Commission, Brussels.
Zweers W. (2000). Participating with Nature: Outline for an Ecologization of Our World View. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
