Entanglements: the ambivalent role of law in the Anthropocene

IF 3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Johan Horst
{"title":"Entanglements: the ambivalent role of law in the Anthropocene","authors":"Johan Horst","doi":"10.4337/jhre.2024.01.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Law plays an ambivalent role in Anthropocene-related debates. On the one hand, affirmative theories turn to law as an important instrument for reconciling human life patterns and activities with the Earth’s planetary boundaries. On the other hand, critical theories point out that law perpetuates anthropocentrism, facilitates environmental exploitation, and enables human interference with ecological processes and is thus an integral part of the societal configuration that brought about the Anthropocene. A critical appraisal of the Anthropocene debate, in my view, requires engaging with the reasons for these ambivalent stances on the role of law in the Anthropocene. In this article, I argue that affirmative and critical approaches to the role of law in the Anthropocene fundamentally differ in their interpretations of three fundamental challenges that the Anthropocene poses to the form of law. The first challenge concerns a shift in the law’s function with respect to natural processes; the second, the constitutive role of law for the current economy of exploitation of the environment; and the third, a change in the meaning of democratic rule-making in the Anthropocene. Taken together, these three challenges expose the deep entanglement of the law with the Anthropocene constellation and suggest that the task of constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene begins with a thorough critique of the role of law in bringing about the Anthropocene. A critical interrogation provides the basis for engaging with historic, current and emerging alternative forms of law to work towards imaginaries of a radically different law for the Anthropocene.","PeriodicalId":43831,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2024.01.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Law plays an ambivalent role in Anthropocene-related debates. On the one hand, affirmative theories turn to law as an important instrument for reconciling human life patterns and activities with the Earth’s planetary boundaries. On the other hand, critical theories point out that law perpetuates anthropocentrism, facilitates environmental exploitation, and enables human interference with ecological processes and is thus an integral part of the societal configuration that brought about the Anthropocene. A critical appraisal of the Anthropocene debate, in my view, requires engaging with the reasons for these ambivalent stances on the role of law in the Anthropocene. In this article, I argue that affirmative and critical approaches to the role of law in the Anthropocene fundamentally differ in their interpretations of three fundamental challenges that the Anthropocene poses to the form of law. The first challenge concerns a shift in the law’s function with respect to natural processes; the second, the constitutive role of law for the current economy of exploitation of the environment; and the third, a change in the meaning of democratic rule-making in the Anthropocene. Taken together, these three challenges expose the deep entanglement of the law with the Anthropocene constellation and suggest that the task of constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene begins with a thorough critique of the role of law in bringing about the Anthropocene. A critical interrogation provides the basis for engaging with historic, current and emerging alternative forms of law to work towards imaginaries of a radically different law for the Anthropocene.
纠葛:法律在人类世中的矛盾作用
法律在与 "人类世 "有关的辩论中扮演着矛盾的角色。一方面,肯定论将法律作为协调人类生活模式和活动与地球疆界的重要工具。另一方面,批判理论指出,法律延续了人类中心主义,助长了环境开发,使人类能够干预生态过程,因此是导致人类世的社会结构的一个组成部分。在我看来,对 "人类世 "辩论进行批判性评估,需要探讨这些关于法律在 "人类世 "中作用的矛盾立场的原因。在这篇文章中,我认为,对于法律在人类世中的作用,肯定和批判的方法在对人类世对法律形式提出的三个基本挑战的解释上有着根本的不同。第一个挑战涉及法律在自然进程中的功能转变;第二个挑战涉及法律在当前开发环境的经济中的构成性作用;第三个挑战涉及民主规则制定在人类世中的意义变化。综合来看,这三个挑战揭示了法律与 "人类世 "的深刻纠葛,并表明 "人类世 "的宪法化任务始于对法律在 "人类世 "中的作用的彻底批判。批判性的审视为我们提供了与历史上、当前和新出现的替代法律形式接触的基础,从而为人类世实现截然不同的法律想象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The relationship between human rights and the environment is fascinating, uneasy and increasingly urgent. This international journal provides a strategic academic forum for an extended interdisciplinary and multi-layered conversation that explores emergent possibilities, existing tensions, and multiple implications of entanglements between human and non-human forms of liveliness. We invite critical engagements on these themes, especially as refracted through human rights and environmental law, politics, policy-making and community level activisms.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信