探究南非宪法环境权与动物权益保护的关系

D. Bilchitz
{"title":"探究南非宪法环境权与动物权益保护的关系","authors":"D. Bilchitz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2942112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the relationship between the environmental right in the South African Constitution, 1996 and the protection of the interests of animals. The question is addressed through articulating two interpretive approaches to the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable use’. The ‘aggregative approach’ – which has been the dominant policy approach adopted by the legislature and executive – focuses on broad collective environmental goals such as the long-term survival of a species, the health of ecosystems or conserving biodiversity. The ‘integrative’ approach, on the other hand, – which has recently been referenced with the approval by the Constitutional Court – requires the adoption of an attitude of respect to the individuals that make up a species, an eco-system or the components of biodiversity. The article makes several arguments as to why the integrative approach is preferable and attempts to demonstrate that the aggregative approach is self-defeating in its own terms. The practical implications of the differences between these abstract approaches are illustrated by considering two recent controversies in interpreting environmental legislation. The article thus sets itself the ambitious purpose of connecting two sets of discourses that often talk past one another in developing the interpretation of the environmental right in the South African Constitution.","PeriodicalId":157380,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Relationship between the Environmental Right in the South African Constitution and Protection for the Interests of Animals\",\"authors\":\"D. Bilchitz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2942112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers the relationship between the environmental right in the South African Constitution, 1996 and the protection of the interests of animals. The question is addressed through articulating two interpretive approaches to the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable use’. The ‘aggregative approach’ – which has been the dominant policy approach adopted by the legislature and executive – focuses on broad collective environmental goals such as the long-term survival of a species, the health of ecosystems or conserving biodiversity. The ‘integrative’ approach, on the other hand, – which has recently been referenced with the approval by the Constitutional Court – requires the adoption of an attitude of respect to the individuals that make up a species, an eco-system or the components of biodiversity. The article makes several arguments as to why the integrative approach is preferable and attempts to demonstrate that the aggregative approach is self-defeating in its own terms. The practical implications of the differences between these abstract approaches are illustrated by considering two recent controversies in interpreting environmental legislation. The article thus sets itself the ambitious purpose of connecting two sets of discourses that often talk past one another in developing the interpretation of the environmental right in the South African Constitution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":157380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Anthropology eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Anthropology eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2942112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2942112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文考虑了1996年南非宪法中环境权与保护动物利益之间的关系。通过对“保护”和“可持续利用”的两种解释方法来解决这个问题。“综合方法”——立法机构和行政部门采用的主要政策方法——侧重于广泛的集体环境目标,例如物种的长期生存、生态系统的健康或保护生物多样性。另一方面,最近得到宪法法院批准的“综合”办法要求采取一种尊重构成物种、生态系统或生物多样性组成部分的个人的态度。这篇文章提出了几个关于为什么综合方法更可取的论点,并试图证明综合方法在其自身的条件下是自我挫败的。通过考虑最近在解释环境立法方面的两个争议,可以说明这些抽象方法之间差异的实际含义。因此,这篇文章为自己设定了一个雄心勃勃的目标,即将两组在发展对南非宪法中环境权的解释时经常相互讨论的话语联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the Relationship between the Environmental Right in the South African Constitution and Protection for the Interests of Animals
This article considers the relationship between the environmental right in the South African Constitution, 1996 and the protection of the interests of animals. The question is addressed through articulating two interpretive approaches to the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable use’. The ‘aggregative approach’ – which has been the dominant policy approach adopted by the legislature and executive – focuses on broad collective environmental goals such as the long-term survival of a species, the health of ecosystems or conserving biodiversity. The ‘integrative’ approach, on the other hand, – which has recently been referenced with the approval by the Constitutional Court – requires the adoption of an attitude of respect to the individuals that make up a species, an eco-system or the components of biodiversity. The article makes several arguments as to why the integrative approach is preferable and attempts to demonstrate that the aggregative approach is self-defeating in its own terms. The practical implications of the differences between these abstract approaches are illustrated by considering two recent controversies in interpreting environmental legislation. The article thus sets itself the ambitious purpose of connecting two sets of discourses that often talk past one another in developing the interpretation of the environmental right in the South African Constitution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信