“诉讼是我们的最后手段”

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
B. Panikkar
{"title":"“诉讼是我们的最后手段”","authors":"B. Panikkar","doi":"10.3167/nc.2020.150204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The permitting of large-scale industrial mines is often controversial and litigious. This article examines three legal battles over the exploratory permitting of the Pebble mine in southwestern Alaska to examine the logics and rationalities used to legitimize the permitting, the alternate epistemic arguments made by the resistance movements to redraw state-constructed boundaries, and differing definitions of land-based resources, pollution, and bias. It asks how conflicting knowledge claims and epistemic injustice are debated and settled in court. All three legal cases observed demonstrate conditions of scientific uncertainty, undone science, and bias, failing to hold space for diverse representations within legal claims. Citizen science is partially successful in addressing epistemic injustice, but to effectively mediate justice, law must distinctively question both knowledge construction and phronetic risks, including values, intent, bias, privilege, and agency, and take into consideration the ontological multiplicities and civic epistemologies of the parties within legal claims.","PeriodicalId":46069,"journal":{"name":"Nature + Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/nc.2020.150204","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Litigation Is Our Last Resort”\",\"authors\":\"B. Panikkar\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/nc.2020.150204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The permitting of large-scale industrial mines is often controversial and litigious. This article examines three legal battles over the exploratory permitting of the Pebble mine in southwestern Alaska to examine the logics and rationalities used to legitimize the permitting, the alternate epistemic arguments made by the resistance movements to redraw state-constructed boundaries, and differing definitions of land-based resources, pollution, and bias. It asks how conflicting knowledge claims and epistemic injustice are debated and settled in court. All three legal cases observed demonstrate conditions of scientific uncertainty, undone science, and bias, failing to hold space for diverse representations within legal claims. Citizen science is partially successful in addressing epistemic injustice, but to effectively mediate justice, law must distinctively question both knowledge construction and phronetic risks, including values, intent, bias, privilege, and agency, and take into consideration the ontological multiplicities and civic epistemologies of the parties within legal claims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature + Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/nc.2020.150204\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature + Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2020.150204\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature + Culture","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2020.150204","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对大型工业矿山的许可往往充满争议和诉讼。本文考察了阿拉斯加西南部Pebble矿勘探许可的三场法律斗争,以考察用于使许可合法化的逻辑和合理性,重新划定国家边界的抵抗运动提出的替代认识论点,以及对陆地资源、污染和偏见的不同定义。它询问了相互冲突的知识主张和认知不公是如何在法庭上辩论和解决的。观察到的所有三个法律案例都表明了科学的不确定性、未完成的科学和偏见,未能在法律主张中为不同的陈述保留空间。公民科学在解决认知不公正方面取得了部分成功,但要有效地调解正义,法律必须明确地质疑知识构建和语音风险,包括价值观、意图、偏见、特权和代理,并考虑法律主张中各方的本体论多样性和公民认识论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Litigation Is Our Last Resort”
The permitting of large-scale industrial mines is often controversial and litigious. This article examines three legal battles over the exploratory permitting of the Pebble mine in southwestern Alaska to examine the logics and rationalities used to legitimize the permitting, the alternate epistemic arguments made by the resistance movements to redraw state-constructed boundaries, and differing definitions of land-based resources, pollution, and bias. It asks how conflicting knowledge claims and epistemic injustice are debated and settled in court. All three legal cases observed demonstrate conditions of scientific uncertainty, undone science, and bias, failing to hold space for diverse representations within legal claims. Citizen science is partially successful in addressing epistemic injustice, but to effectively mediate justice, law must distinctively question both knowledge construction and phronetic risks, including values, intent, bias, privilege, and agency, and take into consideration the ontological multiplicities and civic epistemologies of the parties within legal claims.
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
Nature + Culture
Nature + Culture ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
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