英国殖民主义、澳大利亚民族主义与法律:野生动物保护的等级制度

S. White
{"title":"英国殖民主义、澳大利亚民族主义与法律:野生动物保护的等级制度","authors":"S. White","doi":"10.26180/5DB80295D83FF","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle — sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not — and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection refl ects an early 20 th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, combined with the emergence of a conservation ethic and the decline of attempts to acclimatise British wild animals in Australia. Prior to federation the legal protection of wild animals was quite different, with native animals receiving little protection until the late 19 th century. Introduced wild animals were initially protected to allow their fl ourishing, but by the late 19 th century were increasingly being characterised as ‘pests’ and their protection wound back. This article explores how and why attitudes to native wild animals and introduced wild animals in Australia have changed over time, and how this continues to be refl ected in Australian law.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"452-472"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection\",\"authors\":\"S. White\",\"doi\":\"10.26180/5DB80295D83FF\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle — sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not — and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection refl ects an early 20 th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, combined with the emergence of a conservation ethic and the decline of attempts to acclimatise British wild animals in Australia. Prior to federation the legal protection of wild animals was quite different, with native animals receiving little protection until the late 19 th century. Introduced wild animals were initially protected to allow their fl ourishing, but by the late 19 th century were increasingly being characterised as ‘pests’ and their protection wound back. This article explores how and why attitudes to native wild animals and introduced wild animals in Australia have changed over time, and how this continues to be refl ected in Australian law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"452-472\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB80295D83FF\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB80295D83FF","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

动物福利法和自然保护法相结合,建立了保护野生动物的等级制度,珍稀、受威胁或濒临灭绝的本地动物受到最高级别的保护,大量的本地动物位于中间——有时保护得很好,有时没有——而引进的野生动物位于底部。在阅读当代法律的叙述之外,特别是在社会学和环境史方面,可以提出一个合理的论点,即这种普遍的保护模式反映了20世纪早期对澳大利亚独特身份的主张,结合了保护伦理的出现和试图在澳大利亚适应英国野生动物的尝试的减少。在联邦成立之前,对野生动物的法律保护是完全不同的,直到19世纪末,本土动物才得到很少的保护。引进的野生动物最初受到保护是为了让它们茁壮成长,但到了19世纪后期,它们越来越多地被定性为“害虫”,对它们的保护也逐渐恢复。本文探讨了澳大利亚对本地野生动物和引进野生动物的态度如何以及为什么随着时间的推移而发生变化,以及这如何继续反映在澳大利亚法律中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection
A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle — sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not — and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection refl ects an early 20 th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, combined with the emergence of a conservation ethic and the decline of attempts to acclimatise British wild animals in Australia. Prior to federation the legal protection of wild animals was quite different, with native animals receiving little protection until the late 19 th century. Introduced wild animals were initially protected to allow their fl ourishing, but by the late 19 th century were increasingly being characterised as ‘pests’ and their protection wound back. This article explores how and why attitudes to native wild animals and introduced wild animals in Australia have changed over time, and how this continues to be refl ected in Australian law.
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
1
×
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