Who owns nature? About the rights of nature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.347573Keywords:
nature, rights of nature, philosphy, ecological crisisAbstract
Property rights are often seen as a gateway to the destruction of nature. In view of the ecological crisis, criticism of property rights is therefore becoming louder and louder. On the one hand, rightly so, since global warming, resource depletion, global pollution and the loss of species have been made possible by the private ownership of natural assets. On the other hand, the criticism falls short. Even common and public property does not protect natural assets from being overexploited, resources depleted, and values extracted. Moreover, it is questionable whether nature would actually be better off today without any property regulation. A new understanding of property that does justice to natural goods is therefore needed. The article considers the rights of nature as a way to rethink property in this sense and explores reasons to give rights of nature a general validity.
Downloads
References
Assheuer, T. (2019). Der Teufel trägt Öko. Die Zeit, 37, 59-69.
Berry, T. (2011). Das Wilde und das Heilige. The Great Work – Unser Weg in die Zukunft. Arun-
Verlag.
Bohm, D. (1980). Die implizite Ordnung – Grundlagen eines dynamischen Holismus. Goldmann.
Bosselmann, K. (2011). Property Rights and Sustainability: Can they be reconciled? In: D. Grinlinton & P. Taylor (Eds.), Property rights and sustainability: the evolution of property rights to meet ecological challenges (pp. 23-42). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Bosselmann, K. (2016). The principle of sustainability. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315553955
Boyd, D. (2018). Die Natur und ihr Recht. Sie ist klug, sensibel, erfinderisch und genügt sich selbst. Ecowin.
Boyd, J. &. Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616–626. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Broome, J. (2012). Climate matters. Ethics in a warming world. Norton.
Burdon, P. D. (2014). Earth jurisprudence: private property and the environment. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203797013
Callicott, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: essays in environmental philosophy. State University of New York Press.
Fischer-Lescano, A. (2018). Natur als Rechtsperson – Konstellationen der Stellvertretung im Recht. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, 4, 205-216.
Franziskus, P. (2015). Enzyklika Laudato Si‘.
Görg, C. (2017). Boundary negotiations. In: B. Aulenbach, M. Burawoy, K. Dörre & J. Sittel (Eds.), Öffentliche Soziologie. Wissenschaft im Dialog mit der Gesellschaft (pp. 133- 145). Campus.
Gutmann, A. (2019). Pachamama als Rechtssubjekt? Rechte der Natur und indigenes Denken in Ecuador. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, 11, 611-617.
Jantsch, E. (1992). Die Selbstorganisation des Universums. DTV Wissenschaft.
Kauffman, S. (1998). Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Piper.
Kersten, J. (2020a). Natur als Rechtssubjekt. Für eine ökologische Revolution des Rechts. In Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 11, 8-25.
Kersten, J. (2020b). Die Rechte der Natur und die Verfassungsfrage des Anthropozän. In J. Soentgen, M. Ulrich, J. von Hayek, A.
Manzei (Hrsg.), Umwelt und Gesundheit, Baden- Baden, S. 87 ff. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845296951-87
Kleidon, A. (2004). Beyond gaia: thermodynamics of life and earth system functioning. Climate Change, 66, 271-319. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000044616.34867.ec
Latour, B. (2017). Kampf um Gaia. Acht Vorträge über das Neue Klimaregime. Suhrkamp. Latour, B. (2018). Das terrestrische Manifest. Suhrkamp.
Leopold, A. (2019). Ein Jahr im Sand County. Matthes & Seitz.
Lovelock, J. (1991). Das Gaia-Prinzip. Die Biographie unseres Planeten. Artemis und Winkler.
Luhmann, N. (2008). Ökologische Kommunikation. Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen? VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, 5. Auflage.
Nash, R. F. (1989). The rights of nature. A history of environmental ethics. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Die Grenzen der Gerechtigkeit: Behinderung, Nationalität und Spezieszugehörigkeit. Suhrkamp.
Ott, K. & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis Verlag.
Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Suhrkamp.
Schröter, M. W., & Bosselmann, K. (2018). Die Robbenklage im Lichte der Nachhaltigkeit. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, 4, 195-205.
Schweitzer, A. (1991). Die Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben. Grundtexte aus fünf Jahrzehnten, 6. Beck.
Seel, M. (1997). Ästhetische und moralische Anerkennung der Natur. In: A. Krebs (Hg.), Naturethik. Grundtexte der gegenwärtigen tier- und ökoethischen Diskussion (pp. 307- 339). Suhrkamp.
Serres, M. (1994). Naturvertrag. Der Naturvertrag (pp. 49-87). Suhrkamp.
Stone, D. C. (2013). Haben Bäume Rechte? Plädoyer für die Eigenrechte der Natur. ThinkOya.
Swimme, B. (1996): Das verborgene Herz des Kosmos. Claudius.
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press.
Tugendhat, E. (1993). Vorlesungen über Ethik. Suhrkamp.
UNEP / United Nations Environmental Programme (2010). (Hrsg.). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB). The ecological and economic foundations. Chapter 1: Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Geneva.
Volk, T. (2003). Gaia’s body: toward a physiology of earth. MIT Press.
Volk, T. (2014). Demokratie und ihr Eigentum. Von der Marktfreiheit zur Wirtschaftsdemokratie. Deutschen Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 62(3), 443-486. https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph- 2014-0032
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Tilo Wesche
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
