| 1. |
- Bhati, Harsh Vardhan, et al.
(författare)
-
Protection of Biocultural Heritage in the Anthropocene : Towards Reconciling Natural, Cultural, Tangible and Intangible Heritage
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of environmental law. - : Oxford University Press. - 0952-8873 .- 1464-374X. ; 35:3, s. 353-375
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article examines the effectiveness, legitimacy, and fairness of heritage conservation outcomes under the 1972 World Heritage Convention (1972 WHC), with a focus on recognising and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples in heritage nomination, protection, and management. Examining conflicts surrounding World Heritage sites in Kenya and Sweden, this article argues that recognition of biocultural heritage and biocultural rights can promote environmental justice and help meet global environmental challenges. To promote the conservation of both built and natural landscapes, the article recommends expanding protection for the relationship between humans and their environment. Recognising biocultural heritage under UNESCO conventions could promote Indigenous sovereignty, protect cultural and natural heritage, and contribute to global efforts to address climate change. The article calls for further research mapping biocultural heritage in natural and mixed heritage sites and advocates for fuller engagement with Indigenous Peoples to increase the ability of the 1972 WHC to promote sustainability as it enters its second half-century.
|
|
| 2. |
- Carroll, Carlos, et al.
(författare)
-
Mainstreaming the Ambition, Coherence, and Comprehensiveness of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Into Conservation Policy
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Conservation Science. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2673-611X. ; 3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are finalizing a new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to more effectively guide efforts by the world’s nations to address global loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Each party is required to mainstream the new framework and its component targets into national conservation strategies. To date, such strategies have been criticized as largely aspirational and lacking clear linkages to national policy mechanisms, which has contributed to the world’s general failure to meet the Convention’s previous targets. We use the United States and European Union as examples to compare and contrast opportunities and barriers for mainstreaming the GBF more effectively into policy. The European Union and United States have unique relationships to the Convention, the former being the only supranational party and the latter, having signed but never ratified the treaty, adopting Convention targets on an ad hoc basis. The contrasting conservation policy frameworks of these two polities illustrate several conceptual issues central to biodiversity conservation and demonstrate how insights from the GBF can strengthen biodiversity policy even in atypical contexts. We focus on three characteristics of the GBF which are essential if policy is to effectively motivate and guide efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss: comprehensiveness, coherence, and ambition. Statutes in both the United States and European Union provide a strong foundation for mainstreaming the GBF’s comprehensiveness, coherence, and ambition, but policy development and implementation falls short. We identify six common themes among the reforms needed to successfully achieve targets for reversing biodiversity loss: broadening conservation focus to all levels of biodiversity, better coordinating conservation strategies that protect sites and landscapes with those focused on biodiversity elements (e.g., species), coordinating biodiversity conservation with efforts to safeguard ecosystem services including ecosystem-based climate mitigation and adaptation, more coherent scaling of targets from global to local extents, adoption of a more ambitious vision for recovery of biodiversity, and development of effective tracking and accountability mechanisms.
|
|
| 3. |
- Chapron, Guillaume, et al.
(författare)
-
European Commission may gut wolf protection
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 382:6668, s. 275-275
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
- Chapron, Guillaume, et al.
(författare)
-
What is an emergency? Neonicotinoids and emergency situations in plant protection in the EU
- 2022
-
Ingår i: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0044-7447 .- 1654-7209. ; 51, s. 1764–1771-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Actions potentially harmful to the environment that are otherwise illegal are sometimes permitted in cases of emergency. How to define an emergency can therefore be both controversial and highly consequential. In this article, we explore one such contemporary controversy: when the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, banned in the EU, can nevertheless be granted an emergency authorization. We analyse several questions, currently before the EU Court of Justice in the ongoing Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others case, that will determine the scope of an "emergency" in the context of derogating from the Pesticide Regulation, and that may impact how "emergencies" are defined in other legal contexts. We argue that the circumstances do not support a legal finding that emergency authorization is justified in this case, and that, in general, "emergencies" must be narrowly defined when justifying measures that involve risks to human health and the environment.
|
|
| 5. |
- de Vries, Katja, et al.
(författare)
-
Rivers and robots as legal subjects? An imaginary encounter between Critical Theory and Law in four acts. : Law/Critical Theory/Speculative Fiction
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Posthuman convergencies. - Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This chapter is a scholarly play in four acts. It is inspired by a series of discussions between three legal researchers (Van Dijk, Epstein and De Vries) and a cultural theorist (Goriunova), about proposals to grant legal personhood to two types of non-human entities: nature and artificial intelligence. We queried whether doing so would help meet challenges such as environmental catastrophes and co-existence with opaque and unpredictable AI systems. In Act I (Divergences) Law and Critical Theory present their respective positions, but fail to gain any understanding of each other. Law defends a neutral legal pragmatism, while critical theory debunks all claims to neutrality. Act II and Act III present two fictional narratives: one plays out in a courtroom where a man is suspected of the murder of a river (Act II) and the other features an AI-system addressing the European Parliament (Act III). By discussing these counterfactual narratives in Act IV (Convergences), Law and Critical Theory are, at least partially, able to see how there could be cross-fertilization between their respective positions: one has to take into consideration how legal personhood operates both inside the court room as well as how it impacts the world outside; and one can travel towards an “enlarged pragmatism” that focuses on the possibilities of masks, fiction and play in expressing different voices, perspectives and ontologies.
|
|
| 6. |
- Epstein, Yaffa, et al.
(författare)
-
A positivist approach to rights of nature in the European Union
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Human Rights and the Environment. - : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 1759-7188 .- 1759-7196. ; 12:2, s. 205-227
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A growing number of jurisdictions throughout the world have recognized some type of legal rights of nature. This jurisprudential trend has thus far made few inroads in Europe. However, its apparent absence is misleading. In this article we argue that, explicit or not, nature as protected by European Union (EU) law already has certain legal rights in the Hohfeldian sense because other entities have legal obligations towards it. Moreover, we argue that recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU can be interpreted to support our claim that nature, as protected by EU law, already enjoys some legal rights that cannot be trumped by mere utilitarian interests, and that these rights can in turn be recognized and applied by national courts. We further suggest that public interest litigation can contribute to developing rights for nature in Europe, even absent any explicit recognition of these rights in EU law or in national legislation.
|
|
| 7. |
- Epstein, Yaffa, et al.
(författare)
-
Animals and Nature as Rights Holders in the European Union
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Modern law review. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0026-7961 .- 1468-2230. ; 86:6, s. 1336-1357
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article argues that EU law can be interpreted to support the current existence of legal rights for animals and nature. While these rights have not been explicitly recognised in law, the prerequisites for doing so already exist in the EU legal order. The theoretical justifications for the protection of animals and nature differ, but the protection of both may benefit from a rights approach. Further, such a rights approach helps address jurisprudential questions pertaining to direct effect and the effectiveness of EU law, and related EU law concepts. In this article, we examine EU animal and nature protection laws to analyse where these laws can be interpreted to assign rights to non-human natural entities. We argue that the rights animals and nature already implicitly have in EU law should have consequences for how non-human protections should be implemented and enforced in the EU context.
|
|
| 8. |
- Epstein, Yaffa, et al.
(författare)
-
Deforestation in the Colombian Amazon : Connecting the Environmental Rights of Future Generations and the Rights of Nature
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Les grands arrêts inspirants du droit de l'environnement. - : Larcier. - 9782807943063 ; , s. 15-29
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this 2018 decision, the Colombian Supreme Court considered that deforestation in the Colombian Amazon contributed significantly to climate change and therefore violated the constitutional environmental rights of future generations, as embodied by the young people who brought the case. Further, it recognized the Colombian Amazon as a subject of rights, with the rights to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration. In its decision, the Court ordered the state and other organizational defendants to take several innovative measures intended to stop deforestation. It ordered the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and other regional and municipal bodies to issue action plans to address deforestation and reduce the impact of climate change. It also ordered the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to formulate an "intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon", together with the plaintiffs, impacted communities, scientists, and other interested persons including the general public, with a goal of reducing climate change, and reducing deforestation to zero. Importantly, this case made explicit the link between climate change, the rights of children, the rights of future generations, and the rights of nature.
|
|
| 9. |
- Epstein, Yaffa, et al.
(författare)
-
EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 373:6552, s. 290-290
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 10. |
- Epstein, Yaffa
(författare)
-
Non-governmental Enforcement of EU Environmental Law: A Stakeholder Action for Wolf Protection in Finland
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-701X. ; 8, s. 1-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) largely sided with a small Finnish nature protection organization, Tapiola, in a recent judgment that interpreted limitations on the deliberate killing of wolves. Tapiola was able to utilize EU law to bring about both national compliance with EU species protection law and a legal decision that will impact the hunting of wolves and other protected species throughout the EU. Using the Finnish wolf controversy as a case study, this article illustrates how law may be used as a tool for environmental protection in the EU, and the interdependence of environmental NGOs and EU institutions in doing so. It also calls attention to the different roles for NGO stakeholders and different potential outcomes in infringement procedures and references for preliminary rulings.
|
|
