No subject

Thu Jun 30 23:44:32 CEST 2016

rt at</a>&gt;<br>
An excellent precursor to the concept of ecocide is Christopher Stone&#39;s=
 iconic <a href=3D"tel:1972" value=3D"+661972">1972</a> Yale Law Review art=
icle, =E2=80=98Should Trees Have Standing?=E2=80=99. It remains the definit=
ive statement as to why trees, oceans, animals, and the environment as a wh=
ole should be bestowed with legal rights.<br>
Stone argued that special guardians should be empowered to speak for the &q=
uot;voiceless&quot; elements in nature, in effect, to give legal standing t=
o endangered species and threatened forests. Human rights courts have taken=
 important steps to protect the environment, but always so as to protect th=
e rights of the human. This leads some to identify a fundamental contradict=
ion: by placing environmental claims in a human rights framework, the syste=
m reinforces the very conditions that give rise to natural harms in the fir=
st place, by shackling the protection of the natural object to the interest=
s of the human(s) espousing the claim. Stone challenged the assumption that=
 the human person is necessarily and naturally at the center of any legal o=
rder, be it national or international. He caused a great many readers to re=
flect in an ecological manner, by imagining what it means to conceive of th=
e interests of a natural object from a non-human perspective.<br>
The Journal of Human Rights and the Environment published a retrospective, =
&quot;Should trees have standing: 40 years on?&quot; here: <a href=3D"http:=
//" rel=3D"no=
referrer" target=3D"_blank">
Steve Woolpert<br>
On 7/1/16 8:17 AM, Great Transition Network wrote:<br>

More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list