Harmony with Nature: towards a new deep legal pluralism

References

• Adams, W. M., and M. Mulligan. 2003. Decolonising Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-Colonial Era. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., M. Appelstrand, D. Kleinschmit, H. Pülzl, I. Visseren-Hamakers, R. Eba’a Atyi, T. Enters, K. McGinley, and Y. Yasmi. 2010. “Discourses, Actors and Instruments in International Forest Governance.” In Embracing Complexity: Meeting the Challenges of International Forest Governance. A Global Assessment Report Prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on the International Forest Regime, edited by J. Rayner, A. Buck and P. Katila, 57–73. Vienna: IUFRO.
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., and E. Lövbrand. 2006. “Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Contested Discourses of Ecological Modernization, Green Governmentality and Civic Environmentalism.” Global Environmental Politics 6 (1): 50–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekessy, S. A., M. C. Runge, A. M. Kusmanoff, D. A. Keith, and B. A. Wintle. 2018. “Ask Not What Nature Can Do for You: A Critique of Ecosystem Services as a Communication Strategy.” Biological Conservation 224: 71–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benda-Beckmann, F. v. 2002. “Who’s Afraid of Legal Pluralism?” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 34: 37–82.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, P. S. 2007. “Global Legal Pluralism.” Southern California Law Review 80: 1155–1238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, T. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Three Rivers Press.
   Google Scholar
• Binner, A., G. Smith, I. Bateman, B. Day, M. Agarwala, and A. Harwood. 2017. Valuing the Social and Environmental Contribution of Woodlands and Trees in England, Scotland and Wales. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D. R. 2017. The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could save the World. Toronto: ECW Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brems, E. 2017. “Legal Pluralism as a Human Right and/or as a Human Rights Violation.” In Human Rights Encounter Legal Pluralism: Normative and Empirical Approaches. Oñati International Series in Law and Society, edited by G. Corradi, E. Brems and M. Goodale, 23–39. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brondizio, E. S., J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo, eds. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES.
   Google Scholar
• Brundtland, G. H. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Geneva: World Commission on Environment and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Burdon, P. D. 2015. Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• CBD. 2000. Sustaining Life on Earth: How the Convention on Biodiversity Promotes Nature and Human Well-Being. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
   Google Scholar
• Charpleix, L. 2018. “The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: Place-Based Law in a Legally Pluralistic Society.” The Geographical Journal 184 (1): 19–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhary, S., A. McGregor, D. Houston, and N. Chettri. 2015. “The Evolution of Ecosystem Services: A Time Series and Discourse-Centred Analysis.” Environmental Science and Policy 54: 25–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, N., E. Brady, H. Steen, and R. Bryce. 2016. “Aesthetic and Spiritual Values of Ecosystems: Recognising the Ontological and Axiological Plurality of Cultural Ecosystem ‘Services.” Ecosystem Services 21: 218–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullinan, C. 2002. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Cambridge: Green Books.
   Google Scholar
• Cullinan, C. 2010. “The Legal Case for the Universal Declaration.” https://therightsofnature.org.
   Google Scholar
• Delabre, I., E. Boyd, M. Brockhaus, W. Carton, T. Krause, P. Newell, G. Y. Wong, and F. Zelli. 2020. “Unearthing the Myths of Global Sustainable Forest Governance.” Global Sustainability 3: e16.
   Google Scholar
• Dembour, M.-B. 2010. Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, S., Bemissew, S. J. Carabias, C. Joly, and M. Lonsdale, Others. 2015. “The IPBES Conceptual Framework: Connecting Nature and People.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, W. O. 1965. A Wilderness Bill of Rights. New York: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Earth Law Center. 2020. Towards the Adoption of a Rights-Based Approach: Incorporating the Rights of Nature into the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the CBD. Boulder: Earth Law Center.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., and A. Oels. 2005. “Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3): 161–173.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, R., A. Church, and M. Winter. 2016. “Conceptualising Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Novel Framework for Research and Critical Engagement.” Ecosystem Services 21: 208–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, J. 1986. “What is Legal Pluralism?” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 18 (24): 1–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., and M. Versteeg. 2005. “A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3): 175–184.
   Google Scholar
• Iorns Magallanes, C. J. 2015. “Nature as an Ancestor: Two Examples of Legal Personality for Nature in New Zealand.” VertigO - La Revue Electronique en Sciences de l'Environnement [En Ligne], Hors-Série 22: Septembre 2015. http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16199
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2013. Conceptual Framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Decision IPBES-2/4. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, C. M., and P. L. Martin. 2017. “Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail.” World Development 92: 130–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffman, C. M., and P. L. Martin. 2019. “How Courts Are Developing River Rights Jurisprudence: Comparing Guardianship in New Zealand, Colombia, and India.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 20 (4): 260–289.
   Google Scholar
• Kinkaid, E. 2019. “Rights of Nature’ in Translation; Assemblage Geographies, Boundary Objects, and Translocal Social Movements.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 44 (3): 555–570.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, T., and R. M. Nielsen. 2019. “Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Oversight of Defaunation in REDD + and Global Forest Governance.” Forests 10 (4): 344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kull, C. A., X. A. de Sartre, and M. Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. “The Political Ecology of Ecosystem Services.” Geoforum 61: 122–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalander, R. 2016. “The Ecuadorian Resource Dilemma: Sumak Kawsay or Development?” Critical Sociology 42 (4-5): 623–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalander, R. 2017. “Ethnic Rights and the Dilemma of Extractive Development in Plurinational Bolivia.” The International Journal of Human Rights 21 (4): 464–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Ballantine Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. L., and M. A. Maslin. 2015. “Defining the Anthropocene.” Nature 519 (7542): 171–180. doi:10.1038/nature14258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E., and J. Stripple. 2011. “Making Change Governable: Accounting for Carbon as Sinks, Credits and Personal Budgets.” Critical Policy Studies 5 (2): 187–199.
   Google Scholar
• Lovelock, J. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, M. 2016. “Building an Alternative Jurisprudence for the Earth: The International Rights of Nature Tribunal.” Vermont Law Review 41: 129–142.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, P. 1996. Nature’s Web: Rethinking Our Place on Earth. New York: M E Sharpe
   Google Scholar
• MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merry, S. E. 1988. “Legal Pluralism.” Law & Society Review 22 (5): 869–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merry, S. E. 2006. “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle.” American Anthropologist 108 (1): 38–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merry, S. E. 2014. “Global Legal Pluralism and the Temporality of Soft Law.” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 46 (1): 108–122.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, R. 2009. “Global Legal Pluralism.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5 (1): 243–262.
   Google Scholar
• Naess, A. 2005. The Selected Works of Arne Naess. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, R. F. 1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, T. D. 2014. “The Role of Discourses in Governing Forests to Combat Climate Change.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 14 (3): 265–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sage, C., and M. Woolcock. 2012. “Introduction. Legal Pluralism as a Development Policy: Scholars and Practitioners in Dialogue.” In Legal Pluralism and Development: Scholars and Practitioners in Dialogue, edited by B. Z. Tamanaha, C. Sage, and M. Woolcock, 1–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Santos, B. d. S. 1987. “Law: A Map of Misreading: Toward a Post-Modern Conception of Law.” Journal of Law and Society 14 (3): 279–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, B. d. S. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. H. 2012. “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (1): https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.
   Google Scholar
• Sezgin, Y. ed. 2010. “Human Rights and Legal Pluralism.” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 42 (60): 5–40.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, P. 1975. [2015] Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals London: The Bodley Head.
   Google Scholar
• Small, N., M. Munday, and I. Durance. 2017. “The Challenge of Valuing Ecosystem Services That Have No Material Benefits.” Global Environmental Change 44: 57–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. D. 1972. “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” Southern California Law Review 45: 450–501.
   Google Scholar
• Tanasescu, M. 2016. Environment, Political Representation, and the Challenge of Rights. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tola, M. 2018. “Between Pachamama and Mother Earth: Gender, Political Ontology and the Rights of Nature in Contemporary Bolivia.” Feminist Review 118 (1): 25–40.
   Google Scholar
• Twining, W. 2012. “Legal Pluralism 101.” In Legal Pluralism and Development: Scholars and Practitioners in Dialogue, edited by B. Z. Tamanaha, C. Sage, and M. Woolcock, 112–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• UN ECOSOC. 2000. Report on the Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. 2000/35. New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council.
   Google Scholar
• UN ECOSOC. 2017. United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017–2030 and Quadrennial Programme of Work of the United Nations Forum on Forests for the Period 2017–2020. E/RES/2017/4. New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council.
   Google Scholar
• UN FAO. 2020. The State of the World’s Forests: Forests, Biodiversity and People. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. 2017. Harmony with Nature. Report of the Secretary General A/72/175. New York: United Nations General Assembly.
   Google Scholar
• UNPFII. 2010. Study on the Need to Recognise and Respect the Rights of Mother Earth. E/C.19/2010/4. New York: Indigenous Peoples and Development Branch/Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhulst, J., and A. Beling. 2014. “Buen Vivir: Emergent Discourse within or beyond Sustainable Development?” Ecological Economics 101 (C): 54–63.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt, W. 1948. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloan Association.
   Google Scholar
• Waitangi Tribunal. 2011. Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity. Te Taumata Tuatahi. Wellington: Legislation Direct.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, I. 2015. Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law. Raw Law. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Weston, B. H., and D. Bollier. 2013. Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Law of the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Westra, L. and M. Vilela, eds. 2014. The Earth Charter, Ecological Integrity and Social Movements. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Woodman, G. R. 1996. “Legal Pluralism and the Search for Justice.” Journal of African Law 40 (2): 152–167.
   Google Scholar
• Youatt, R. 2017. “Personhood and the Rights of Nature: The New Subjects of Contemporary Earth Politics 1.” International Political Sociology 11 (1): 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelli, F., A. Gupta, and H. Van Asselt. 2013. “Institutional Interactions at the Crossroads of Trade and Development: The Dominance of Liberal Environmentalism?” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19 (1): 105–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenker, O. and M. V. Hoehne, eds. 2018. The State and Paradox of Customary Law in Africa. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar