Advertisement

New Politics: Sovereignty, Representation, and the Nonhuman

  • Alfonso DonosoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 46)

Abstract

As an alternative to an instrumentalist view of the natural world in political practices and institutions—a view that conceives of nature as an aggregated of resources to merely serve human interests and needs—this article advances an account of a new politics for a more-than-human world. It proposes a different understanding of the nonhuman within the sphere of the political which both impacts upon the extension of the political community—who should be included in the demos—as well as upon the use and application of traditional political concepts—e.g., sovereignty, representation, legitimacy and authority. It is argued that these theoretical developments characterize a new politics and are, in the light of current environmental challenges, a necessary first step towards a genuine transformation of state policies and practices for our more-than-human political communities.

Keywords

Non-anthropocentrism Environmental ethics Animal ethics Ecological justice Territorial rights Sovereignty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Fondecyt Project nº11160170.

References

  1. Beitz CR (1989) Political equality: an essay in democratic theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan A (2003) Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl RA (1979) Procedural democracy. In: Fishkin JS, Laslett P (eds) Philosophy, politics and society, vol 5. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 97–133Google Scholar
  5. Donoso A (2017) Representing non-human interests. Environ Values 26(5):607–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donoso A (2019) A territorial mediation in a triangular affair. Towards an ecological territorial sovereignty. In: Rivera-López E, Hevia M (eds) Controversies in Latin American bioethics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 219–235 Google Scholar
  7. Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome. Available via: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  9. Garner R (2017) Animals and democratic theory: beyond an anthropocentric account. Contemp Polit Theory 16(4):459–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodin RE (1996) Enfranchising the earth, and its alternatives. Polit Stud 44(5):835–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodin RE (2007) Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philos Public Aff 35(1):40–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Held D (1996) Models of democracy, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Heyward C (2008) Can the all-affected principle include future persons? Green deliberative democracy and the non-identity Problem. Environ Polit 17(4):625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum EP (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders Company, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Oppenheim LF (1912) International law: a treatise, vol 1, 2nd ed. Longman, Green and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Rolston III H (2012) A new environmental ethics: the next millennium for life on earth. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Routley R (1973) Is there a need for a new, an environmental, ethic? In: Proceedings of the XVth world congress of philosophy, vol 1. Sofia Press, Sofia, pp 205–210Google Scholar
  19. Shapiro I (1999) Democratic justice. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  20. Shapiro I (2003) The state of democratic theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Song S (2012) The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state. Int Theory 4:39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith KS (2016) Environmental political theory, environmental ethics, and political science: bridging the gap. In: Gabrielson T, Hall C, Meyer JM, Schlosberg D (eds) The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105–115Google Scholar
  23. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16(3):284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. UN (United Nations) (1972) Report of the United Nations conference on the human environment. Stockholm. Available via: http://www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  25. Varner G (2002) In nature’s interests? Interests, animal rights, and environmental ethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Report of the World Commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Whelan FG (1983) Democratic theory and the boundary problem. In: Pennock R, Chapman JW (eds) Liberal democracy: Nomos XXV. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Ypi L (2014) A permissive theory of territorial rights. Eur J Philos 22(2):288–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political SciencesPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiago de ChileChile

Personalised recommendations