Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can International and French Environmental Law Accommodate Coviability?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems: Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change

  • 377 Accesses

Abstract

International and French environmental law is still largely marked by an anthropocentric and Western vision of nature that the concept of sustainable development has no doubt exacerbated. Such an approach is now questioned, notably by the emergence of concepts such as ecological solidarity, which is gradually permeating into French positive law. Close to this notion, coviability is still struggling to integrate the legal discourse and sphere. Moreover, we can question the necessary theoretical conditions for environmental law to receive such a paradigm, before analyzing the always unquestioned but still limited integration of coviability by French law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The concept of sustainable development was used for the first time in the Meadows report of 1972. It was spread on an international scale by the Brundtland Commission’s Report “Our Common Future” in 1986.

  2. 2.

    World Charter for Nature adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, Resolution 37/7, 48th plenary meeting, 28 October 1982. In particular see the preamble.

  3. 3.

    This current is closer to the theory supported by Hans Jonas and Courtine-Denamy (2000) and Hans Jonas (2013).

  4. 4.

    Preamble of the World Charter for Nature, 1982.

  5. 5.

    Articles 71 to 74 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, approved by referendum on September 29, 2008.

  6. 6.

    Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, World Conference of Nations against Climate Change, Cochabamba, 19-22 April 2010.

  7. 7.

    Ley Derechos of Madre Tierra No. 071 of 21 December 2010 and Ley Marco of the Madre Tierra y Desarollo Integral para el Vivir Bien no. 300 of October 15, 2012.

  8. 8.

    Law No. 2006-436 of 14 April 2006 related to national parks, marine parks and regional parks.

  9. 9.

    For some authors, this provides “ecocentric ethics of leopoldien filiation” (Mathevet et al. 2011, 424).

  10. 10.

    Law No. 2016-1087 of 08 august 2016 for the winning back of biodiversity, nature and landscapes.

  11. 11.

    Resolution 64/196 Harmony with Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 21, 2009, 54th session; Resolution 65/164 Harmony with Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 2010, 65th session. Resolution 66/204 Harmony with Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 22, 2011, 66th session.

  12. 12.

    Report of the UN Secretary General A/65/314, 65th session, general distribution, on August 19, 2010, paragraph 23.

  13. 13.

    “The future that we want”, paragraph 39 of the “statement” Rio + 20. For indigenous peoples, see mainly article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is extended by the Nagoya Protocol.

  14. 14.

    The Environmental safety is defined as “the pro-active minimization of anthropogenic threats on the functional integrity of the biosphere and its symbiotic human component” (Barnnet Barnett 1997).

  15. 15.

    This objective is found particularly in recent international environmental law agreements: the Convention on Biological Diversity entered into act on 29 December 1993, the Protocol of Nagoya on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their use related to the convention on biological diversity, entered into act on 12/10/2014, the UN Convention on climate change entered into act on 21 March 1994.

  16. 16.

    Cf., for example, the preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on climate change.

  17. 17.

    The starting point of this movement is attributed to Christopher D. STONE (1972) Should Trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural object, Southern California Law Review, pp. 148-157. Peter SINGER has continued in this sense, P. SINGER (1993) the animal liberation, B. GRASSET, 382 p.

  18. 18.

    State of New York Supreme Court, December 4, 2014, Tommy c / Patrick C. Lavery, n ° 518,336, Olivier LE BOT comment, “Pas d’habeas corpus pour un chimpanzé”,” bi-annual animal law review, 2014, no.2, p.131.

  19. 19.

    Federal Chamber of Appeal of Argentina “Orangutana Sandra / recurso casacion S/HABEAS CORPUS” of December 18, 2014, no. CCC 68831/2014 / CFC1.

  20. 20.

    See, Ms. Corinne LEPAGE and editorial team, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, final report delivered on Friday, September 25, 2015, 133 pages.

  21. 21.

    Article 71 line 2 of the Ecuadorian Constitution states that (our translation): “any person, community, people or nationality can require from public authority the fulfillment of the rights of nature”. Paragraph 3 states: “The State will stimulate people and communities so that they protect nature”.

  22. 22.

    Court of Justice of Loja Province (Ecuador), March 30, 2011 Rio Vilcabomba against Governor of the Province.

  23. 23.

    The sustainability of resources depending on the viability of the community and the environment.

  24. 24.

    Order No. 2000-914 of 18 September 2000 related to the legislative part of the environment code, JO Sept. 21.

  25. 25.

    Article R. 122 – 5 – II – 2 ° of the Environmental Code.

  26. 26.

    Addition of the Grenelle Act pre-mentioned, v. art. A. 122-5-II-(3) of the Environmental Code.

  27. 27.

    Article L. 371 – 1 of the Environmental Code.

  28. 28.

    See in this regard the constant jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice, including CJCE, July 11, 1996, Regina c / Secretary of State for the Environment “Lappel Bank”, aff. C 44/95, Rec. CJCE I-3805.

  29. 29.

    Article L. 414 – 1 – V ° of the Environmental Code.

  30. 30.

    Article L. 331 – 3 of the Environmental Code.

  31. 31.

    Article L. 219 – 1 of the Environmental Code.

  32. 32.

    The Classified Facilities for Environment Protectional is an administrative regime. It refers to any depot, yard, workshop and facility in general operated or owned by a public or private individual or corporate entity, involving hazards or inconvenience for the neighbourhood, health, safety, agriculture, or the protection of nature and the environment.

  33. 33.

    Article L. 512 – 5 of the Environmental Code.

  34. 34.

    Article L. 511 – 1 of the Environmental Code, which lists the various interests protected by the law of July 19, 1976 on the installations classified for the protection of the environment.

  35. 35.

    Article L. 541 – 1 of the Environmental Code.

  36. 36.

    Law No. 2016-1087 of 08 august 2016 for the winning back of biodiversity, nature and landscapes., article 2.

  37. 37.

    Original text (translated): “We mean by biodiversity, or biological diversity, the variability of living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part. It includes the diversity within species and between species, as well as those of ecosystems”. The first reading of the Bill adopted by the National Assembly and transmitted to the Senate on March 25, 2015, article 1er.

  38. 38.

    Article 2 -I-8°.

  39. 39.

    V. supra I, B) 2°.

  40. 40.

    Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004, JO L 143 of April, 30th 2004.

  41. 41.

    V. Draft of reform of the law of obligations and the prescription, P. Catala (dir): doc. fr. 2006; Retailleau Bill proposition may 2012; L. Neyret and G.J. Martin (dir.), Nomenclature of environmental damage, LGDJ, 2012; Report Jegouzo “for the repair of environmental damage”, September 2013.

  42. 42.

    V. Court of Appeal, crim. Sept. 25th, 2012, no. 10 – 82.938, published in the bulletin.

  43. 43.

    Abovementioned decision.

  44. 44.

    IDH Court, 31 August 2001, series C, no. 79, Mayagna community (Sumo) Awas Tingni c/Nicaragua, merits, reparations and costs. – Court IDH, June 27, 2012, series C, no. 245, Sarayaku Kichwa c / Ecuador, merits, reparations and costs).

References

  • Apostolidis C (1997) La protection juridique de l’humanité, l’homme face à la mondialisation, droit des peuples et environnement, L’Harmattan, Paris, p 229

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett J (1997) Environmental security: now what?, Séminaire au département de Relations Internationales de la Keele University

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrière O (2008) In: Lee C, Schaaf T (eds) Legal aspects of the coviability of social and ecological systems in African arid zones: an anthropological approach to environmental law, The future of drylands. Springer-Verlag & Man and the biosphere series, Unesco Publishing, Dordrecht, pp 583–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrière O (2013) Repenser le droit de l’environnement dans une conception renouvelée du développement durable. Prospective d’un “droit de la coviabilité” des systèmes sociaux et écologiques, in S. Blaise, C. David et V. David, (ed.) Le développement durable en Océanie, vers une nouvelle éthique? Presses Universitaires de Provence

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoist (de) A (1993) La nature et sa valeur intrinsèque, Revue Krisis, pp 113 à 126

    Google Scholar 

  • Berros V (2013) El estatuto juridico de la naturaleza en debate (meulen en el mundo del derecho), Revista de derecho ambiental, n°36

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnin M (2008a) Les corridors écologiques. Vers un troisième temps du droit de la conservation de la nature?, L’Harmattan, Paris, p 586

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnin M (2008b) Prospective juridique sur la connectivité écologique, Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, n° spécial, pp 167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgine P (1996) Modèles d’agents autonomes et leurs interactions co-évolutionnistes. In: Rialle V, Fisette D (eds) Penser l’esprit: des Sciences de la Cognition à une Philosophie Cognitive. Presses universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd DR (2012) The environmental rights revolution: a global study of constitutions, human rights, and the environment. UBC Press, Vancouver, p 443

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicot B (1984) Non anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics, Am Philos Q, n°21, pp 299–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Canal-Forgues VE, Perruso C (2015) La lutte contre le changement climatique en tant qu’objet juridique identifié?, Énergie – Environnement – Infrastructures n° 8–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Conseil de l’Europe (2007) Conserver la diversité biologique européenne dans le contexte du changement climatique, p 60

    Google Scholar 

  • Frias LE (2006) Responsabilidad y sostenabilidad ecologica, una etica para la vida. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Barcelone, p 321

    Google Scholar 

  • Godet L (2015) La conservation de la biodiversité dans un contexte de changements globaux, in R. Mathevet et L. Godet (dir.), Pour une géographie de la conservation. Natures, biodiversités et sociétés. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 113–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidar V, Berros V (2015) Entre el sumak kawsay y “la vida en con la naturaleza”: disputas en al circulation y traduccion de perspectivas respecto de la regulacion de la cuestion ecologica en el espacio global, Revista Theomai Estudios Criticos sobre sociedad y desarollo, Buenos Aires, n°32, pp 128–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin PN (1997) Global climate change and natural-area protection: management responses and research directions, Ecol Appl, vol. 7, n° 3 828 843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H (2013) Le principe responsabilité: une éthique pour la civilisation technologique, traduit par Jean Greisch. Flammarion, Paris, p 468

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H, Courtine-Denamy S (2000) Une éthique pour la nature. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, p 159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant E (1985) Fondements de la métaphysique des mœurs, trad. Franç., Œuveres Philosophiques, t. II, Gallimard, “Bibliothèque de la Pléiade”, p 210

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrere C (1997) Les philosophies de l’environnement. PUF, Paris, p 124

    Google Scholar 

  • Latouche S (1995) La mégamachine, Editions la Découverte, Série Bibliothèque du mouvement antiutilitariste dans les sciences sociales, p 243

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavieille JM (2010) Droit International de l’Environnement, 3ème édition. Editions Ellipses, Paris, p 368

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bot O (2010) Des droits fondamentaux pour les animaux: une idée saugrenue? RSDA 1/2010, et suivantes p 131

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold A (2013) A sand County almanac: & other writings on ecology and conservation. Etats-Unis, New York, p 931

    Google Scholar 

  • Luginbühl Y (2009) Biodiversité, changement climatique et paysage, in Humanité et biodiversité, Manifeste pour une nouvelle alliance. Descartes & Cie, Paris, pp 212–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Malherbe JF (2004) L’humain, l’animal et l’environnement: prospectives et défis futurs, éthiques et juridiques, in L’être humain, l’animal et l’environnement: dimensions éthiques et juridiques (dir. Leroux et Létourneau), Thémis, p 595

    Google Scholar 

  • mathevet R (2012) La solidarité écologique, ce lien qui nous oblige. Acte Sud, Arles, p 205

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathevet R, Thompson J, Delanoe O, Cheylan M, Gil-Fourrier C Bonnin M (2011) La solidarité écologique: un nouveau concept pour une gestion intégrée des parcs nationaux et des territoires. Nature Sciences Sociétés, volume 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess A (2005) The selected work of Arne Naess. Springer, Oxford, p 688

    Google Scholar 

  • Naim-Gesbert E (2012) Biodiversité et changements climatiques: la méthode et le discours. Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, 2-2012, pp 295–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Naim-Gesbert E (2014) Droit général de l’environnement, 2ème éd. LexisNexis, New York, p 269

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyret L, Martin G (2012) Nomenclature des préjudices environnementaux. LGDJ, Paris, p 456

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochard VE, Lassalle G (2010) Conservation de la biodiversité et changement climatique: un nécessaire changement de paradigme. Le cas des poissons migrateurs amphibiens, Sciences Eaux et Territoires, n° 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer A, Trueblood E (1970) Reverence for life, London, Royaume-Uni, S.P.C.K, p 154

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott D, Suffling R (2000) Climate change and Canada’s National Park System: a screening level Assesment, Toronto, Adaptation and Impacts Research Group, Environment Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (1993) La libération animale, B. Grasset, p 382

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone CD (1972) Should trees have standing ? Toward legal rights for natural object. Southern Calif Law Rev 45(2):148–157

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRIDEAU-OMIJ (EA 3177), Université de Limoges, Limoges, France

    Aline Treillard & Jessica Makowiak

Authors
  1. Aline Treillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Makowiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aline Treillard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Olivier Barrière

  2. Center for Research on Environment, Human Security and Governance (CERES), Ibn Zohr University of Agadir, Agadir, Morocco

    Mohamed Behnassi

  3. IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Gilbert David

  4. IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, Montpellier, France

    Vincent Douzal

  5. IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Mireille Fargette

  6. University of Montpellier, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Thérèse Libourel

  7. IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Maud Loireau

  8. University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Laurence Pascal

  9. The Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

    Catherine Prost

  10. The Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil

    Voyner Ravena-Cañete

  11. IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEV, Montpellier, France

    Frédérique Seyler

  12. CNRS – The French National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France

    Serge Morand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Treillard, A., Makowiak, J. (2019). Can International and French Environmental Law Accommodate Coviability?. In: Barrière, O., et al. Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems: Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78497-7_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation