DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Global Environmental Politics 2 Realism, Liberalism And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Global Environmental Politics 2 Realism, Liberalism And Notes 1 Introduction: Understanding Global Environmental Politics 1 For example, see Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (1995), Vogler (1995), Haas, Keohane and Levy (1993), Bartlett, Kurian and Malik (1995), Elliott (1998), Chatterjee and Finger (1994), Miller (1995), The Ecologist (1993). Choucri (1993) achieves the same effect, as the foreword is written by Maurice Strong, UNCED’s Secretary-General. 2 The formulation here is not intended to exclude the questions thrown up by poststructuralist perspectives. Doran (1995) for example, argues that a critical global environmental politics should be based on poststructuralism. For him, the most pertinent questions are those of power/knowledge. I would argue that my three questions can all be investigated through such a lens. But I would want to make claims concerning the origins of global environmental change central to a critical global environmental politics. Doran makes answers to such questions a matter of rhetoric, not amenable to detailed explanation (such a notion being overly modernist, I suspect). Thus while his normative position is very close to my own, he has little time for, and few conceptual tools for, an analysis of the origins of global environmental change. 3 For example Conca (1993), Dalby (1992), Doran (1995), Elliott (1998), Kuehls (1996), Litfin (1994), Paterson (1995, 1996a), Runyan (1992), Saurin (1994, 1996), Boardman (1997), Helleiner (1996), Hovden (1998), Laferriere and Stoett (1999). 4 I develop this point further in Paterson (forthcoming a). 5 Saurin (1996, p. 85). I take issue with Saurin’s argument in one respect. He suggests a classic Marxian focus on production relations. While I agree that these are crucial, dynamics of consumption practices are also important, and while it is clear that they are connected to production, I would argue they are not simply epiphenomenal. For the case here, it is more that the direct consumer is the ‘agent’ of environmental change than the direct producer (Saurin, 1996, p. 87). I discuss questions of consumption in more detail in Chapter 6. 2 Realism, Liberalism and the Origins of Global Environmental Change 1 Also on effectiveness, see Keohane, Haas and Levy (1993), Bernauer (1995), or Victor et al. (1998). 2 For others who use this threefold typology of power, interests, and ideas, see, for example, Rowlands (1995), albeit in a slightly modified form, Vogler (1992), or Hansenclever, Mayer and Rittberger (1996). 162 Notes 163 3 CERES stands for the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. They were formerly known as the Valdez Principles. Other examples could be given, such as the Forestry Stewardship Council, established by WWF to cer- tify timber that is sustainably produced (Humphreys, 1996, pp. 149–51). In a more conflictual manner, organisations like Multinationals Monitor and even magazines such as Ethical Consumer, or campaigns like those against McDonald’s or Nestlé, fulfil such governance functions. See Newell (forth- coming 1999). This question is also discussed further in Chapter 7. 4 While in many ways the political dynamics of the ways environmentalists have tried to advance an environmental security agenda which disrupts the traditional focus of security in nationalist/statist and militarist terms is highly interesting, and reveals much of the dynamics of using existing polit- ical institutions to achieve Green goals, it is not the focus of this section. For examples, see Deudney (1990); Mische (1989); Finger (1991); Dalby (1992, 1998b). For a useful overview of the debates, see Kakonen (1994), and for selections of key texts, see Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (1995, pp. 239–77) or O’Tuathail, Dalby and Routledge (1998, pp. 179–243). 5 Waltz writes that ‘The death rate among states is remarkably low. Few states die; many firms do. Who is likely to be around 100 years from now – the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Egypt, Thailand, and Uganda? Or Ford, IBM, Shell, Unilever and Massey-Ferguson? I would bet on the States, perhaps even on Uganda.’ (Waltz, 1979, p. 95) 6 In this schema, I refers to environmental impact, P to Population, A to Affluence (sometimes C for Consumption is used), and T to Technology. Prominent in debates over this in the 1970s was the one between Barry Commoner and Paul Ehrlich over the relative importance of technology or population. The typology provided by Choucri (1993a) cited earlier is clearly a version of this threefold explanation of environmental change. 3 The ‘normal and mundane practices of modernity’: Global Power Structures and the Environment 1 The phrase in the title here is taken from Saurin (1994). 2 Several parts of this chapter were previously included in my chapter ‘Green Politics’ in Scott Burchill’s Theories of International Relations (1996; Paterson, 1996c). These include much of the section on Green political theory, the sec- tion ‘Against development’, and the concluding section. 3 This discussion is perhaps rather arbitrarily centred on these three books. For other discussions of Green political thought, see O’Riordan (1981), Hayward (1994), Atkinson (1991) or Martell (1994). 4 This section will follow Eckersley’s Environmentalism and Political Theory (1992), largely for reasons of simplicity, but also because her book still represents the most developed application of ecocentric ideas to politics. The references here will simply refer to page numbers from that book. For other ecocentric works, see, for example, Birch and Cobb (1981) or Fox (1990). Hayward (1994), for one, is sceptical that a full ecocentric position is necessary for a radical ecological politics, and argues for an ecological humanism. 164 Notes 05 The other positions which Eckersley identifies are resource conservation, human welfare ecology, preservationism and animal liberation (1992, ch. 2). 06 The classic early critique was provided by researchers at the University of Sussex (Cole et al., 1973). For many of the raw materials they predicted would run out by 2000 there are in fact now greater reserves than there were in 1972 (reserves being related to price – the higher the price, the greater amounts are recoverable). 07 To see this at work in Green writings, see for example Bunyard and Morgan- Grenville (1987); Porritt (1986); Spretnak and Capra (1985); Trainer (1985); Henderson (1988); Goldsmith (1992). There is an interesting revival of notions of limits in the 1990s, after the domination of notions of ‘ecologi- cal modernization’ and ‘sustainable development’ in the 1980s and early 1990s. This can be seen in different ways in, for example, Douthwaite (1992), The Ecologist (1993), Booth (1998) and the ‘ecological footprint’ analysis of Wackernagel and Rees (1996). 08 This concept was originally used in the World Conservation Strategy devel- oped by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 1980), and popularised by the Brundtland Commission, or World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). 09 Peter Doran (1995) has also made a similar argument from a poststructural- ist point of view within IR. For Doran, however, while there is this general critical approach, there is perhaps an overriding interest in the knowledge structures of global politics. Yet another starting-point broadly consistent with the approach here would be the growing interest in IPE in the work of Karl Polanyi. See, for example, Bernard (1997). 10 I do not of course intend this to imply a simple endorsement of Bull’s view. It is intended only to illustrate that the states system is often regarded to involve a number of social mechanisms regulating how states interact with each other. The formulation of sovereignty as ‘produced formal indepen- dence’ is intended to be consistent with an argument that sovereignty should not be seen as a static ‘thing’, but rather a ‘bundle of rights’ pertain- ing, in the modern era to states, but before that to God (via the Pope), which have evolved over time (see e.g. Litfin, 1997; Weber, 1995; Conca, 1994; Bartelson, 1995). In this context sovereignty should not be seen as something defining the (modern) states system, and its evolution is not necessarily evidence of changes in the dynamics of that system. It is com- mon to conflate sovereignty and the states system, as does for example Conca (1994, e.g. at p. 703). Rather, sovereignty is an expression of how state rulers have legitimised their rule, and its content has changed as the means of legitimation have changed. The states system has therefore been able to retain its fundamental features, as outlined here, irrespective of changes in the context of sovereignty. 11 This is not of course inconsistent with the fact that many companies do consider the ecological consequences of their actions. A more upbeat read- ing of this relationship would emphasise that many firms have undergone radical changes in their production methods to limit emissions, reduce resource consumption, and so on. Such an interpretation often depends on liberal assumptions of ‘consumer sovereignty’ – that firms are simply responding to consumer demand for more ecologically benign products and Notes 165 production processes. In this interpretation, there is (at least implicitly) an unlimited potential for such change to occur. However, if assumptions about consumer sovereignty are dropped (i.e. there is much more room for manipulation of demand by firms), and, more importantly, if limits to the potential for improvement in rates of resource use by firms exist, then lim- its to the ‘greening of industry’ must also exist. At any rate, what is not in dispute is that any such greening can only occur within a primary concern for the ‘bottom line’ – what is at dispute is how much change is possible within this constraint. For readings on the ‘greening of industry’, see, for example, Welford and Starkey (1996), Schmidheiny (1992), Athanasiou (1996, ch. 5), Karliner (1997). 12 This perspective would also emphasise that the external costs assumed by neoclassical environmental economics, to be ‘naturally’ external, have in practice been historically produced as external; firms have historically acted to make sure that those costs were not included in their production costs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court for the District of Arizona
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) THE ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN ) PARTY AND MICHAEL KIELSKY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) MICHELE REAGAN, ) Civil Action No. ___________ ) Defendant. ) ) INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party (“AZLP”) and its Chairman Michael Kielsky (together, “the Libertarians”) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to vindicate rights guaranteed to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Libertarians specifically challenge the constitutionality of two provisions of Arizona law, A.R.S. §§ 16-321 and 16-322, which establish the requirements that political parties must meet to place their candidates on Arizona’s primary election ballot. These provisions formerly enabled candidates to appear on the primary ballot by submitting nomination petitions with a number of signatures defined as a percentage of their party’s qualified registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction. In 2015, however, the provisions were amended, such that they now define the signature requirements as a percentage of all “qualified signers” in the relevant jurisdiction – a pool defined to include independent and unaffiliated voters. As applied to the Libertarians – though not to the major parties – this drastically increased the number of signatures required. In general, the new requirements for the Libertarians are at least 20 times greater than the old ones, depending on the office, and in many cases much greater. Sections 16-321 and 16-322, as amended, violate the Libertarians’ First Amendment rights on several grounds. First, they impose unconstitutionally severe signature requirements under the settled precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, they violate the Libertarians’ freedom of association, because they compel AZLP, as a practical matter, to rely on non-members for purposes of nominating its own partisan candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • A STUDYGUIDE by Robert Lewis
    A STUDYGUIDE BY ROBERT LEWIS www.metromagazine.com.au www.theeducationshop.com.au McLibel (Franny Armstrong, 2005) is an 85-minute documentary film about the attempt by McDonald’s to stop the distribution of a pamphlet that they claimed defamed them. wo of the distributors of the settlement negotiations. Even spies. BEFORE WATCHING THE pamphlet, London Greenpeace FILM Tmembers Helen Steel and Dave Seven years later, in February 2005, Morris, defended themselves in what the marathon legal battle finally McLibel is about the court case turned out to be Britain’s longest-ever concluded at the European Court of that was brought by McDonald’s in civil trial. Human Rights. And the result took Britain to stop the distribution of the everyone by surprise – especially the pamphlet ‘What’s wrong with McDon- McLibel is the story of two ordinary British Government. ald’s?’. The pamphlet made many people who humiliated McDonald’s in accusations against McDonald’s. the biggest corporate PR disaster in McLibel is not just about hamburgers. history. McDonald’s loved using the It is about the importance of freedom To understand what the case was UK libel laws to suppress criticism. of speech now that multinational about you need to study the pamphlet. Major media organizations like the corporations are more powerful than BBC and The Guardian crumbled and countries. It is a long pamphlet, so to make the apologized. task easier it has been divided into Filmed over ten years by no-budget sub-sections in Table 1 on (page 3). But then they sued gardener Helen Director Franny Armstrong, McLibel The whole class should look at the Steel and postman Dave Morris.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Activists from Abusive Litigation: Slapps in the Global
    PROTECTING ACTIVISTS FROM ABUSIVE LITIGATION SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND HOW TO RESPOND SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Features and Policy Responses Author: Nikhil Dutta, Global Programs Legal Advisor, ICNL, [email protected]. Our thanks go to the following colleagues and partners for valuable discussions and input on this report: Abby Henderson; Charlie Holt; Christen Dobson; Ginna Anderson; Golda Benjamin; Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo; Zamira Djabarova; the Cambodian Center for Human Rights; iProbono; and SEEDS for Legal Initiatives. Published in July 2020 by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 2 III. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 4 A. Instances of Reported SLAPPs in the South 4 i. Thailand 5 ii. India 7 iii. Philippines 10 iv. South Africa 12 v. Other Instances of Reported SLAPPS in the South 13 B. Features of Reported SLAPPs in the South 15 IV. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 19 A. Enacting Protections for Public Participation 19 B. Creating Expedited Dismissal Procedures for SLAPPs 20 C. Endowing Courts with Supplemental Authorities to Manage SLAPPs 23 D. Permitting Recovery of Costs by SLAPP Targets 24 E. Authorizing Government Intervention in SLAPPs 25 F. Establishing Public Funds to Support SLAPP Defense 25 G. Imposing Compensatory and Punitive Damages on SLAPP Filers 25 H. Levying Penalties on SLAPP Filers 26 I. Reforming SLAPP Causes of Action 27 V. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 27 A. Thailand 28 B. Philippines 30 C. Indonesia 33 VI. DEVISING FUTURE RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 33 REFERENCES 37 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Report Is No Longer Current, and Is to Be Used for Historical Purposes Only
    The following report is no longer current, and is to be used for historical purposes only. CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by DENA JONES for the Animal Welfare Institute 2 CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones May 2008 Animal Welfare Institute Crimes Without Consequences: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones Animal Welfare Institute P.O. Box 3650 Washington, DC 20027 www.awionline.org Copyright © 2008 by the Animal Welfare Institute Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-938414-94-1 LCCN 2008925385 i CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 1.1 About the author........................................................................ 6 1.2 About the Animal Welfare Institute ........................................... 6 1.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................... 6 2. Overview of Food Animal Slaughter in the United States ...................... 7 2.1 Animals Slaughtered ................................................................. 7 2.2 Types of Slaughter Plants .......................................................... 12 2.3 Number of Plants .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY; No. 13-16254 ARIZONA GREEN PARTY; JAMES MARCH; KENT SOLBERG; STEVE DC No. LACKEY, 4:11 cv-0856 Plaintiffs-Appellants, CKJ v. ORDER AND MICHELE REAGAN, Secretary of AMENDED State, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 29, 2015—University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Arizona Filed April 24, 2015 Amended August 7, 2015 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge McKeown 2 ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY V. REAGAN SUMMARY* Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by the Arizona Green Party, the Arizona Libertarian Party, and three of their members alleging that Arizona’s voter registration form violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted a law requiring the voter registration form distributed by the Arizona Secretary of State to list the two largest parties (as measured by number of registered voters) on the form, as well as provide a blank line for “other party preferences.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-152(A)(5). Prior to the 2011 amendment, Arizona law required only that voter registration forms include a blank space for the registrant’s party preference. The panel first determined that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence that the revised registration form actually discourages or prevents voters from registering with minor parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Ecology and Environmentalism in Britain
    Political Ecology and Environmentalism in Britain Political Ecology and Environmentalism in Britain Edited by Brendan Prendiville and David Haigron Political Ecology and Environmentalism in Britain Edited by Brendan Prendiville and David Haigron This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Brendan Prendiville, David Haigron and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-4247-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4247-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................ vii Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Brendan Prendiville Chapter One .............................................................................................. 17 Political Ecology and Environmentalism in Britain: An Overview Brendan Prendiville Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 49 The Transformation of Climate Politics in the UK Neil Carter Chapter Three ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of ALASKA JED WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, V. BYRON MALLOTT, in His Official Capac
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA JED WHITTAKER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:16-cv-00220-SLG BYRON MALLOTT, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska, Defendant. ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court at Docket 8 is Plaintiff Jed Whittaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment and at Docket 15 is Defendant Byron Mallott’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion, which was filed before Defendant was served with the Complaint. Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion at Docket 19. No reply was filed.1 Also before the Court, at Docket 17, is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant opposed this motion to strike at Docket 19. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court’s decision. BACKGROUND This case concerns the constitutionality of Alaska’s ballot access requirements as codified at Alaska Statute (AS) 15.25.160. Plaintiff Jed Whittaker was a candidate for United States Senator for Alaska in 2016; he was not affiliated with a “political party” as that term is defined by Alaska law.2 To have his name printed on the official ballot, Mr. 1 Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority at Docket 25 and Docket 26. 2 See AS 15.80.010(27) (defining a “political party” as one whose candidate obtained three percent of the vote in the immediately preceding general election for governor, U.S. Senator, or Case 3:16-cv-00220-SLG Document 27 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 23 Whittaker was required to submit a petition “signed by qualified voters of the state equal in number to at least one percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the preceding general election.”3 For the 2016 election, a petition was valid if it contained at least 2,854 signatures.4 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Page Photo
    2010 Candidate Statement Pamphlet General Election Table of Contents Letter from the Commission 2 General Election Date 3 Disclaimer 3 Why is the Pamphlet Printed in Spanish? 3 Voting Information/ Secretary of State’s Office 4 Help America Vote Act of 2002 4 Alternative Formats 4 Candidate Debate Information 4 What is my Legislative District? 5 How do I Receive an Early Ballot or Sample Ballot? 5 Citizens Clean Elections Act 6 Citizens Clean Elections Commission 7 Citizens Clean Elections Fund 7 Tax Credits 8 Contact the Commission 8 Citizens Clean Elections Commissioners 8 Citizens Clean Elections Staff 9 Candidate Statements 10 Sun Sounds of Arizona 98 Become a Poll Worker 99 Voter Identification Requirements 100 1 2010 Candidate Statement Pamphlet General Election Letter from the Commission Dear Arizona Voters: Thank you for becoming involved in the political process in Arizona. By voting in the upcoming General Election, you will be electing candidates for all of the statewide offices as well as 90 legislative seats consisting of 30 Senators and 60 Representatives. The Candidate Statements Pamphlet is a nonpartisan, plain-language handbook published by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, an independent state agency, to give you information about state elections. The Commission’s mission is to fairly, faithfully and fully implement and administer Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, which is a campaign finance reform measure initiated by Arizona citizens and passed by voters in 1998. The Act creates a campaign financing system that provides full public funding to qualified state and legislative office candidates who agree to abide by the Citizens Clean Elections Act and Commission regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anticruelty Statute: a Study in Animal Welfare Darian M
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2006 The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare Darian M. Ibrahim William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Ibrahim, Darian M., "The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare" (2006). Faculty Publications. 1680. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1680 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE: A STUDY IN ANIMAL WELFARE DARIAN M. IBRAHIM* IN TRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 175 I. ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WELFARE, AND THE CONCEPT OF HUMANE EXPLOITATION ................................................................. 177 II. LEGISLATURES, SOCIETAL TENSION, AND THE INEFFECTIVE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE .................................................................. 179 A . The A nticruelty Statute ............................................................. 179 B. Understanding Anticruelty Statute Exemptions ........................ 182 1. Societal Preference ............................................................. 182 2. Legislative C apture ............................................................ 184 3. Animals as Legal Property ................................................. 187 4. Efficiency and Competency ............................................... 187 C.
    [Show full text]
  • N:\Civil Rights\Equal Protection
    Case 4:11-cv-00856-CKJ Document 25 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 15 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 11 ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, et) al., ) 12 ) Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 11-856-TUC-CKJ 13 ) vs. ) ORDER 14 ) KEN BENNETT, Secretary of State, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) by 18 Secretary of State Ken Bennet (“the Secretary” or “Defendant”) and the Motion for Summary 19 Judgment (Doc. 17) filed by Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party Incorporated, Arizona Green 20 Party, James March, Kent Solbert, Steve Lackey (“Plaintiffs”). Responses and replies have 21 been filed. The parties presented oral argument to the Court on December 3, 2012. 22 23 Factual Background 24 In 2011, the Arizona Legislature amended the statute regarding the form used for the 25 registration of electors. At the time of the amendment, the statute stated the form “shall 26 contain . [t]he registrant’s party preference.” A.R.S. § 16-152(A)(5) (2004). The amended 27 statute now provides that the form shall contain: 28 Case 4:11-cv-00856-CKJ Document 25 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 15 1 5. The registrant's party preference. The two largest political parties that are entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall be listed on the form in the order 2 determined by calculating which party has the highest number of registered voters at the close of registration for the most recent general election for governor, then the 3 second highest.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Articulating Animal Rights
    1 Articulating Animal Rights: Activism, Networks and Anthropocentrism Eva Haifa Sarah Giraud Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2011 2 Abstract The thesis establishes a conversation between Donna Haraway and the work of contemporary UK animal rights groups, in order to develop their – respective – approaches to articulating animal rights issues. To analyse the tactics of these movements a conceptual framework is constructed through combining Haraway's insights with those of Bruno Latour, performative uses of actor- network theory and key concepts from Pierre Bourdieu (such as field, habitus and doxa). Through focusing on the tactics of UK animal rights groups the thesis works to recuperate certain of these practices from the criticisms Haraway levels at animal rights groups more broadly; illustrating contexts where these movements are departing from humanist rights-discourses and developing approaches more suited to the radical critique of anthropocentrism that is central to Haraway's own project. To develop a sense of the disparate approaches taken by these animal rights movements that complement Haraway's arguments, various online and offline tactics are analysed; drawing on a range of lobbying practices undertaken by movements involved in the vivisection debate (such as SPEAK and the BUAV), before focusing on more creative forms of vegan campaigning engaged in by local Nottingham groups (such as Veggies Catering Campaign and Nottingham Animal Rights). 3 Love and thanks to: Robin Shackford; for making me happy and centred, as well as hearing me repetitively go over my arguments. Annie Giraud; for love and support and everything else that I can‟t put into words.
    [Show full text]