Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T03:57:02.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Convention on Biological Diversity: From Realism to Cosmopolitanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Virginie Maris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The decline of biodiversity is without a doubt one of the most important symptoms of what could be called a “global environmental crisis.” Our ability to stop this decline depends on the capacity to implement an effective, collective system of preservation on a global scale. In this paper, I will analyze the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the international agreement that aims at creating this type of global cooperation.

While I consider that cosmopolitan governance is desirable, given the legitimacy of the preservation of global biological diversity, I will not attempt to directly argue for it here. Still, it is worth mentioning some of the reasons that might lead us to adopt this position. First, certain past conservation measures have been harshly criticized as imperialistic. For example, Project Tiger in India, which Western environmentalists often cited as a success, have had a deleterious effect on local populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 31: Global Justice, Global Institutions , 2005 , pp. 335 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attfiel, R.. The Ethics of the Global Environment. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Balmford, A. “Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature.” Science 297 (2002): 950-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callicott, J. B.. Beyond the Land Ethics. New York: SUNY Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S., Erika S. Zavaleta, Valerie T. Eviner, Rosamond L. Naylor, Peter M. Vitousek, Heather L. Reynolds, David U. Hooper, Sandra Lavorel, Osvaldo E. Sala, Sarah E. Hobbie, Michelle C. Mack, and Sandra Dfaz. “Consequences of Changing Biodiversity.” Nature 405 (2002): 234-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R.d'Arge, RalphGroot, Rudolf deFarberk, StephenGrasso, MonicaHannon, BruceLimburg, KarinNaeem, ShahidO'Neill, Robert V.Paruelo, JoseRaskin, Robert G.Suttonkk, Paul and Belt, Marjan van den “The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.“ Nature 387 (1997): 253-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., David John Frank, Ann Hironaka, Evan Schofer, and Nancy Brandon Tuma. “The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870-1990.” International Organization 4 (1997): 623-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J.. Politics among Nations, Brief Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 1992.Google Scholar
Nunes, P. and C.J.M. van den Bergh. “Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: Sense or Nonsense?” Ecological Economics 2 (2001): 203-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, P. and Moran, D.. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan, 1994.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. “States, NGOs and International Environmental Institutions.“ International Studies Quarterly 4 (1997): 719-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, T.. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Rolston, H.. Philosophy Gone Wild: Essays in Environmental Ethics. New York: Prometheus, 1986.Google Scholar
Rosendal, G. K. “The Convention on Biological Diversity: A Viable Instrument for Conservation and Sustainable Use?” In Green Globe Year Book of International Co-operation, ed. Bergenson, H.Parmann, G. and Thommessen, O. B.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Sala, O. E.Chapin, F. Stuart III, Armesto, Juan J.Berlow, EricBloomfield, JanineDirzo, RodolfoHuber-Sanwald, ElisabethHuenneke, Laura F.Jackson, Robert B.Kinzig, AnnLeemans, RikLodge, David M.Mooney, Harold A.Oesterheld, MartinPoff, N. LeRoySykes, Martin T.Walker, Brian H.Walker, Marilyn and Wall, Diana H. “Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100.” Science 287 (2000): 1770–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Stone, C. D. “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities in International Law.” American Journal of International Law 98 (2004): 276–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. W.. Respect for Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Convention du Patrimoine Mondial. UNESCO, 1972.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program. Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP, 1992..Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program. Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP, 1992. www.biodiv.org. Global Environment Outlook. UNEP, 2002.Google Scholar