You are on page 1of 10

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330675614

Latin-American environmental ius commune: the Struggle for the Commons


in Latin America

Research Proposal · January 2019

CITATIONS

1 author:

Domenico Giannino
School of Advanced Study, University of London
10 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Latin-American environmental ius commune: the Struggle for the Commons in Latin America View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Domenico Giannino on 28 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Latin-American environmental ius commune: the Struggle for
the Commons in Latin America

Research Proposal for the Institute for Latin American Studies


School of Advanced Study University of London

By

Domenico Giannino

PhD in Public Comparative Law at University of Calabria (Italy)

Lecturer in International and European Union Law at INSEEC University (London)

domenicogiannino87@gmail.com
1. Background, context and significance
The contemporary processes of commodification of nature imperil the already fragile Earth’s
ecosystem equilibrium and the life of the most disadvantaged communities. The scientific
community has recently warned that climate change is already past the point of no return. The
undelayable urge to protect those resources that are intrinsically essential for the life of
communities and of our planet is felt more than ever before. The major challenge of the next
decades will be to find innovative political and legal tools for managing the ecological and social
issues of the post-natural world, the Anthropocene1.
Specifically, it is important to study – from a legal point of view – the relationship between
human rights and the protection of the environment, interpreted as not only a collective subject of
public interest but also as the main tool to guarantee a decent quality of life.

The awareness of the necessity to protect the ecosystems is particularly felt in the Latin-
American scenario. This greater sensitivity is due to the immense richness of natural resources
characterising this area and to the decades of violent struggles for the protection of natural
resources. In fact, in recent decades, Latin America has experienced serious tensions between
extractive development models and recognition of the rights of nature. This has been most striking
in Ecuador and Bolivia, with conflict over oil drilling in the Yasuní National Park (Ecuador);
deforestation in the Isiboro Sécure National Park and in the Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) in
Bolivia; and, finally, the well-known Cochabamba water war (Bolivia). The national and
supranational jurisdictional institutions of the region – namely the Interamerican Court of Human
Rights2, the national high Courts3 and the constitutional legislators4, especially in Ecuador and
Bolivia – have answered to these threats by recognising to the environment its own legal
personality.

2. Literature review
The idea of sustainable development5 has been discussed for a long time and across numerous
disciplines. Numerous scholars have highlighted the need of creating a set of new interdisciplinary
tools, aimed at maintaining a fairer and more sustainable social and economic organisation, which
has its legal ‘embodiment’ in the well-known rights-based approach to development6.
This necessity has been interpreted in different ways: in the American and British academic
debate the idea of commons; the Italian academic and political debate around the beni comuni; the
recognition in the Latin American constitutional systems of ideas like “living well” (buen vivir/vivir
bien), rights of nature, and collective goods. All these formulations point towards a common
objective: the rethinking of the contemporary model of economic development. Indeed, they
highlight a pursuit of a ‘holistic’ conception of life, where the symbiosis between humanity and
nature comes before the hegemonic and insensitive paradigm of the market.

Even if “there is no recognized legal definition of the commons”7, on a first approximation we


can conceive the commons as not only the ensemble of all the environmental resources but also as

1
Jedediah Purdy, After Nature. A Politics for the Anthropocene (Harvard University Press 2015).
2
Advisory Opinion OC-23/17.
3
STC 4360-2018 Corte Suprema de Justicia Colombia; STC 622-2016 Corte Constitucional de Colombia; Sentencia
No. 218-2015 Corte Constitucional del Ecuador.
4
Ecuadorian Constitution (2008) and Bolivian Constitution (2009).
5
Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, The Limits to Growth (EarthScan 2005); Linda H. Leib,
Human Rights and the Environment. Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal Perspectives (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
2011); Paul J. Nelson and Ellen Dorsey, ‘Who practices rights-based development? A progress report on work at
the nexus of human rights and development’(2018) World Development 104.
6
Varun Gauri and Siri Gloppen ‘Human rights-based approaches to development: Concepts, evidence, and
policy’ (2012) 44 Polity 4.
7
Fritjof Capra and Ugo Mattei, The Ecology of Law (Berret-Koehler 2015), 149.
“everything that is obtained by social production, which is necessary for the social interaction and
for the continuation of this production, in the form of knowledge, the languages, the regulations,
information, affections, and so on”8. In sum, the commons are an essential, intimate but at the same
time collective, component of our life that we all equally share.
It is worth highlighting that between the idea of commons and the environment there is not a
relationship of identification: all the environmental goods are commons, but not all the commons
are environmental goods. However, the political, economic and legal debate in the last thirty years
has mainly focused on the environment, being undoubtedly the most important good in the category
of commons9.
The issue of the commons knew a ‘revival’ at the end of the 1960s, when the ecologist Garrett
Hardin published his article The Tragedy of the Commons10. In his article, Hardin addresses the
problem of overpopulation which, combined with a lack of any external regulation, will inevitably
condemn humanity to scarcity and poverty, due to the fact that human beings tend to reproduce
themselves as long as they have the means (food, resources, technology, etc.) to do that. From here,
the ‘tragic’ conditions of the commons, which are doomed to extinction.
This question stimulated the research of one of the main works on the issue of the commons, and
probably the main critique to Hardin: Governing the Commons, by Elinor Ostrom, published in
199011. Ostrom tried to empirically confute Hardin’s claim, presenting a wide array of experiences
collected from communities all over the world. In particular, she observed how these communities
naturally and efficiently organize and auto-govern themselves for the use of collective resources
(e.g. water to irrigate, soil to cultivate), performing a regulation of egoistical individualism without
the intervention of the market and/or the State. In a few words, with her catalogue of examples,
Ostrom tried to demonstrate that the ‘tragedy of the commons’ described by Hardin was an
illegitimate generalization since an efficient and yet generative use of common resources (i.e. the
so-called commoning) is actually possible.

The debate on the nature of the commons has continued until recent times. In the last decade, it
seems that a widespread movement for the commons (beni comuni) in Italy is starting to
consolidate: the Water Referendum (2011), the Teatro Valle Occupato (2012), the Acqua Bene
Comune Napoli (2012), and many others, are all examples in this sense. But, perhaps, more
importantly, there is the Rodotà Commission which, in 2007, gave a strong incentive to the Italian
commons movement. The commission gave a legal formalization of the category of the commons,
as good subject to a ‘diffuse ownership’ (titolarità diffusa), so they can be either in public or private
hands. Also, they produce benefits which have to satisfy the fundamental needs of individuals and
must be governed “even in the interest of future generations”12.

A similar anthropocentric approach has been recently followed not only by the constitutional
legislators of Ecuador and Bolivia but also by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, lastly in
the Advisory Opinion OC-23/17.

In Ecuador the buen vivir is postulated as a body of fundamental rights, belonging both to the
individuals and to local communities, which reshape the entire constitutional system of the country.
In the Political Constitution of Ecuador of 2008, the concepts of Pachamama and Sumak Kawsay

8
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth (Harvard University Press 2009), 8.
9
Calogero Miccichè, Beni Comuni: risorse per lo sviluppo sostenibile (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018).
10
Garrett J. Hardin, ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (1968) 162 Science 3859.
11
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge University Press 1990).
12
Rodotà Commission Scheme (2007). Mattei Ugo, Beni comuni - un manifesto (Laterza 2011); Mattei Ugo,
Controriforme (Einaudi Torino 2013); Saky Bailey and Ugo Mattei, ‘Social Movements as Constituent Power: the
Italian Struggle for the Commons’ (2013) 20 Indiana Journal of Global Studies 930; Mattei Ugo, Senza proprietà
privata non c’è libertà. Falso! (Laterza 2014); Mattei Ugo, Il benicomunismo e i suoi nemici (Einaudi 2015).
are of utmost importance13. In fact since the preamble the revised constitution highlights: “Nosotras
y nosotros, el pueblo soberano del Ecuador (…) Celebrando a la naturaleza, la Pacha Mama, de la
que somos parte y de la que es vital nuestra existencia (…) Decidimos construir: Una nueva forma
de convivencia ciudadana, en diversidad y armonía con la naturaleza, para alcanzar el buen vivir,
el sumak kawsay (…)”.
The derechos de la naturaleza are interpreted following the indigenous idea of Pachamama.
Two obligations derive from this recognition: the preservation of natural processes and life cycles,
and the restoration of the environment to its previous state in the case of environmental damages.
The rights of buen vivir are related to water and food, a healthy environment, communication
and information, culture and science, education, habitat and housing, work and social security. They
basically correspond to economic, environmental social and cultural rights.

The buen vivir, as used in Bolivia14, aims to challenge the irrational faith in the unlimited
economic growth, which is a threat not only to the environment but also to the societies. The
proposed alternative is the pursuit of happiness based on a more communal life, a permanent
intercultural dialogue and a deep respect for the environment. The model of the Bolivian
constitution is based on the Suma Qamaña, an Aymara term which means live in fullness or buen
vivir.
The idea of buen vivir is an essential part of the overhaul of the State, as announced since the
preamble of the Constitution. The Suma Qamaña is a meta-value15, which inspires the entire
constitutional system and is used as the main guideline of a new type of economic development.
The renewed constitutional system has inspired the approbation of the well-known “Law of the
Rights on the Mother Earth”, whose article 5 defines the Madre Tierra as a collective subjective of
public interest which includes both communities and ecosystem.

Both constitutional systems link the ideas of buen vivir and derechos de la naturaleza to the
rights of the indigenous communities, which have historically suffered, more than others, the
injurious effects of the environmental damages16.

13
Ramiro Ávila Santamaría, El derecho de la naturaleza: fundamentos (2010 Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar);
Alberto Acosta, El Buen Vivir en el camino del post-desarrollo. Una lectura desde la Constitución de Montecristi (2010
Fundación Friedrich Ebert, FES-ILDIS); Ronaldo Porto Macedo, ‘Derecho social, medio ambiente y desarrollo.
Reflexiones en torno a un caso exitoso’ in César Rodríguez Garavito (ed) El derecho en América Latina. Un mapa para
el pensamiento jurídico del siglo XXI (2011 Siglo Ventiuno); Eduardo Gudynas, ‘Buen vivir: Germinando alternativas
al desarrollo’ (2011) 462 América Latina in Moviemento,ALAI; Eduardo Gudynas, ‘Desarollo, Derechos de la
Naturaleza y Buen Vivir Despues de Montecristi’ in Gabriela Weber (ed) Debates sobre cooperación y modelos de
desarrollo. Perspectivas desde la sociedad civil en el Ecuador (Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD y Observatorio de
la Cooperación al Desarrollo 2011); Leila M. Harris and María Cecilia Roa-García, ‘Recent waves of water governance:
Constitutional reform and resistance to neoliberalization in Latin America (2013) 50 Geoforum; Daniela Bressa
Florentin, ‘Between Policies and Life: The politics of Buen Vivir in Contemporary Ecuador’ 5 (2016) CWiPP Working
Paper Series; Juan Francisco Acevedo Godinez, Buen Vivir y Derechos de la Naturaleza en Tiempos de Crisis
Ambiental ¿ Es el Ecocentrismo una Opción Viable en lo Derechos Humanos (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
2017); Esperanza Martínez and Alberto Acosta, ‘Los Derechos de la Naturaleza como puerta de entrada a otro mundo
posible’(2017) Direito & Praxis.
14
Hugo Fernández, ‘Suma Qamaña, Vivir Bien, el Ethos de la Nueva Constitución Boliviana’ (2009) Revista Obets;
Pablo Mamani Ramírez ‘Cartographies of indigenous politics: identity and territoriality in Bolivia’ in Nicole Fabricant
and Bret Gustafson (eds.), Remapping Bolivia: Resources, Territory, and Indigeneity in a Plurinational Stage (School
of Advanced Research 2011); Karl S. Zimmerer ‘Environmental governance through ‘‘Speaking Like an Indigenous
State’’ and respatializing resources: Ethical livelihood concepts in Bolivia as versatility or verisimilitude?’ (2015)
Geoforum.
15
Cletus Gregor Barié, Nuevas narrativas constitucionales en Bolivia y Ecuador: el buen vivir y los derechos
de la naturaleza (2014 Latino América).
16
Astrid Ulloa, ‘Perspectives of Environmental Justice from Indigenous Peoples of Latin America: A Relational
Indigenous’ 10 (2017) 6 Environmental Justice.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 – summarizing the
principles of several rulings of the Court on environmental issues – adopts an innovative
jurisdictional approach, recognising the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right to the
existence of humankind. The Inter-American conventional grounds of the decision are Article 11 of
the additional protocol concerning economic, social and cultural rights to the American Convention
of Human rights (San Salvador Protocol); and Article 26 of the American Convention. Moreover,
the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm,1972),
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development (2002) are used by the Court as ‘persuasive precedents’ to highlight the
wide international recognition of the interdependence between environmental protection,
sustainable development and human rights.
According to the Court, the right to a healthy environment has both individual and collective
nature. As an individual right, it is inextricably connected with other fundamental rights such as the
right to health, the right to life and personal integrity. As a collective right, it is a universal interest
of the generality of humankind as well as of the future generations.
In the light of Member States’ obligation to respect the right to a healthy environment as a
prerequisite for the protection of the rights to health, life and personal integrity, the Court creates a
substantial and procedural framework of rights and responsibilities. The States in the cases of
environmental damages – within and outside their territories – must inspire their action to a well-
structured system of principles. Firstly, the obligation to prevent any significant environmental
damage that may affect the rights to health, life and personal integrity. Secondly, the precautionary
principle must be applied every time there is a risk of harm to human health. Thirdly, States must
cooperate in good faith in order to avoid environmental damages. Lastly, the public must have
access to the information regarding possible damages to the environment and its participation must
guarantee in all the stages of the decision-making process. The same access rights inspire a new
binding regional agreement – the Latin American and Caribbean Declaration on Principle 10 –
which compels states to investigate and punish killings and attacks on people defending their land
or environment.
The right to a healthy environment is recognised and protected not only due to its strict
connection with other fundamental rights, but also because it is an autonomous right – having the
environment its own legal personality – which protects the natural resources of our planet (oceans,
glaciers, forests, the air we breathe) regardless from the presence/threat of an environmental
damage. This is, perhaps, the most revolutionary passage of the advisory opinion. The judicial
perspective of recognising to the environment its own legal personality is the main element of the
creation of a Latin-American environmental ius commune. In fact, the Court highlights the regional
trend to acknowledge legal personality to the environment not only in recent Latin-American High
Courts rulings17 but also in the majority of the constitutions of the region18.

The globalized nature of the consequences of environmental damages urges the creation of
innovative legal and constitutional tools. A form of “bottom-up constitutionalism”19 or “social
constitutionalism”20 seems to be developing in the Latin-American continent with the twofold aim

17
Domenico Giannino and Antonio Manzoni, ‘Colombia’s ruling on legal protection for the Amazon continues Latin
America’s struggle for the commons’ (Latin America and Carabean LSE blog, 24 May 2018) <
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2018/05/24/colombias-ruling-on-legal-protection-for-the-amazon-continues-latin-
americas-struggle-for-the-commons/> Accessed 27 November 2018.
18
The right to a healthy environment is recognised in the constitutions of Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Venezuela.
19
Saky Bailey and Ugo Mattei (2013).
20
Gunther Teubner , ‘Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-Centered Constitutional Theory?’ in Christian
Joerges, Inge-Johanne Sand and Gunther Teubner (eds) Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance (Oxford Press
2004).
to respond to “the highly fragmented nature of the globalized social and legal landscape in which
politics has lost its leadership”21, and to affirm the constituent power representative of the
fundamental needs of the communities.
The ideas of commons, beni comuni and buen vivir are able to reshape the traditional political
and legal structures from the global to the local level. This multilevel approach will provide
possible answers to the challenges of glocalisation22.

3. Research objectives
This research period has the following objectives:
a. Analysing the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the
relationship between human rights, protection of the environment, sustainable development. The
starting point of this reflection will be the Court’s Advisory Opinion OC-23/17.
b. Comparatively analysing the Latin-American Constitutions’ provisions regarding the right
to a healthy environment (Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Venezuela) with a
particular focus on the cases of Bolivia and Ecuador.
c. Evaluating the rise of a Latin-American environmental ius commune, which is formed by a
group of transnational norms (national and international) and is seen as an instrument to enforce a
system of protection inherent to ideas like “living well” (buen vivir/vivir bien), rights of nature, and
collective goods.

4. Methodology
Given the goal of this project, I will definitely follow a qualitative method of research, and
thus putting an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processesanalyzed.
In addition, while in the part of the part of the research analysing the jurisprudence of the
Interamerican Court of Human Rights and the national constitutional provisions I will mainly
endorse a descriptive approach, in the part regarding the Latin-American environmental ius
commune I will mainly follow a functional approach. The functional approach will allow me to
understand to understand the environmental ius commune in terms of its relationship to the
transnational constitutionalism23 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Furthermore, I would like to engage in a comparative study of the constitutional provisions of
Ecuador and Bolivia regarding the buen vivir and the derecho de la naturaleza. As a first object of
comparison, I would consider the Ecuadorian constitutional provisions as well as the jurisprudence
about buen vivir. As a second object of comparison, I would consider the Bolivian constitutional
provisions and the well known legislation on the rights of Mother Earth. As a tertium
comparationis, I would obviously consider the literature about the commons and beni comuni with
the aim of understanding similarities and differences between those models.

5. Timeline
As far as the timetable of the proposed research is concerned:
➢ February 2019 – March 2019
o Workshop on the transnational constitutionalism of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights

21
Domenico Giannino, ‘ The Virtual State: National Sovereignity and Constitutions facing Globalisation Processes’ 11
(2016) 1 PANÓPTICA.
22
Roland Robertson ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity’ in Featherstone M., Lash S.,
Robertson R. (eds) Global Modernities (Sage Publications Ltd, 1995).
23
Zumbansen, ‘Comparative, Global and Transnational Constitutionalism: The Emergence of a Transnational Legal-
Pluralist Order’(2011) 1Global Constitutionalism
o Analysis of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on
the relationship between human rights, protection of the environment,
sustainable development.
o Writing the first section of the paper.
➢ April 2019 – May 2019
o Comparative analysis of the Latin-American Constitutions’ provisions regarding
the right to a healthy environment (Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Dominican Republic, Venezuela) with a particular focus on the cases of
Bolivia and Ecuador
o Writing the second section of the paper.
➢ June 2019
o The environmental ius commune in Latin-America.
o Writing the third and last section of the paper.
➢ July 2019
o A workshop presenting the results of my research
o Submission of the paper to an high ranked legal journal (Journal of
Environmental Law, Transnational Environmental Law, Journal of Human
Rights and the Environment)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Juan Francisco Acevedo Godinez, Buen Vivir y Derechos de la Naturaleza en Tiempos de
Crisis Ambiental ¿ Es el Ecocentrismo una Opción Viable en lo Derechos Humanos
(Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 2017).
2. Alberto Acosta, El Buen Vivir en el camino del post-desarrollo. Una lectura desde la
Constitución de Montecristi (2010 Fundación Friedrich Ebert, FES-ILDIS).
3. Ramiro Ávila Santamaría, El derecho de la naturaleza: fundamentos (2010 Universidad
Andina Simón Bolívar).
4. Saky Bailey and Ugo Mattei, ‘Social Movements as Constituent Power: the Italian Struggle
for the Commons’ (2013) 20 Indiana Journal of Global Studies 930.
5. Cletus Gregor Barié, Nuevas narrativas constitucionales en Bolivia y Ecuador: el buen vivir
y los derechos
de la naturaleza (2014 Latino América).
6. Daniela Bressa Florentin, ‘Between Policies and Life: The politics of Buen Vivir in
Contemporary Ecuador’ 5 (2016) CWiPP Working Paper Series.
7. Fritjof Capra and Ugo Mattei, The Ecology of Law (Berret-Koehler 2015).
8. Hugo Fernández, ‘Suma Qamaña, Vivir Bien, el Ethos de la Nueva Constitución Boliviana’
(2009) Revista Obets.
9. Varun Gauri and Siri Gloppen ‘Human rights-based approaches to development: Concepts,
evidence, and policy’ (2012) 44 Polity 4.
10. Domenico Giannino, ‘ The Virtual State: National Sovereignity and Constitutions facing
Globalisation Processes’ 11 (2016) 1 PANÓPTICA.
11. Domenico Giannino and Antonio Manzoni, ‘Colombia’s ruling on legal protection for the
Amazon continues Latin America’s struggle for the commons’ (Latin America and Carabean
LSE blog, 24 May 2018) < http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2018/05/24/colombias-
ruling-on-legal-protection-for-the-amazon-continues-latin-americas-struggle-for-the-
commons/> Accessed 27 November 2018.
12. Eduardo Gudynas, ‘Buen vivir: Germinando alternativas al desarrollo’ (2011) 462 América
Latina in Moviemento, ALAI.
13. Eduardo Gudynas, ‘Desarollo, Derechos de la Naturaleza y Buen Vivir Despues de
Montecristi’ in Gabriela Weber (ed) Debates sobre cooperación y modelos de desarrollo.
Perspectivas desde la sociedad civil en el Ecuador (Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD y
Observatorio de la Cooperación al Desarrollo 2011).
14. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth (Harvard University Press 2009).
15. Leila M. Harris and María Cecilia Roa-García, ‘Recent waves of water governance:
Constitutional reform and resistance to neoliberalization in Latin America (2013) 50
Geoforum
16. Garrett J. Hardin, ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (1968) 162 Science 3859.
17. Linda H. Leib, Human Rights and the Environment. Philosophical, Theoretical and Legal
Perspectives (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011).
18. Pablo Mamani Ramírez ‘Cartographies of indigenous politics: identity and territoriality in
Bolivia’ in Nicole Fabricant and Bret Gustafson (eds.), Remapping Bolivia: Resources,
Territory, and Indigeneity in a Plurinational Stage (School of Advanced Research 2011).
19. Esperanza Martínez and Alberto Acosta, ‘Los Derechos de la Naturaleza como puerta de
entrada a otro mundo posible’(2017) Direito & Praxis.
20. Mattei Ugo, Beni comuni - un manifesto (Laterza 2011).
21. Mattei Ugo, Controriforme (Einaudi Torino 2013).
22. Mattei Ugo, Senza proprietà privata non c’è libertà. Falso! (Laterza 2014).
23. Mattei Ugo, Il benicomunismo e i suoi nemici (Einaudi 2015).
24. Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, The Limits to Growth
(EarthScan 2005).
25. Calogero Miccichè, Beni Comuni: risorse per lo sviluppo sostenibile (Editoriale Scientifica
Napoli 2018).
26. Paul J. Nelson and Ellen Dorsey, ‘Who practices rights-based development? A progress
report on work at
the nexus of human rights and development’(2018) World Development 104.
27. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge University Press 1990).
28. Ronaldo Porto Macedo, ‘Derecho social, medio ambiente y desarrollo.
Reflexiones en torno a un caso exitoso’ in César Rodríguez Garavito (ed) El derecho en
América Latina. Un mapa para el pensamiento jurídico del siglo XXI (2011 Siglo
Ventiuno).
29. Jedediah Purdy, After Nature. A Politics for the Anthropocene (Harvard University Press
2015).
30. Roland Robertson ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity’ in
Featherstone M., Lash S., Robertson R. (eds) Global Modernities (Sage Publications Ltd,
1995).
31. Gunther Teubner, ‘Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-Centered Constitutional
Theory?’ in Christian Joerges, Inge-Johanne Sand and Gunther Teubner (eds)
Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance (Oxford Press 2004).
32. Astrid Ulloa, ‘Perspectives of Environmental Justice from Indigenous Peoples of Latin
America: A Relational Indigenous’ 10 (2017) 6 Environmental Justice.
33. Karl S. Zimmerer ‘Environmental governance through ‘‘Speaking Like an Indigenous
State’’ and respatializing resources: Ethical livelihood concepts in Bolivia as versatility or
verisimilitude?’ (2015) Geoforum.
34. Zumbansen, ‘Comparative, Global and Transnational Constitutionalism: The Emergence of
a Transnational Legal-Pluralist Order’(2011) 1Global Constitutionalism.

View publication stats