Eco-Centrism and the Right to Development: Bridging the Dichotomy

Authors

  • Sairam Bhat National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.
  • Lianne D'Souza National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.20.2

Keywords:

Anthropocentricism, Deep Ecology, Human Rights, Sustainable Development, United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986

Abstract

The link between human rights and the environment in environmental law and governance has been a rather contentious one. On one hand, environmental norms can advance the pursuit of human rights and human welfare and on the other hand, they can be an impediment in the realisation of human rights. The interface between the human right to development and the eco-centric approach to environmentalism best highlights such paradigmatic tensions in the human-environment dualism. This paper explores the dichotomy between human rights and environmental norms, by evaluating the interaction between eco-centric appeals to environmental protection and the human right to development. It examines how the theoretical underpinnings of the eco-centric approach to environmental governance does not aid in the realisation of the human right to development and how the language of the latter creates resistance to that of the former. The paper also postulates an area of possible convergence by calling for a re-evaluation of these concepts.

Author Biographies

Sairam Bhat, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Advocacy (CEERA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Lianne D'Souza, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Advocacy (CEERA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-01

How to Cite

Bhat, S., & D’Souza, L. (2022). Eco-Centrism and the Right to Development: Bridging the Dichotomy. Christ University Law Journal, 11(1), 35 - 57. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.20.2