Si fuera sólo una cuestión de fe. Una crítica sobre el sentido y la utilidad del reconocimiento de derechos a la naturaleza en la Constitución del Ecuador
Si fuera sólo una cuestión de fe. Una crítica sobre el sentido y la utilidad del reconocimiento de derechos a la naturaleza en la Constitución del Ecuador
Authors
Jaria i Manzano, Jordi
Authors
Date
2014-08-28
Datos de publicación:
Revista Chilena de Ciencia Política, Vol 4, N°1, 43-86, 2013
Keywords
Derechos de la naturaleza - Buen vivir - Principios de responsabilidad
Collections
Abstract
La Constitución ecuatoriana de 2008 reconoce, por primera vez
en la tradición constitucional, derechos a la naturaleza, en el marco de lo
que plantea como una superación de un modelo de Estado basado en el
individualismo posesivo, la economía extractivista, el capitalismo agresivo
y un liberalismo socialmente irresponsable. El presente estudio pretende
relativizar dicha pretensión a partir de la consideración de que la cultura
de los derechos no sólo constituye una matriz constitucional que revierte
al modelo hegemónico de patrón occidental, sino que, por otra parte, no
ofrece respuestas particularmente útiles ni innovadoras cuando se extiende
a la naturaleza. Finalmente, se intenta desandar el camino recorrido por
los constituyentes ecuatorianos para ofrecer una alternativa al constitucionalismo
de los derechos —el constitucionalismo de la responsabilidad—,
como fundamento de una cultura constitucional efectivamente orientada a superar la autogratificación, el consumismo y la depredación que se hallan
en el fondo del individualismo posesivo, que constituye la base del contractualismo
liberal del que parte la tradición constitucional —particularmente,
la cultura de los derechos— y que enlaza con el proceso de acumulación
capitalista. Por esta razón, un enfoque centrado en los derechos no parece
pertinente.
Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 recognizes rights to nature, for the first time in the constitutional tradition. That is made within a Constitution which is intended to overcome possessive individualism, extractivist economy, aggressive capitalism and a socially irresponsible liberalism. Present paper aims to relativize this pretension, starting from the assumption that the culture of rights belongs to a constitutional pattern which put us back in the hegemonic western social model. Furthermore, I try to show that the recognition of rights to nature do not offer responses particularly useful or innovative. Finally, I try to go back on the way covered by the authors of the Ecuadorian Constitution to offer an alternative to constitutionalism of rights —constitutionalism of responsibilities— as a foundation to actually overcome self-gratification, consumerism and predation on resources, fundamental causes of environmental degradation. These problems and attitudes are deeply embedded in our hegemonic constitutional culture, based in possessive individualism, which is the basis of liberal contractualism, the culture of rights and the process of capitalist accumulation. For this reason a rights-centered approach does not seem appropriate.
Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 recognizes rights to nature, for the first time in the constitutional tradition. That is made within a Constitution which is intended to overcome possessive individualism, extractivist economy, aggressive capitalism and a socially irresponsible liberalism. Present paper aims to relativize this pretension, starting from the assumption that the culture of rights belongs to a constitutional pattern which put us back in the hegemonic western social model. Furthermore, I try to show that the recognition of rights to nature do not offer responses particularly useful or innovative. Finally, I try to go back on the way covered by the authors of the Ecuadorian Constitution to offer an alternative to constitutionalism of rights —constitutionalism of responsibilities— as a foundation to actually overcome self-gratification, consumerism and predation on resources, fundamental causes of environmental degradation. These problems and attitudes are deeply embedded in our hegemonic constitutional culture, based in possessive individualism, which is the basis of liberal contractualism, the culture of rights and the process of capitalist accumulation. For this reason a rights-centered approach does not seem appropriate.