首页> 外文期刊>Philosophy & technology >Consenting to Geoengineering
【24h】

Consenting to Geoengineering

机译:同意地球工程

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Researchers have explored questions concerning public participation and consent in geoengineering governance. Yet, the notion of consent has received little attention from researchers, and it is rarely discussed explicitly, despite being prescribed as a normative requirement for geoengineering research and being used in rejecting some geoengineering options. As it is noted in the leading geoengineering governance principles, i.e. the Oxford Principles, there are different conceptions of consent; the idea of consent ought to be unpacked more carefully if, and when, we invoke it in the discussion. This article offers a theoretical reflection on different conceptions of consent and their place(s) in geoengineering governance. More specifically, I discuss three models of consent, i.e. explicit consent, implied consent and hypothetical consent, and assess their applicability to geoengineering governance. Although there are different models of consent, much discussion of geoengineering governance has committed only to explicit consent. I note that such a commitment springs from a specific ideal political order. Accordingly, we should be wary of any naive commitment to it so long as the political order we hope for remains open to debate. Finally, I illustrate two approaches to introduce consent into a geoengineering governance framework.
机译:研究人员探索了有关公众参与和同意地球工程管理的问题。然而,同意的概念很少受到研究人员的关注,尽管被规定为地球工程研究的规范要求并被用于拒绝某些地球工程选项,但很少进行明确讨论。正如主要的地球工程治理原则(即《牛津原则》)所指出的那样,存在不同的同意概念。如果以及何时我们在讨论中援引同意的想法,应该更加仔细地加以分解。本文对同意的不同概念及其在地球工程治理中的位置提供了理论上的思考。更具体地说,我讨论了三种同意模型,即明确同意,隐含同意和假设同意,并评估了它们在地球工程治理中的适用性。尽管有不同的同意模式,但有关地球工程治理的许多讨论仅致力于明确的同意。我注意到,这种承诺源于特定的理想政治秩序。因此,只要我们希望的政治秩序仍然可以辩论,我们就应该警惕对此作出的任何幼稚承诺。最后,我说明了两种将同意引入地球工程治理框架的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号