Ekosentrik ve Antroposentrik Yaklaşımlar Doğrultusunda Uluslararası Çevre Hukukuna Yeniden Bakış

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 298 - 320, 25.09.2025

Ebru Demir

Öz

Eldeki çalışma, ekosentrik (çevre merkezli, çevreyi merkeze alan) yaklaşım ve antroposentrik (insan merkezli, insanı merkeze alan) yaklaşım ışığında uluslararası çevre hukukunu analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma öncelikle bu iki yaklaşımın amacını ve kapsamını tartışmakta ve iki yaklaşımın teorik çerçevesini detaylı bir şekilde sunmaktadır. Antroposentrik yaklaşım kapsamında insan dışındaki canlı yahut cansız varlıklar, insana fayda sağladıkları ölçüde değerli ve önemli hale gelirler. Ekosentrik yaklaşım ise insana fayda şartı gözetmeksizin tüm ekosistemi bir bütün halinde değerlendirir. Bu çalışmanın temel sorusu uluslararası çevre hukuku kaynaklarının ekosentrik bir yaklaşımı mı yoksa antroposentrik bir yaklaşımı mı benimsediğidir. Yapılan inceleme sonunda, uluslararası çevre hukukuna antroposentrik bir bakış açısının hakim olduğu gözlemlenmektedir. Her ne kadar uluslararası hukuk kaynaklarında ekosentrik ifadeler yer yer gözlemlense de, bu ifadeler istisnai nitelik taşımaktadır. Çalışma, son yıllarda ortaya çıkan çevre ve iklim krizine rağmen uluslararası çevre hukukunda antroposentrik yaklaşımdan ekosentrik yaklaşıma doğru bir geçiş olmadığını, insanı merkeze alan bir bakış açısının hala geçerli olduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ekosentrik , antroposentrik , uluslararasi cevre hukuku , insan , doga

Looking at International Environmental Law through the Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Approaches

Öz

This article aims to analyse international environmental law through two key approaches: the ecocentric and anthropocentric approaches. The article first discusses the objectives and the scopes of these approaches and provides a detailed theoretical framework for each. Under the anthropocentric approach, non-human living or non-living entities are considered to be valuable and significant to the extent that they provide benefits to human beings. On the contrary, the ecocentric approach views the entire ecosystem as a whole, without requiring a direct benefit to human beings. Under the ecocentric approach, non-human living or non-living entities have intrinsic value. This article questions whether international environmental law instruments adopt an ecocentric or an anthropocentric approach. The analysis reveals that an anthropocentric approach predominates in international environmental law. Whereas ecocentric expressions can occasionally be observed in international environmental instruments, they remain exceptions rather than the norm. The article argues that, despite escalating environmental and climate crises in recent years, there has been no shift from an anthropocentric towards an ecocentric approach in international environmental law. A human-centred approach continues to dominate the field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ecocentric , anthropocentric , international environmental law , human , nature

Kaynakça

• Besselink L, ‘The Actio Popularis in ‘Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz’: Climate Jurisprudence between Strasbourg and The Hague’, Amsterdam Center on the Legal Professions and Access to Justice Blog, 29 Nisan 2024.
• Birleşmiş Milletler Dünya Doğa Şartı 1982, <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/39295?ln=en&v=pdf> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi, 1992, <https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Birleşmiş Milletler Rio Çevre ve Kalkınma Deklarasyonu, 1992, <https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Birleşmiş Milletler Stockholm İnsan ve Çevre Konferansı Deklarasyonu 1972, <https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/njlite/srex/njlite_download.php?id=6471> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Sözleşmesi, 1992, <https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Bosselmann K, Earth Governance: Trusteeship of the Global Commons (Edward Elgar 2015).
• Bourgeois-Gironde S, ‘Nature in the Law: An Evolution from Environmental Law to Legal Ecocentrism’ in W. Zaluski ve diğerleri (eds), Research Handbook on Legal Evolution (Edward Elgar 2024).
• Boyd DR, the Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution that Could Save the World (ECW press 2017).
• Bozkurt K ve Nemec EN, ‘Advancing Ecocide in International Law: A Potential Legal Tool for Safeguarding Endangered Species Amidst Climate Change’, (2024) 15(2) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 350-357.
• Bratspies R, ‘‘In Countless Ways and On an Unprecedented Scale’: Reflections on the Stockholm Declaration at 50’, (2022) 50 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 754-768.
• Burdon PD, Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment (Routledge 2015).
• Carrillo, CAC, ‘The Role of Advisory Opinions in Addressing Public Interest Issues’ in Justine Bendel and Yusra Suedi (eds), Public Interest Litigation in International Law (Routledge 2024).
• Combes Motel P ve diğerleri, ‘Explorations in the Environment-Development Dilemma’, (2014) 57 Environmental and Resource Economics 479-485.
• Cordero RR, Roth P ve Da Silva L, ‘Economic Growth or Environmental Protection?: The False Dilemma of the Latin-American Countries’, (2005) 8(4) Environmental Science and Policy 392-398.
• Cribb M, Macpherson E ve Borchgrevink A, ‘Beyond Legal Personhood for the Whanganui River: Collaboration and Pluralism in Implementing the Te Awa Tupua Act’, (2024) International Journal of Human Rights, Erken Görünüm, DOI.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2314532.
• Cullinan C, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Chelsea Green Publishing 2011).
• Curry P, Ecological Ethics: An Introduction (Polity Press 2011).
• De Jonge E, ‘An Alternative to Anthropocentrism: Deep Ecology and the Metaphysical Turn’ in Rob Boddice (ed.), Anthropocentrism: Humans, Animals, Environments (Brill 2011).
• De Lucia V, ‘Anthropocentrism and International Environmental Law’ in Vincent Chapeaux, Frederic Megret ve Usha Natarajan (eds), The Routledge Handbook of International Law and Anthropocentrism (Routledge 2023).
• De Lucia V, ‘Beyond Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism: A Biopolitical Reading of Environmental Law’, (2017) 8(2) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 181-202.
• Droz L, ‘Anthropocentrism as the Scapegoat of the Environmental Crisis: A Review’, (2022) 22 Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 25-49.
• Eckersley R, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach (Routledge 1992).
• Feyzioğlu Ü ve Çınar K, ‘Çevrecilik ve Siyasal Ekoloji Üzerine Ontolojik ve Epistemolojik bir Mukayese’, (2023) 5(1) Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 1-12.
• Franceschini MM, ‘Animal Personhood: The Quest for Recognition’, (2021) 17 Animal and Natural Resource Law Review 93-150.
• Fremaux A, After the Anthropocene: Green Republicanism in a Post-Capitalist World (Springer 2019).
• Gray G, Whyte I ve Curry P, ‘Ecocentrism: What it means and what it implies’, (2018) 1(2) Ecological Citizen 130- 131.
• Guha R, ‘Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique’, (1989) 11(1) Environmental Ethics 71-83.
• Güven ME, ‘Ekolojizm ve Eleştirileri: İdeolojiler Üzerinden bir Mukayese’, (2024) 26(2) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 833-861.
• Hens L ve Nath B, ‘The Johannesburg Conference’, (2003) 5(1) Environment, Development and Sustainability 7- 39.
• Heri C, ‘Climate Change before the European Court of Human Rights: Capturing Risk, Ill-Treatment and Vulnerability’, (2022) 33(3) European Journal of International Law 925-951.
• Higgins P, Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the destruction of Our Planet (Shepheard Walwyn Publishers 2010).
• Hoffman AJ, ve Sandelans L, ‘Getting Right with Nature’, (2005) 18(2) Organization and Environment 141-162.
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ‘Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber)’ <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/17_adv_op_010211_en.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 26 Mayıs 2025.
• Johannesburg Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Deklarasyonu, 2002, <https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm>, Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Khan A, Safdar S ve Nadeem H, ‘Decomposing the Effect of Trade on Environment: A Case Study of Pakistan’, (2023) 30(2) Environmental Science and Pollution Research 3817.
• Kidner DW, ‘Why “Anthropocentrism” is not Anthropocentric’, (2014) 38(4) Dialectical Anthropology 465-480.
• Kopnina H ve diğerleri, ‘Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem’, (2018) 31 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 109-127.
• Kortetmäki T ‘Anthropocentrism versus Ecocentrism Revisited: Theoretical Confusion and Practical Conclusions’, (2013) 14(1) SATS 21.
• Kotze LJ ve French D, ‘The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards and Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene’, (2018) 7(1) Global Journal of Comparative Law 5-36.
• Kramm M, ‘When a River Becomes a Person’, (2020) 21(4) Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 307- 319.
• Kuru G, ‘Doğanın Hak Öznesi olarak Kabulü’, (2024) 30(1) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 70-85.
• Kyoto Protokolü, 1997, <https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf>, Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Lele SM, ‘Sustainable Development: A Critical Review’, (1991) 19(6) World Development 607-621.
• Liu B, ‘Pros and Cons of the Obligation to Conserve Biodiversity as Obligation Erga Omnes’, (2014) 6(2) International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities 264.
• Loucaides L, ‘Environmental Protection through the Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights’, (2005) 75(1) British Yearbook of International Law 249-267.
• McDonnell MJ ve Pickett STA, Humans as Components of Ecosystems: The Ecology of Subtle Human Efefcts and Populated Areas (Springer 1993).
• M’Gonigle M ve Takeda L, ‘The Liberal Limits of Environmental Law: A Green Legal Critique’, (2013) 30(3) Pace Environmental Law Review 1005-1115.
• Megret F, ‘The Anthropocentrism of Human Rights’ in Vincent Chapeaux, Frederic Megret ve Usha Natarajan (eds), The Routledge Handbook of International Law and Anthropocentrism (Routledge 2023).
• Muradian R ve Gomez-Baggethun E, ‘Beyond Ecosystem Services and Nature’s Contributions: Is it time to Leave Utilitarian Environmentalism Behind?’, (2021) 185 Ecological Economics 1-9.
• O’Gorman R, ‘The ECHR, the EU and the Weakness of Social Rights Protection at the European Level’, (2011) 12(10) German Law Journal 1833-1861.
• Paris İklim Anlaşması, 2015, <https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf>, Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Perera R, ‘Environmental Destruction during Armed Conflict, Anthropocentrism-Ecocentrism Divide and Defining Ecocide’, (2023) 4 Asia Pacific Journal of International Humanitarian Law 1-33.
• Petersmann M, ‘Narcissus’ Reflection in the Lake: Untold Narratives in Environmental Law beyond the Anthropocentric Frame’, (2018) 30(2) Journal of Environmental Law 235-259.
• Plumwood V, ‘Androcentrism and Anthrocentrism: Parallels and Politics’, (1996) 1(2) Ethics and the Environment 119-152.
• Redclift M ve Sage C, ‘Global Environmental Change and Global Inequality: North/South Perspectives’, (1998) 13(4) International Sociology 499-516.
• Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (kısaca Brundtland Raporu), <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.
• Ristić J, ‘Environmental Protection from a Human Rights Perspective: “Green” Cases of the European Court of Human Rights’ (International Scientific Conference, Skopje 2022).
• Rogers N ve Maloney M, Law as if Earth Really Mattered: The Wild Law Judgment Project (Routledge 2017).
• Schoukens H, ‘Rights of Nature in the European Union: Contemplating the Operationalization of an Eco-Centric Concept in an Anthropocentric Environment?’ in Joana Castro Pereira ve Andre Saramago (eds), Non-Human Nature in World Politics: Theory and Practice (Springer 2020).
• Shelton D, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Jurisprudence of Human Rights Bodies’ (Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar, Geneva 2002).
• Shoreman-Ouimet E, ve Kopnina H, Culture and Conservation: Beyond Anthropocentrism (Routledge 2016).
• Ssekibaala DS, Ariffin MI ve Duasa J, ‘Economic Growth, International Trade, and Environmental Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa’, (2022) 24(4) Journal of Economics and Development 293.
• Stone CD, Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment (Oxford University Press 2010).
• Thompson SCG ve Barton MA, ‘Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Environment’, (1994) 14 Journal of Environmental Psychology 149-157.
• Uddin MK, ‘Climate Change and Global Environmental Politics: North-South Divide’, (2017) 47(3-4) Environmental Policy and Law 106-114.
• Warren KJ, Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western perspective on what it is and why it matters (Rowman & Littlefield 2000).
• Wood HW, ‘The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations’ Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment’, (1985) 12 Ecology Law Quarterly 977-996.
• Wright L, ‘The Elephant in the Courtroom’, The New Yorker, 28 Şubat 2022, <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/07/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom> Erişim Tarihi 21.04.2025.