Macht, Demagogie und Argumentation in der globalen Umweltpolitik

Das Beispiel der UN-Konvention über biologische Vielfalt
  • Volker Heins
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die Zerstörung der biologischen Vielfalt der Erde ist spätestens seit der Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen über Umwelt und Entwicklung (UNCED) im Juni 1992 in Rio de Janeiro ins Bewußtsein der Weltöffentlichkeit gedrungen. Neben dem Treibhauseffekt und der Ausdünnung der stratosphärischen Ozonschicht handelt es sich um das dritte große Weltumwelt-Problem unserer Zeit. Die biologische Vielfalt ist von existenzieller Bedeutung nicht nur für das ökologische Gleichgewicht der Erde, sondern auch für die Bestandssicherung und dauernde „Veredelung“ der weltweiten Agrarproduktion sowie für die Entwicklung neuer Pharmazeutika. Sie bildet damit die Reserve jeglicher Koevolution von Mensch und Natur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Bilderbeek, Simone (1993), Biodiversity as Political Game, in: Politics and the Life Sciences 12, S. 265–272.Google Scholar
  2. Bilderbeek, Simone/Wijgerde, Ankie (1994), Participation of,Major Groups’ in the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity - Myths, Practices and Procedures, in: A. F. Krattiger et al. (Hg.), Widening Perspectives on Biodiversity, Gland (Schweiz)/Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Biotechnology Business News [BBN] (1992a), Controversy continues on biodiversity treaty, in: BBN 34, S. 2.Google Scholar
  4. Biotechnology Business News (1992b), Biodiversity treaty triggers more controversy, in: BBN 36, S. 7.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, Alan E. (1994), The Convention on Biological Diversity, in: L. Campiglio et al. (Hg.), The Environment after Rio: International Law and Economics, London/Dordrecht, S. 111–127.Google Scholar
  6. Breuer, Stefan (1993), Bürokratie und Charisma, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  7. Burk, Dan L. et al. (1993), Biodiversity and Biotechnology, in: Science 260, S. 1900–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chayes, Abram/Chayes, Antonia H. (1993), On Compliance, in: International Organization 47, S. 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coghlan, Andy (1992), Biodiversity Convention a,lousy deal’, says US, in: New Scientist, July 4.Google Scholar
  10. Cottier, Thomas (1994), The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: A Requirement for Technology Cooperation, Foreign Investment and Equitable Returns in Biotechnology Prospecting, Ms., Universität Bern.Google Scholar
  11. Coughlin, Michael D. (1993), Using the Merck-INBio Agreement to Clarify the Convention on Biological Diversity, in: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 31, S. 337–375.Google Scholar
  12. Crucible Group (1994), People, Plants, and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade, and Rural Society, Ottawa (International Development Research Centre).Google Scholar
  13. Elsenhans, Hartmut (1994), Staat, Wirtschaft, Macht und die Zukunft des internationalen Systems, in: WeltTrends, Nr. 3, S. 105–119.Google Scholar
  14. Elster, Jon (1989), The Cement of Society, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Environmental Policy and Law [EPL] (1989), Working Group on Biological Diversity, in: EPL 19, S. 5–7.Google Scholar
  16. Environmental Policy and Law (1991), Biological Diversity Negotiations: Slow Progress, in: EPL 21, S. 192.Google Scholar
  17. Environmental Policy and Law (1992), Biological Diversity Conservation and International Law, in: EPL 22, S. 26.Google Scholar
  18. Evenson, Robert E. (1990), Intellectual Property Rights, R&D, Inventions, Technological Purchase, and Piracy in Economic Development: An International Comparative Study, in: R. E. Evenson/G. Ranis (Hg.), Science and Technology: Lessons for Development Policy, Boulder, Colo., S. 325–355.Google Scholar
  19. FAO/CPGR [Food and Agricultural Organization/Commission on Plant Genetic Resources] (1993a), Report on Activities on Plant Genetic Resources by FAO, IBPGR and other Organizations (CPGR/93/6), Rome.Google Scholar
  20. FAO/CPGR (19931)), Implications of UNCED for the Global System on PGR (CPGR/93/7), Rome.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Julie (1993), The Road from Rio. Sustainable Development and the Non-Governmental Movement in the Third World, Westport, Conn.Google Scholar
  22. Flitner, Michael (1993), Biologische Vielfalt nach UNCED — Erhaltung durch wen, Erhaltung für wen?, in: Der Tropenlandwirt, Beiheft Nr. 49, S. 31–47.Google Scholar
  23. Grossmann, Robert (1988), Equalizing the Flow: Institutional Restructuring of Germ-plasm Exchange, in: J. R. Kloppenburg (Hg.), Seeds and Sovereignty. The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources, Durham, NC, S. 255–273.Google Scholar
  24. Grupp, Hariolf (Hg.) (1993), Technologie am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts (Fraunhofer-Institut Karlsruhe), Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  25. Haas, Ernst B. (1990), When Knowledge Is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Heins, Volker (1993),,Survival of the fattest?’ Genetische Ressourcen und globale Biopolitik, in: Peripherie 13, Nr. 51/52, S. 69–85.Google Scholar
  27. Heins, Volker (1995),,Novel Food’ im Informationszeitalter, in: Universitas 50, S. 53–59.Google Scholar
  28. Hermitte, Marie-Angèle (1992), La Gestion d’un patrimoine commun: l’example de la diversité biologique, in: M. Barrère (Hg.), Terre, patrimoine commun, Paris, S. 120–128.Google Scholar
  29. Jayaraman, K. S. (1994), India set to end ‘gene robbery’, in: Nature 370, S. 587.Google Scholar
  30. Kothari, Ashish (1994), Beyond the Biodiversity Convention: A view from India, in: Sanchez/Juma (Hg.), S. 67–85.Google Scholar
  31. Kumar, Patnam V. S. (1993), Biotechnology and Biodiversity: A dialectical relationship, in: Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 52, S. 523–532.Google Scholar
  32. Majone, Giandomenico (1993), Wann ist Policy-Deliberation wichtig?, in: Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Sonderheft 24 (Policy-Analyse. Kritik und Neuorientierung, hg. A. Héritier), S. 97–115.Google Scholar
  33. Mans, Dieter (1994), Argumentation im Kontext, in: Protosoziologie 6, S. 160–183.Google Scholar
  34. Miegel, Meinhard (1994), Strukturprobleme hochindustrialisierter Länder: Großbritannien und Deutschland, in: Merkur 48, Nr. 544, S. 573–582.Google Scholar
  35. Milgrom, Paul/Roberts, John (1992), Economics, Organization and Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  36. Mooney, Pat R. (1994), The gene piracy, in: Frontline (Madras), July 29.Google Scholar
  37. Prittwitz, Volker v./Wolf, K. D. (1993), Die Politik der globalen Güter, in: V. v. Prittwitz (Hg.), Umweltpolitik als Modernisierungsprozeß, Opladen, S. 193–218.Google Scholar
  38. Rosendal, Kristin (1994), Implications of the US ‚No‘ in Rio, in: Sanchez/Juma (Hg.), S. 87–103.Google Scholar
  39. Sanchez, Vicente/Juma, Calestous (Hg.) (1994), Biodiplomacy. Genetic Resources and International Relations, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  40. Saretzki, Thomas (1996), Wie unterscheiden sich Argumentieren und Verhandeln? (im vorliegenden Band).Google Scholar
  41. Senghaas, Dieter (1994), Den Blick nach draußen richten, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4. November.Google Scholar
  42. Sharma, Ritu (1988), Antarctica Politics: A New World Perspective, in: Punjab Journal of Politics 12, No. 2, S. 95–108.Google Scholar
  43. Shiva, Vandana (1993), Trade: All ‘genes’ are natural says Indian ecologist. E-mail message, 9. Juni (message-id: 45300003@chasque.apc.org)Google Scholar
  44. Simon, Julian L./Wildaysky, Aaron (1993), Facts, Not Species, Are Periled, in: New York Times, May 25.Google Scholar
  45. Spinner, Helmut F. (1994a), Die Wissensordnung. Ein Leitkonzept für die dritte Grundordnung des Informationszeitalters, Opladen.Google Scholar
  46. Spinner, Helmut F. (1994b), Der ganze Rationalismus einer Welt von Gegensätzen, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  47. Stopford, John/Strange, Susan (1991), Rival States, Rival Firms, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. Streeck, Wolfgang (1991), Interest Heterogeneity and Organizing Capacity: Two Class Logics of Collective Action?, in: R. M. Czada/A. Windhoff-Héritier (Hg.), Political Choice. Institutions, Rules and the Limits of Rationality, Frankfurt/Boulder, Colo., S. 161–198.Google Scholar
  49. Susskind, Lawrence E. (1994), Environmental Diplomacy, Oxford.Google Scholar
  50. Svarstad, Hanne (1994), National sovereignty and genetic resources, in: Sdnchez/Juma (Hg.), S. 45–65.Google Scholar
  51. Tisdell, Clement A. (1994), Conservation, Protected Areas and the Global Economic System: How Debt, Trade, Exchange Rates, Inflation and Macroeconomic Policy Affect Biological Diversity, in: Biodiversity and Conservation 3, S. 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UNEP (1993a), Priorities for Action for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity and Agenda for Scientific and Technological Research. Report of Panel I. (UNEP/Bio. Div./Panels/Inf. 1), Nairobi.Google Scholar
  53. UNEP (1993b), Evaluation of Potential Economic Implications of Conservation of Biological Diversity and its Sustainable Use and Evaluation of Biological and Genetic Resources. Report of Panel II. (UNEP/Bio. Div./Panels/Inf. 2), Nairobi.Google Scholar
  54. UNEP (1994), The rights of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles: experience and potential for implementation of Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (UNEP/CBD/IC/2/14), Nairobi.Google Scholar
  55. USUN [U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations] (1993), Press release, June 4.Google Scholar
  56. Weber, Max (1980), Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 4. Aufl., Tübingen.Google Scholar
  57. World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1992), Global Biodiversity. Status of the Earth’s Living Resources (ed. Brian Groombridge), London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Heins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations