EHL VideoDictionary: Water
Astrida Neimanis on water. This is an entry in the KTH EHL VideoDictionary.
Astrida Neimanis on water. This is an entry in the KTH EHL VideoDictionary.
Full article by former RCC fellow Dominic Hinde.
In this article, Rosi Braidotti explores the relation between posthumanism and the environmental humanities.
This article tells the epic tale of the fall and rise of Mono Lake— the strange and beautiful Dead Sea of California—which fostered some of the most important environmental law developments of the last century.
In the nineteenth century, there was much debate about the question of which way of living could be regarded as “natural.” Caricatures on vegetarianism mock ideas of the “natural” relationship between animal and man, and draft utopian as well as dystopian visions of a vegetarian future. This is from the German version of “Satirical Glimpses of the Cultural History of Vegetarianism.” For the English-language version of this exhibition, click here.
Since vegetarian societies began to spread and organize events in Germany, their missionary attitude and their supposed moral superiority have been ridiculed. Caricatures mocked the rigid rules of the vegetarians and their societies, accusing them of hypocrisy or of reinterpreting the self-imposed prohibitions according to their own needs and weaknesses.
In the United States, debate over the responsibilities of different levels of government are framed within our system of constitutional federalism, which divides sovereign power between the central federal administration and regional states. Dilemmas about devolution have been erupting in all regulatory contexts, but environmental governance remains uniquely prone to federalism discord because it inevitably confronts the core question with which federalism grapples—“who gets to decide?”— in contexts where state and federal claims to power are simultaneously at their strongest.
Erin Ryan argues that environmental law is uniquely prone to federalism discord because it inevitably confronts the core question with which federalism grapples—who gets to decide?—in contexts where state and federal claims to power are simultaneously at their strongest.