ABSTRACT

In times when intricate concerns for social and ecological justice are becoming ever more prominent in global environmental discourses, conflicts between minorities’ rights and environmental policies present delicate trade-offs that demand ingenious balancing by regional human rights courts. Such conflicts tend to boil down to oppositions between ‘indigenous’ or ‘traditional’ practices set against ‘modern’ ideals, thereby displaying and performing important normative, epistemic and political implications. To legitimise and strengthen their cases, parties resort to expert interventions. While the involvement of experts speaking on behalf of minorities can bolster the communities’ legal protection, the shared assumptions, rhetorical style and professional sensibility of intervening experts can trigger unintended consequences for the identity and (self-)perception of the peoples they represent. The case-law analysis presented here instantiates how networks of experts with shared institutional ties intervene before courts, use specific discursive strategies to further their representatives’ claims and reinforce the normative salience of their interventions through cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural referencing. Drawing on insights from discourse analysis, (legal) anthropology and cultural geography, the article develops a critique of the politics of expert-based approaches to conflict management in regional human rights settings.

中文翻译：

---

环境诉讼中有争议的土著和传统：区域人权法院的专长政治

摘要

在全球环境讨论中，对社会和生态正义的复杂关注日益突出的时候，少数群体权利与环境政策之间的冲突带来了微妙的取舍，需要区域人权法院进行巧妙的平衡。这样的冲突往往归结为反对“现代”理想的“本土”或“传统”实践之间的对立，从而表现并表现出重要的规范，认识论和政治含义。为了使案件合法化并加强其效力，当事方诉诸于专家干预。虽然代表少数群体发言的专家的参与可以加强社区的法律保护，但共同的假设是，干预专家的言论风格和专业敏感性可能会触发他们所代表的民族的身份和（自我）感知的意外后果。本文介绍的判例法分析实例化了具有共同制度联系的专家网络如何在法院面前进行干预，如何使用特定的话语策略来促进其代表的主张，并通过跨辖区和跨文化的参照来加强其干预措施的规范性。本文利用话语分析，（法律）人类学和文化地理学的见解，对区域人权背景下基于专家的冲突管理方法的政治发展提出了批评。本文介绍的判例法分析实例化了具有共同制度联系的专家网络如何在法院面前进行干预，如何使用特定的话语策略来促进其代表的主张，并通过跨辖区和跨文化的参照来加强其干预措施的规范性。本文利用话语分析，（法律）人类学和文化地理学的见解，对区域人权背景下基于专家的冲突管理方法的政治发展提出了批评。本文介绍的判例法分析实例化了具有共同制度联系的专家网络如何在法院面前进行干预，如何使用特定的话语策略来促进其代表的主张，并通过跨辖区和跨文化的参照来加强其干预措施的规范性。本文利用话语分析，（法律）人类学和文化地理学的见解，对区域人权背景下基于专家的冲突管理方法的政治发展提出了批评。