Literature Review

In May 2017 in Ecuador, the government of Rafael Correa handed over the presidency after 10 years and several mandates. His administration established the redefinition of the constitutional bases: the buen vivir cultural development and policy approach with a new transformative educational policy that sought to contribute to inclusion, overcoming inequalities, and poverty. His government benefited from high oil and commodity prices and broad popular support. This research has set out to review the results of the official national survey ENEMDU completed in December 2017. With a descriptive, bivariate, and multidimensional quantitative data analysis, we sought to shed light on the correlations between subjective poverty associated with buen vivir, school conditions, and ICT access and use of the school population in 2017. Results indicate a critical flaw in the buen vivirpolicies that failed to achieve their most valued and declared objective with indigenous and rural populations.

The decolonisation and decolonial perspectives are now strongly embedded in the academic debate, in particular the fundamental contribution of Aníbal Quijano on the coloniality of power and race as constitutive elements of the global capitalist power model. In this article, the study starts from a broad bibliographical review of decolonial perspective, its main characteristics, its theoretical bases and its differences with postcolonial postures. We examine in depth the academic production (Spanish, French and English speaking) on tourism and the links with the decolonial perspective. We also propose some elements of reflection on the tourism coloniality and "buen vivir" from a decolonial turn to reflect on tourism in the indigenous communities context, based on our experience of working with indigenous communities in Latin America. As a main conclusion, the decolonial perspective can be a very useful framework of ideas, theories, and concepts in times of crisis, to generate critical thinking around indigenous tourism.

Disaster capitalism and shock doctrine have come to the fore in Ecuador after the 2016 earthquake and 2022 economic crisis and national strike. In opposition to the form of shock doctrine these two disasters highlight are theological anthropologies and praxis of religious alternatives to care and rebuilding. A disrupted research trip explores the competing visions of development, governance, and flourishing between the International Monetary Fund’s presence in Ecuador with shock doctrine and local economic collectives’ and the national solidarity movement’s liberative pastoral responses through Buen Vivir, an indigenous praxis of interdependence. The formation of democratic economic collectives and the validation of solidarity in large-scale national strikes demonstrate the power of pastoral theological responses holding to an expansive vision of Buen Vivir and theological anthropologies insisting on interdependent practices of care, justice, and liturgy to bring about fundamental shifts to our understanding of good living and subjectivity of all living things.

Through the lens of liveability and Buen Vivir, I explore how local actors form their acceptance of the physical impact on nature caused by a trail marathon in north-central Sweden, particularly given trail and soil erosion. With a qualitative multi-method research approach, the findings reveal that the local actors minimise the impacts by getting involved in various activities both inside and outside the event. Different knowledge and practices foster sustainability and create acceptance. While the growth of tourism creates unease and feelings of inadequate control, this event is seen as a distinct phenomenon. I show that liveability goes beyond perception and requires integration of the local environment into local practices. Current acceptance may however be eroded if more or larger events occur in the future. Policies and planning must therefore acknowledge and incorporate these local practices to create sustainability.

The culling of animals that are infected, or suspected to be infected, with COVID-19 has fuelled outcry. What might have contributed to the ongoing debates and discussions about animal rights protection amid global health crises is the lack of a unified understanding and internationally agreed-upon definition of “One Health”. The term One Health is often utilised to describe the imperative to protect the health of humans, animals, and plants, along with the overarching ecosystem in an increasingly connected and globalized world. However, to date, there is a dearth of research on how to balance public health decisions that could impact all key stakeholders under the umbrella of One Health, particularly in contexts where human suffering has been immense. To shed light on the issue, this paper discusses whether One Health means “human-centred connected health” in a largely human-dominated planet, particularly amid crises like COVID-19. The insights of this study could help policymakers make more informed decisions that could effectively and efficiently protect human health while balancing the health and well-being of the rest of the inhabitants of our shared planet Earth.

This judgment is set in 2060, in an Australia that has been scarred and changed by decades of devastating climate change impacts, including drought, famine, and disease. A new legal system has been created – one which is led and shaped by the First Peoples of the continent and characterised by the Relationist Ethos and bioregional governance and law. The judgment demonstrates what decision-making could look like within this context, where the onus of proof is reversed for commercial developments. Instead of today's pro-development State planning laws, which see local people having to fight for a voice in the decision-making processes, proponents of commercial proposals must prove to Indigenous Elders and local Peoples that they comply with the Relationist Ethos, and are of benefit to Country and people.

Everyday millions of nonhumans and thousands of humans endure solitary confinement. Captive animals held in solitary confinement similarly spend much of their lives locked into tiny spaces, isolated, and deprived of the types of interactions and environment essential to their wellbeing. Human prisoners are confined for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day for weeks, months, or even years on end in cells the size of a parking space. In human and nonhuman settings, the agony of solitary is chillingly alike and harmful. And, in neither setting is it justifiable or necessary. This Article examines the moral, penological and scientific shortcomings of solitary confinement across species. Part I describes how solitary confinement is used in human and nonhuman settings and shows the deep wounds that it inflicts in both. Part II examines why the legal structures under which solitary confinement is imposed (on humans and nonhumans) offer inadequate protections from its depredations. Part III argues that incarcerated beings have no legal protections because they are powerless and invisible. In Part IV, the author with expertise in prison law (Mushlin) describes how solitary confinement would end in penal facilities if prisoners were empowered and their rights protected. Next, the author with expertise in animal law (Cassuto) explains why solitary confinement for animals in zoos, aquariums and laboratories should and could be abolished. The authors conclude with a call to empower creatures subjected to solitary confinement. If all vulnerable beings are adequately protected, the unnecessary suffering inflicted by solitary confinement can finally end.

In the context of India, a country with a rich tapestry of cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions that advocate for non-violence and compassion towards all living beings, the discourse on human rights versus animal rights takes on unique dimensions. This abstract explores the dichotomy between human rights and animal rights in the Indian context, drawing upon landmark judgments and constitutional provisions.India’s Constitution provides for fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, speech, and movement within and outside the country. However, the discourse on animal rights is gaining momentum. The Indian Constitution and various legislations such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 provide for the protection of animals.Despite these provisions, animals in India are often subjected to cruelty and exploitation. This raises questions about the universality of rights and the need for a global declaration on animal rights. The Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Others case in 2014 was a landmark judgment where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that animals also possess honour and dignity. Also, in the of N.R. Nair v. Union of India ; The Kerala High Court, shattered the walls between humans and non-humans and considered granting fundamental rights to animals as well and highlighted that legal rights should be extended beyond people and should not remain in the exclusive domain of human beings.This abstract argues that recognizing animal rights at a universal level would not only serve animals better but also complement human rights. It suggests that an international body like the United Nations or World Health Organization should work towards a universal declaration on animal rights.The denial of animal rights often reflects in the disregard for human rights. Therefore, acknowledging animal rights could potentially reinforce respect for human rights. The international legal order is flexible enough to accommodate non-human personhood, as demonstrated by the evolution of human rights.The abstract concludes by emphasizing that animal rights should be universalized to be effective in a globalized setting. It draws parallels with the historical experience with international human rights to show how objections like cultural imperialism can be overcome.

The fate of animals under human control has become a challenge of our time. One of the key dimensions of the ‘animal turn’ we are witnessing is the concept of ‘animal welfare.’ Unlike animal rights or abolitionist doctrines, animal welfare has gained some form of universal recognition. But it has different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. As practised in the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), ‘animal welfare’ is substantially deprived of any ethical foundation and is rather an economic- and efficiency-driven concept that legitimizes the industrial exploitation of animals. In the same vein, the recognition of ‘animal welfare’ as a universal issue by WTO dispute settlement institutions in the Seals dispute should not overshadow its anthropocentric dimension in a way that augments the suspicion that ‘animal welfare’ is a vehicle of cultural imperialism.

This invited commentary offers a reflection on Steelman’s proposal that the concept of occupational justice applies equally to non-human animals as to humans. As an author of the concept of occupational justice, I welcome the insights offered on justice and rights. It resonates with the work of other champions of animal rights, and is a timely addition to Kiepek’s recent article, Occupation in the anthropocene and ethical relationality, published in the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy.

COVID-19 and the prospect of a sixth mass extinction, among other crises, have underscored the urgency of recognizing humans' ethical and ecological entanglements with the more-than-human world. In light of these entanglements, this article brings together theories of occupational justice with those of animal rights in order to stimulate further discussion toward the development of a multispecies theory of occupational justice. First, a precedent and basis for nonhuman occupational rights is established in Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Second, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s political theory of animal rights is invoked as a lens through which to understand how various types of nonhuman animals are differentially at risk for experiencing four occupational injustices: occupational deprivation, alienation, displacement, and apartheid. The article concludes that a commitment to multispecies occupational justice changes how science is practiced. Implications for occupational science and adjacent design sciences are explored, as well as directions for future research and political work.

COVID-19 con brio identified the intersectionality between humans and animals. This confirmed interlinkage between human and animal health and welfare led to the emergence of the ‘One Health’, casu quo, ‘One Welfare’ discourse. Regarding the current momentum of animal-human integration and following the footsteps of these movements, the time has come to consider a ‘One Right’ approach to address legal rights for (nonhuman) animals in Europe. This chapter will zoom in on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The focal point is whether or not animals have rights under this Article 8. In order to answer this highly topical question, it is vital to first demarcate what animal rights might entail. In the concluding part, a concise overview of the analysis of Article 8 of the ECHR will be presented, in tandem with a brief exploration into future prospects.