The Comparative Jurisprudence of Wildfire Mitigation: Moral Community, Political Culture, and Policy Learning

<p>The cultural and societal diversity in the jurisprudence of living dangerously reflects equally diverse views on the deeper question of law&rsquo;s moral purpose. What duty of care does (or does not) a community owe to those at the greatest risk of harm to their homes and persons? And i...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Lloyd Burton
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law 2013-04-01
Series:Oñati Socio-Legal Series
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2012287
Description
Summary:<p>The cultural and societal diversity in the jurisprudence of living dangerously reflects equally diverse views on the deeper question of law&rsquo;s moral purpose. What duty of care does (or does not) a community owe to those at the greatest risk of harm to their homes and persons? And is there also a right to be left alone&mdash;to assume all the risks and all the responsibilities for one&rsquo;s own well-being, neither helped nor hindered by the community of which one is a part?</p><p>This article reports comparative research being done on two states in the U.S. that have used the law to answer these morally freighted questions in very different ways, with specific regard to land use regulation in forested areas where wildfires have taken many lives and destroyed billions of dollars in residential property. It also suggests how this same analytic framework might be applied to transnational research in other legal cultures also endangered by catastrophic wildfires, such as Australia and Spain.</p> <hr /><p>La diversidad cultural y social en la jurisprudencia de los lugares en los que se vive bajo un peligro refleja equitativamente diferentes opiniones sobre el prop&oacute;sito moral de la ley, un tema m&aacute;s profundo. &iquest;Qu&eacute; obligaci&oacute;n tiene (o no) una comunidad de ofrecer atenci&oacute;n a aquellos individuos en mayor riesgo de sufrir da&ntilde;os sobre sus hogares o personas? &iquest;Y existe tambi&eacute;n el derecho a que cada uno asuma todos los riesgos y todas las responsabilidades sobre su propio bienestar, sin que le ayude, o le moleste, la comunidad de la que forma parte?</p><p>Este art&iacute;culo presenta una investigaci&oacute;n comparativa desarrollada en dos estados de EE.UU. que han utilizado la ley de manera muy diferente, para responder a estas preguntas de gran carga moral, con especial referencia a la regulaci&oacute;n del uso de la tierra en zonas donde los incendios forestales han causado muchas v&iacute;ctimas personales adem&aacute;s de p&eacute;rdidas de millones de d&oacute;lares en propiedades residenciales. Tambi&eacute;n sugiere que este mismo marco anal&iacute;tico podr&iacute;a aplicarse a la investigaci&oacute;n transnacional en otras culturas jur&iacute;dicas tambi&eacute;n amenazadas por los incendios, como Australia y Espa&ntilde;a.
ISSN:2079-5971