CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Environmental law and policyEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond

El atrato y sus guardianes: imaginación ecopolítica para hilar nuevos derechos

Open access
Cagüeñas, Diego, Galindo Orrego, María Isabel, Rasmussen, Sabina·2020·Revista Colombiana de Antropología
DOI 10.22380/2539472x.638
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

La Sentencia T-622 del 2016 de la Corte Constitucional, que reconoce la cuenca del Atrato como entidad sujeto de derechos, supone una oportunidad inédita para la imaginación ecopolítica en el país. Este reconocimiento plantea retos, puesto que requiere un trabajo de traducción y representación para definir los derechos efectivos de la cuenca. Parte de este trabajo viene siendo desempeñado por el grupo de Guardianes del Atrato, quienes velan por el reconocimiento y la salvaguarda de unos derechos aún por concretar. En este artículo, abordamos la cuestión de los derechos del río no solo como un problema de representación jurídica, sino también como un ejercicio ecopolítico que busca anudar, de maneras novedosas, las vidas, las prácticas y los saberes que florecen a lo largo del Atrato.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22380/2539472x.638

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, Alan G. Smith, Tiffany L. Barry, Angela L. Coe, Paul R. Bown, Patrick Brenchley, David Cantrill, Andrew Gale, Philip Gibbard, F. John Gregory, Mark W. Hounslow, Andrew C. Kerr, Paul Pearson, Robert Knox, John H. Powell, Colin Neil Waters, John E. A. Marshall, Michael Oates, Peter Rawson y Philip

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cagüeñas, D., Galindo Orrego, M. I., & Rasmussen, S.
Affiliations
Universidad Icesi (CO)
ORCID
Venue
Revista Colombiana de Antropología
Publisher
Instituto Colombiano de Antropologia e Historia (ICANH)
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
169-196
ISSN
  • 0486-6525 (ISSN-L)
  • 2539-472X
DOI
10.22380/2539472x.638
OpenAlex
W3044506030
Semantic Scholar
50f161f99a5fb244c73099318405b0d5377735bb
Cited by
41
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
33.93
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Revista Colombiana de Antropología (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Environmental law and policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Ecocriticism and Environmental Literature
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Keywords
Atrato River, Colombian Constitutional Court, river rights, environmental politics, environmental rights, legal representation, indigenous and local knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review