i
The journal is open to receive papers throughout the year, except when there are calls for papers published on its Web page. Papers must be sent to the editor's email hcadenas@uchile.cl and not by registering on this page. It should be noted that due to the number of papers received, the evaluation of each paper can take between 4 and 8 months.
MAD also publishes articles in "Early View" version, which have been accepted for publication, peer-reviewed and corrected before the publication of the issue, allowing its readers to have quicker access to its contents. Each article has an online publication date and a DOI, allowing them to be cited as soon as they are published.
Please refer to the "Guidelines for the presentation and submission of papers".
Technical-Scientific Knowledge in the water conflict in Chile
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of technical-scientific knowledge utilization in the legal water conflicts in Chile, specifically located in Antofagasta and Valparaíso between 2010 and 2017, based on a document analysis of court verdict texts and expert interviews. The results show that technical-scientific proof is treated both as an administrative process and as relevant information in controversial situations. This treatment depends on the institutional context, affected by the lack of court specialization and deference to the administrative authority. Furthermore, the constitutional protection system of the property of water rights existing in the water code and 1980s political constitution influences the assessment of technical-scientific information in the final verdict of the courts. Finally, in conclusion, is highlighted the work of environmental courts and the need for water code changes to confront these problems.Keywords:
Technical-scientific knowledge, Water conflict, Legal system, Chile, Water codeReferences
Alcoceba Gil, J.M. (2018). Scientific standards as admissibility requirements for scientific evi-dence. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 4(1), 215–242.
Aubriot, O., Fernandez, S., Trottier, J., & Fustec, K. (2017). Water technology, knowledge and power. Addressing them simultaneously. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water e1261.
Bauer, C.J. (1998). Against the Current: Privatization, Water Markets, and the State in Chile. Springer.
Bauer, C.J. (2015a). Water conflicts and entrenched governance problems in Chile’s market model. Water Alternatives 8(2), 147–172.
Bauer, C.J. (2015b). Canto de sirenas. El derecho de aguas chileno como modelo para reformas internaciona-les. El Desconcierto.
Berner-Rodoreda, A., Bärnighausen, T., Kennedy, C., Brinkmann, S., Sarker, M., Wikler, D., Eyal, N., & McMahon, S.A. (2020). From Doxastic to Epistemic: A Typology and Critique of Qualitative Interview Styles. Qualitative Inquiry 26(3-4), 291–305.
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., & Wester, P. (2016). Hydrosocial territo-ries: a political ecology perspective. Water International 41(1, SI), 1–14.
Boelens, R., Shah, E., & Bruins, B. (2019). Contested Knowledges: Large Dams and Mega-Hydraulic Development. Water 11(3), 416.
Bogner, A., Littig, B. & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing Experts. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Broitman, C., & Kreimer, P. (2018). Knowledge Production, Mobilization and Standardization in Chile’s HidroAysén Case. Minerva 56(2), 209–229.
Budds, J. (2009). Contested H2O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum 40(3), 418–430.
Cadenas, H. (2012). Paradojas de la diferenciación del derecho. Una perspectiva regional. In: H. Cadenas, A. Mascareño, & A. Urquiza (eds.), Niklas Luhmann y el legado universalista de su teo-ría: Aportes para el análisis de la complejidad social contemporánea (pp. 265¬–295). Ril.
Canela, C., Buadze, A., Dube, A., Jackowski, C., Pude, I., Nellen, R., … Liebrenz, M. (2019). How Do Legal Experts Cope with Medical Reports and Forensic Evidence? The Experi-ences, Perceptions, and Narratives of Swiss Judges and Other Legal Experts. Frontiers in Psychiatry 10.
Castro, D., & Moraga, P. (2015). Conflict Resolution Inside Water User’s Organizations in Chile: Judicialization or Arbitration? Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 12(3), 319–347.
Costumero, R., Sanchez, J., Garcia-Pedrero, A., Rivera, D., Lillo, M., Gonzalo-Martin, C., & Menasalvas, E. (2017). Geography of legal water disputes in Chile. Journal of Maps 13(1), 7–13.
CR2. (2015). La megasequía 2010-2015: Una lección para el futuro. https://www.cr2.cl/megasequia (Consultado 26/02/2021)
Donoso, G. (2006). Mercados de agua: estudio de caso del Codigo de Aguas de Chile de 1981. Revista Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria 33(2), 157–171.
Duncan, R. (2017). Rescaling Knowledge and Governance and Enrolling the Future in New Zealand: A Co-Production Analysis of Canterbury’s Water Management Reforms to Regu-late Diffuse Pollution. Society and Natural Resources 30(4), 436–452.
Flick, U. (2007). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Morata.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.
Fuller, B. (2011). Enabling problem-solving between science and politics in water conflicts: im-passes and breakthroughs in the Everglades, Florida, USA. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal 56(4, SI), 576–587.
Guerra, F. (2016). Resolución de disputas en el contexto de los conflictos en torno al agua en Chile: Una respuesta institucional múltiple. Revista de Derecho Ambiental 4(6), 205–223.
Hans, V.P., & Saks, M.J. (2018). Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evi-dence. Daedalus 147(4), 164–180.
Hearne, R. & Donoso, G. (2014). Water Markets for the 21st Century. Springer.
Hernandez, J. M. (2017). Science at the Bar: Jurisdictional Function, Language and Scientific-Technical Knowledges. Anuario de Filologia-estudios de Linguistica 7, 97–124.
Hubbard, M. L. (2020). The role of knowledge in water resource management: an assessment of the Oregon general public. Social Science Journal 1–18.
Jasanoff, S. (1994). The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the Bar. Law, Science, and Technology in America. Harvard University Press.
Kohl, E., & Knox, J. A. (2016). My Drought is Different from Your Drought: A Case Study of the Policy Implications of Multiple Ways of Knowing Drought. Weather. Climate and Socie-ty 8(4), 373–388.
Lictevout, E., & Faysse, N. (2018). A Doubly Invisible Aquifer: Hydrogeological Studies and Actors’ Strategies in the Pampa del Tamarugal Aquifer, Northern Chile. Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development 11(3, SI), 592–606.
López, E. (2003). El análisis de contenido. In: M. García, J. Ibañez, & F. Alvira (eds.), El análisis de la realidad social: métodos y técnicas de investigación (pp. 594–616). Alianza.
Luhmann, N. (1996). La ciencia de la Sociedad. Anthropos
Luhmann, N. (2007). La sociedad de la sociedad. Herder
Lynch, M. (2004). Circumscribing Expertise: membership categories in courtroom testimony. In: S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge. The Co-production of science and Social Order (pp. 161–181). Routledge.
Merlino, M.L., Murray, C.I., & Richardson, J.T. (2008). Judicial gatekeeping and the social con-struction of the admissibility of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 26(2), 187–206.
Morales, B., Aliste, E., Neira, C., & Urquiza, A. (2019). La compleja definición del problema socioambiental: racionalidades y controversias. MAD 40, 43–51.
Muñoz, C. (2021). Procesos de Interfaz Ciencia- Política en Contexto del Cambio Climático en Chile: el Caso del Comité Científico de la COP25. Tesis para optar al título de Antropología Social, Universidad de Chile.
Muñoz, A.A., Klock-Barría, K., Alvarez-Garreton, C., Aguilera-Betti, I., González-Reyes, Á., Lastra, J. A., … Lequesne, C. (2020). Water crisis in Petorca basin, Chile: The combined ef-fects of a mega-drought and water management. Water (Switzerland) 12(3).
O’Brien, T. L. (2017). Working Knowledge: Organizational Location and the Construction of Expert Authority in Court. Social Science Quarterly 98(5), 1677–1690.
O’Brien, T. L. (2018). Beyond reliable: Challenging and deciding expert admissibility in U.S. civil courts. Law, Probability and Risk 17(1), 29–44.
Perez, O. (2016). Judicial Strategies for Reviewing Conflicting Expert Evidence: Biases, Heuris-tics, and Higher-Order Evidence. American Journal of Comparative Law 64(1), 75–120.
Pfrommer, T., Goeschl, T., Proelss, A., Carrier, M., Lenhard, J., Martin, H., … Schmidt, H. (2019). Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability. Climatic Change 152(1), 67–84.
Rivera, D., Donoso, G., Molinos, M., & Del Río, C. (2020). Conflictividad judicial de aguas en Chile: caracterización y propuestas para mejorar su prevención y resolución. In: I. Irarraza-bal, E. Piña, M. Jeldes, & M. Letelier (eds.), Propuestas para Chile. Concurso Políticas Públicas UC 2019 (pp. 183–218). Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Rivera, D., Godoy-Faundez, A., Lillo, M., Alvez, A., Delgado, V., Gonzalo-Martin, C., … Gar-cia-Pedrero, A. (2016). Legal disputes as a proxy for regional conflicts over water rights in Chile. Journal of Hydrology 535, 36–45.
Ross, R. (2014). La valoración de la prueba científica en el proceso penal. Memoria para optar al grado de licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales. Universidad Austral, Valdivia, Chile.
Roy, S. (2016). Mediators and Moderators of Normative Reductionism Towards a Testimonial Approach to Expertise in Legal Inquiry. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7(3), 532–556.
Sanders, J., Diamond, S.S., & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8(2), 139–153.
Silva, P. & Valenzuela, J. (2011). Admisibilidad y valoración de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal. Memoria para optar al Grado de licenciado en Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales. Univer-sidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Silva, F. (2019). Análisis del conflicto hídrico en la jurisprudencia nacional. Estudio comparati-vo de las regiones de Antofagasta y Valparaíso. Memoria para optar al grado de licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales. Universidad de Chile.
Silva, F., Boisier, J. P., & Álvarez, C. (2021). Proyecciones hidro-climáticas: El rol del principio precautorio en la gestión de la incertidumbre científico en contexto de cambio climático [Manuscrito no publicado]. In (Ed.) Repensando la regulación de las aguas: crisis socioambiental y proceso constituyente. Actas de la tercera jornada del régimen jurídico de las aguas. DER ediciones.
Urquiza, A. & Cadenas, H. (2015). Sistemas socio-ecológicos: elementos teóricos y conceptuales para la discusión en torno a vulnerabilidad hídrica. L’Ordinaire des Amériques 218.
Urquiza, A., & Morales, B. (2015). La observación del problema ambiental en un contexto de diferenciación funcional MAD 33, 64–93.
Usón, T. J., Henríquez, C., & Dame, J. (2017). Disputed water: Competing knowledge and pow-er asymmetries in the Yali Alto basin, Chile. Geoforum 85(August), 247–258.
Van Ast, J.A., & Gerrits, L. (2017). Public participation, experts and expert knowledge in water management in the Netherlands. Water Policy, 19(1), 115–127.
Vergara, A. (2015). Crisis Institucional del Agua. Ediciones UC
Vergara, A., Donoso, G., Rivera Bravo, D., Blanco, E., & Moyano Aquije, V. (2014). Aguas y energía: propuestas para su autogobierno y resolución especializada de conflictos. In: I. Ira-rrazabal, M. Morandé, & M. Letelier (eds.), Propuestas para Chile. Concurso políticas públicas UC (pp. 241–270). Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Verges, E., & Khoury, L. (2017). Judicial Consideration of Scientific Evidence: Modelling Judg-es’ Attitudes to Scientific Knowledge in the Field of Civil Liability Law. Cahiers de Droit 58(3), 517–548.
Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Dietz, T. (2011). Modellers’ and outreach professionals’ views on the role of models in watershed management. Environmental Policy and Governance 21(6), 472–486.
Wilson, R. A. (2016). Expert evidence on trial: Social researchers in the international criminal courtroom. American Ethnologist 43(4), 730–744.
Aubriot, O., Fernandez, S., Trottier, J., & Fustec, K. (2017). Water technology, knowledge and power. Addressing them simultaneously. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water e1261.
Bauer, C.J. (1998). Against the Current: Privatization, Water Markets, and the State in Chile. Springer.
Bauer, C.J. (2015a). Water conflicts and entrenched governance problems in Chile’s market model. Water Alternatives 8(2), 147–172.
Bauer, C.J. (2015b). Canto de sirenas. El derecho de aguas chileno como modelo para reformas internaciona-les. El Desconcierto.
Berner-Rodoreda, A., Bärnighausen, T., Kennedy, C., Brinkmann, S., Sarker, M., Wikler, D., Eyal, N., & McMahon, S.A. (2020). From Doxastic to Epistemic: A Typology and Critique of Qualitative Interview Styles. Qualitative Inquiry 26(3-4), 291–305.
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., & Wester, P. (2016). Hydrosocial territo-ries: a political ecology perspective. Water International 41(1, SI), 1–14.
Boelens, R., Shah, E., & Bruins, B. (2019). Contested Knowledges: Large Dams and Mega-Hydraulic Development. Water 11(3), 416.
Bogner, A., Littig, B. & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing Experts. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Broitman, C., & Kreimer, P. (2018). Knowledge Production, Mobilization and Standardization in Chile’s HidroAysén Case. Minerva 56(2), 209–229.
Budds, J. (2009). Contested H2O: Science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum 40(3), 418–430.
Cadenas, H. (2012). Paradojas de la diferenciación del derecho. Una perspectiva regional. In: H. Cadenas, A. Mascareño, & A. Urquiza (eds.), Niklas Luhmann y el legado universalista de su teo-ría: Aportes para el análisis de la complejidad social contemporánea (pp. 265¬–295). Ril.
Canela, C., Buadze, A., Dube, A., Jackowski, C., Pude, I., Nellen, R., … Liebrenz, M. (2019). How Do Legal Experts Cope with Medical Reports and Forensic Evidence? The Experi-ences, Perceptions, and Narratives of Swiss Judges and Other Legal Experts. Frontiers in Psychiatry 10.
Castro, D., & Moraga, P. (2015). Conflict Resolution Inside Water User’s Organizations in Chile: Judicialization or Arbitration? Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 12(3), 319–347.
Costumero, R., Sanchez, J., Garcia-Pedrero, A., Rivera, D., Lillo, M., Gonzalo-Martin, C., & Menasalvas, E. (2017). Geography of legal water disputes in Chile. Journal of Maps 13(1), 7–13.
CR2. (2015). La megasequía 2010-2015: Una lección para el futuro. https://www.cr2.cl/megasequia (Consultado 26/02/2021)
Donoso, G. (2006). Mercados de agua: estudio de caso del Codigo de Aguas de Chile de 1981. Revista Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria 33(2), 157–171.
Duncan, R. (2017). Rescaling Knowledge and Governance and Enrolling the Future in New Zealand: A Co-Production Analysis of Canterbury’s Water Management Reforms to Regu-late Diffuse Pollution. Society and Natural Resources 30(4), 436–452.
Flick, U. (2007). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Morata.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.
Fuller, B. (2011). Enabling problem-solving between science and politics in water conflicts: im-passes and breakthroughs in the Everglades, Florida, USA. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal 56(4, SI), 576–587.
Guerra, F. (2016). Resolución de disputas en el contexto de los conflictos en torno al agua en Chile: Una respuesta institucional múltiple. Revista de Derecho Ambiental 4(6), 205–223.
Hans, V.P., & Saks, M.J. (2018). Improving judge & jury evaluation of scientific evi-dence. Daedalus 147(4), 164–180.
Hearne, R. & Donoso, G. (2014). Water Markets for the 21st Century. Springer.
Hernandez, J. M. (2017). Science at the Bar: Jurisdictional Function, Language and Scientific-Technical Knowledges. Anuario de Filologia-estudios de Linguistica 7, 97–124.
Hubbard, M. L. (2020). The role of knowledge in water resource management: an assessment of the Oregon general public. Social Science Journal 1–18.
Jasanoff, S. (1994). The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the Bar. Law, Science, and Technology in America. Harvard University Press.
Kohl, E., & Knox, J. A. (2016). My Drought is Different from Your Drought: A Case Study of the Policy Implications of Multiple Ways of Knowing Drought. Weather. Climate and Socie-ty 8(4), 373–388.
Lictevout, E., & Faysse, N. (2018). A Doubly Invisible Aquifer: Hydrogeological Studies and Actors’ Strategies in the Pampa del Tamarugal Aquifer, Northern Chile. Water Alternatives-An Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development 11(3, SI), 592–606.
López, E. (2003). El análisis de contenido. In: M. García, J. Ibañez, & F. Alvira (eds.), El análisis de la realidad social: métodos y técnicas de investigación (pp. 594–616). Alianza.
Luhmann, N. (1996). La ciencia de la Sociedad. Anthropos
Luhmann, N. (2007). La sociedad de la sociedad. Herder
Lynch, M. (2004). Circumscribing Expertise: membership categories in courtroom testimony. In: S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge. The Co-production of science and Social Order (pp. 161–181). Routledge.
Merlino, M.L., Murray, C.I., & Richardson, J.T. (2008). Judicial gatekeeping and the social con-struction of the admissibility of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 26(2), 187–206.
Morales, B., Aliste, E., Neira, C., & Urquiza, A. (2019). La compleja definición del problema socioambiental: racionalidades y controversias. MAD 40, 43–51.
Muñoz, C. (2021). Procesos de Interfaz Ciencia- Política en Contexto del Cambio Climático en Chile: el Caso del Comité Científico de la COP25. Tesis para optar al título de Antropología Social, Universidad de Chile.
Muñoz, A.A., Klock-Barría, K., Alvarez-Garreton, C., Aguilera-Betti, I., González-Reyes, Á., Lastra, J. A., … Lequesne, C. (2020). Water crisis in Petorca basin, Chile: The combined ef-fects of a mega-drought and water management. Water (Switzerland) 12(3).
O’Brien, T. L. (2017). Working Knowledge: Organizational Location and the Construction of Expert Authority in Court. Social Science Quarterly 98(5), 1677–1690.
O’Brien, T. L. (2018). Beyond reliable: Challenging and deciding expert admissibility in U.S. civil courts. Law, Probability and Risk 17(1), 29–44.
Perez, O. (2016). Judicial Strategies for Reviewing Conflicting Expert Evidence: Biases, Heuris-tics, and Higher-Order Evidence. American Journal of Comparative Law 64(1), 75–120.
Pfrommer, T., Goeschl, T., Proelss, A., Carrier, M., Lenhard, J., Martin, H., … Schmidt, H. (2019). Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability. Climatic Change 152(1), 67–84.
Rivera, D., Donoso, G., Molinos, M., & Del Río, C. (2020). Conflictividad judicial de aguas en Chile: caracterización y propuestas para mejorar su prevención y resolución. In: I. Irarraza-bal, E. Piña, M. Jeldes, & M. Letelier (eds.), Propuestas para Chile. Concurso Políticas Públicas UC 2019 (pp. 183–218). Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Rivera, D., Godoy-Faundez, A., Lillo, M., Alvez, A., Delgado, V., Gonzalo-Martin, C., … Gar-cia-Pedrero, A. (2016). Legal disputes as a proxy for regional conflicts over water rights in Chile. Journal of Hydrology 535, 36–45.
Ross, R. (2014). La valoración de la prueba científica en el proceso penal. Memoria para optar al grado de licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales. Universidad Austral, Valdivia, Chile.
Roy, S. (2016). Mediators and Moderators of Normative Reductionism Towards a Testimonial Approach to Expertise in Legal Inquiry. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7(3), 532–556.
Sanders, J., Diamond, S.S., & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8(2), 139–153.
Silva, P. & Valenzuela, J. (2011). Admisibilidad y valoración de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal. Memoria para optar al Grado de licenciado en Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales. Univer-sidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Silva, F. (2019). Análisis del conflicto hídrico en la jurisprudencia nacional. Estudio comparati-vo de las regiones de Antofagasta y Valparaíso. Memoria para optar al grado de licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales. Universidad de Chile.
Silva, F., Boisier, J. P., & Álvarez, C. (2021). Proyecciones hidro-climáticas: El rol del principio precautorio en la gestión de la incertidumbre científico en contexto de cambio climático [Manuscrito no publicado]. In (Ed.) Repensando la regulación de las aguas: crisis socioambiental y proceso constituyente. Actas de la tercera jornada del régimen jurídico de las aguas. DER ediciones.
Urquiza, A. & Cadenas, H. (2015). Sistemas socio-ecológicos: elementos teóricos y conceptuales para la discusión en torno a vulnerabilidad hídrica. L’Ordinaire des Amériques 218.
Urquiza, A., & Morales, B. (2015). La observación del problema ambiental en un contexto de diferenciación funcional MAD 33, 64–93.
Usón, T. J., Henríquez, C., & Dame, J. (2017). Disputed water: Competing knowledge and pow-er asymmetries in the Yali Alto basin, Chile. Geoforum 85(August), 247–258.
Van Ast, J.A., & Gerrits, L. (2017). Public participation, experts and expert knowledge in water management in the Netherlands. Water Policy, 19(1), 115–127.
Vergara, A. (2015). Crisis Institucional del Agua. Ediciones UC
Vergara, A., Donoso, G., Rivera Bravo, D., Blanco, E., & Moyano Aquije, V. (2014). Aguas y energía: propuestas para su autogobierno y resolución especializada de conflictos. In: I. Ira-rrazabal, M. Morandé, & M. Letelier (eds.), Propuestas para Chile. Concurso políticas públicas UC (pp. 241–270). Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Verges, E., & Khoury, L. (2017). Judicial Consideration of Scientific Evidence: Modelling Judg-es’ Attitudes to Scientific Knowledge in the Field of Civil Liability Law. Cahiers de Droit 58(3), 517–548.
Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Dietz, T. (2011). Modellers’ and outreach professionals’ views on the role of models in watershed management. Environmental Policy and Governance 21(6), 472–486.
Wilson, R. A. (2016). Expert evidence on trial: Social researchers in the international criminal courtroom. American Ethnologist 43(4), 730–744.
Twitter