Read the following passage excerpt concerning international environmental jurisprudence carefully:
'Within the jurisprudence of international environmental law, the theoretical underpinnings of legal standing often reflect distinct philosophical paradigms. Classical legal frameworks are predominantly characterized by instrumental anthropocentrism, a doctrine stipulating that natural entities lack independent legal rights and hold value exclusively in their capacity to serve human utility or economic development. A marked departure from this is legal biocentrism, which extends intrinsic legal standing to individual non-human organisms, granting them rights analogous to those of human persons, yet failing to protect collective ecological networks. Addressing this conceptual lacuna, holistic ecocentrism posits that entire ecosystems, rather than discrete organisms, are the primary locus of intrinsic value and should be recognized as distinct juridical persons. Finally, transformative deep ecology goes beyond mere legal recognition, positing an ontological framework where the boundary between human and environmental rights dissolves, requiring a fundamental reorientation of human identity as inseparable from the biosphere.'
Based explicitly on the author's definitions in the passage, match each theoretical paradigm with its corresponding legal or philosophical description.
- Instrumental anthropocentrismThe paradigm asserting that nature is legally valuable only insofar as it provides practical benefits to humanity.
- Legal biocentrismThe perspective that specific living entities hold independent rights, though ecological collectives do not.
- Holistic ecocentrismThe doctrine arguing that collective environmental systems possess inherent value and deserve status as legal entities.
- Transformative deep ecologyThe philosophy requiring a shift in self-perception that eliminates the distinction between human rights and the natural world.