Legal Personhood for Nature

Driven by widespread environmental degradation and growing movements for indigenous rights, indigenous communities around the world are leading the way in defending the rights of sacred and ancestral rivers. These include the tribal relationship of Maori with the Whanganui River in Aotearoa, New Zealand, the role of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in the Atrato River in Colombia, and the granting by the Yurok Tribal Council of legal personality rights to the Klamath River through an ordinance in the United States. Following the same trend, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was declared a legal entity in 2017. [12] This new legal entity was called Te Awa Tupua and is now recognized as “an indivisible and living whole from the mountains to the sea, encompassing the Whanganui River and all its physical and metaphysical elements.” [13] The river would be represented by two guardians, one of the Iwi of Whanganui and the other of the Crown. [14] This island nation in the southwest Pacific Ocean is one of the nations that have championed environmental laws in favor of legal personality rights over nature. The government has granted rights to rivers and forests as legal entities. 40From 1992 to 2011, the Swiss canton of Zurich had a state-paid lawyer whose job was to represent animals.97 Switzerland, like several other European countries, has strict animal welfare laws, but the Swiss animal welfare group argued that officials rarely prosecute animal cruelty cases and that the penalties were too lenient to be effective deterrents.98 Zurich adopted a law, which states that animals must be represented by a lawyer in any case of cruelty to animals, similar to child abuse.99 The role of the animal advocate was to “represent the interests of animals as if the animal were a human being.” 100 In 2008, there were 224 cases of animal cruelty in Zurich, one third of the national total. The legal status of an animal advocate was a legal institution designed to express the interests of animals directly through a judicial officer charged with determining and promoting those interests “as if the animal were a human being.” 101 The Act covered only cases of cruelty and not environmental damage to animals or species. Dear Tiffany, thank you very much for bringing this update and the reflections on this topic, which I believe are really helpful in uplifting Stingy and finally drawing attention to the positive actions needed to achieve harmony with nature.

When New Zealand granted Te Awa Tupua, a river in the North Island, the same legal status as a person, the government did so by recognizing it as the ancestor of the local Maori tribes, the Whanganui. 47Environmentalists may fear that the legal personality of nature will inevitably have to be defended by man. When these people are appointed by the government, environmental concerns are not always paramount. All custodians are responsible for developing a management plan and deciding which specific activities should be allowed. In theory, environmental authorities already assume this responsibility with respect to public lands and protected areas. It is unclear to what extent the shift in perspective will take place if the focus is on the region rather than the people. In 2017, four rivers applied for and obtained legal rights: the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Altrato River in Colombia, and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in India. The case of New Zealand is fundamentally unique because Parliament passed the Te Awa Tupua Act, which appoints two river guardians: a representative of the indigenous Maori people and a representative of the government – the Crown – who arguably reconcile two different worldviews. The countries listed above are excellent examples of how environmental laws should focus on protecting nature for the benefit of nature rather than people. But, at best, the public discourse and debates surrounding this shift from anthropocentric environmental laws to ecocentric environmental laws, which grant rights to nature to legal personality, are inherently problematic. Is legal personality really a necessary status that must be granted to nature before it can be respected and protected? Nature conservation rights are a controversial but extremely important issue. Many countries and cultures around the world embody nature.

In India, for example, the Ganges is called “Mother Ganges”. In this article, we will look at some countries that not only believe that nature is a living being, but have also given it rights as a legal entity. Take the example of the Te Urewera rainforest in New Zealand, which Westervelt explores in episode 4. She says this case is one that international organizations are calling an important success for the rights of nature, because the government has recognized the rainforest as a separate legal entity and the Tūhoe people as their legal guardians. In many ways, this is a victory, but in the end, it is still a compromise on what the Tūhoe really want: simply the restitution of their land. 36The legal status of animals is changing.83 Common law concepts dictated that a person could not provide money in a testamentary disposition for the care of a surviving pet, but in the 1990s, the United States passed a uniform national law that allowed pet trusts for the first time.84 Under certain state laws, Pets have moved from the corpus category of a trust to the beneficiary of a trust. to make it at least a quasi-legal person in this limited context. Some U.S. courts have recognized animals as designated plaintiffs in lawsuits, although scientists point out that this is not the general rule.85 5A legal system in which the environment is a legal entity with rights will approach problems differently than systems where this approach is not found.

A system of biotic rights for nature has been described as “morally justified claims or demands by nonhuman organisms, whether individuals or aggregates (populations and species), against all moral actors for the vital interests or imperative conditions of well-being of the non-human species.” 8 The same author postulates a Declaration of Biotic Rights containing claims or demands for participation in the natural competition for existence; whole, healthy habitats; reproduction without artificial distortions; no human-caused extinction; the right not to be subjected to human cruelty, gross abuse or reckless use; Restoration of natural conditions disrupted by human abuse and the right to a fair share of goods necessary for sustainability. In the context of the climate crisis, “rights of nature” represent a legal theory that can contribute to increasing the urgency of protecting biodiversity in the fight against climate change. Giving nature standing to prosecute could arm it against violations before the law, but how can this be translated into reality? The legal personality attributed to ecosystems has so far been mainly symbolic and it is still unclear to what extent these trials can succeed in ensuring adequate and long-term protection of ecosystems. Results may vary depending on how a case is framed and the interests of the claimants.