Authored By: kiara motoomull
Humans and non-humans arguably have one thing in common is that they are living entities.
With adequate care, they can flourish in the Earth’s elements such as water, dirt, and air. However, analysis of legal systems and their culture are seen in different legal frameworks, demonstrating the complex relationships between human rights and natural laws. Therefore, to examine the legal application of non-human entities, it is critical to comprehend natural rights by recognising what international values, considerations of ethics, and judicial precedents have in store for nature.
Economic Approaches to Environmental Justice: An Australian Example
There are possible economic advantages that demonstrate further restrictions, taking into account natural, lawful rights. To develop long-lasting sustainability, which may promote legal rights to environmental maintenance, sustainable development aims to establish these connections between economic growth and ecological protection, which could mean providing the funds to preserve biodiversity, such as purifying water or general management of the ecosystem. The Australian Government applies the ‘Reef Trust,’ a financial framework that provides “cost-effective, strategic investment in the protection and conservation of the Reef.” Although the most extensive coral system faces countless environmental challenges, such as overfishing, pollution, and climate change, it would require a significant financial investment to support ecological health and aesthetic appeal. The Reef Trust received $5 million from the Australian government to support innovative maintenance that enhances the water quality and overall health of the ecosystem. The trust reflects a shared global duty to maintain the ecosystem by adhering to financial accountability under the Public Governance and Accountability Act 2013 to manage spending funds to repair damages and address the threats to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, indicating a shared responsibility to conserve the habitat. The Reef Trust has a foundational root in science, which builds the efforts made by the government and organisations that influence these natural resources to bring change to the environment. They involve experts and scientists to educate themselves on how to maintain the reef by tracking pollution levels or even monitoring its health, which exhibits its legitimacy on how important the ecosystem is in Australia. As the government abides by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, a law that is responsible for protecting Australia’s environment, they are also ensured with environmental offsets that ‘provide long-term protection of the existing habitat – including through the acquisition and inclusion of land,’ restoration and re-establishing these lands. So, when defining this from a lawful point of view, Australia’s effective governance shows a basis for how feasible it is for nature to be granted legal rights. Unquestionably, financial attributes are essential to help compensate for rights for nature, and existing Australian laws and policies display their commitment to preserving and protecting nature. This reflects the progressiveness of a natural entity to secure the status of legal rights such as the EPBC Act, followed by the Australian government providing an abundance of considerations to implement further adequate and thorough legal concern for the Great Barrier Reef.
Ecuador and its Constitution: Advancing Legal Protection of Environmental Rights
A legal instrument that allows details and directness that can pinpoint the connections of legal developments on environmental rights is the Constitution. They are categorised as a fundamental legal instrument that obtains the clauses of legal order and can allow legislation to be addressed through court proceedings. This can lead to opportunities to set environmental rights into political rulings, ensuring that ecological protection and preserving natural resources are a legal or constitutional obligation, not just a matter of morality. For instance, Ecuador had become the first state to apply constitutional rights to nature, displaying the “intrinsic value towards nature”, which over-exceeds the action of protecting environmental entities. The 10th Article from the Ecuador Constitution states that ‘Nature shall be the subject of those rights that the Constitution recognises for it,’ playing an advocacy role that focuses on the critical goals of international environmental law. Ecuador has invested generations’ worth of ‘pluralistic normative development’ that strives to accomplish adequate constitutional adaptations to address the further expansion of issues subjecting to nature. An example is proclaiming the 1982 World Charter for Nature, a United Nations General Assembly Resolution that campaigns to give nature political rights. When making laws is considered “pluralistic” and “normative,” it refers to enforcing diverse values and cultural impacts, including indigenous beliefs, into politics that intend to guarantee environmental protection. This may also include participants such as lawyers or ecological activists to contribute to legislation. This leads to legitimacy, building a like-minded community that considers the well-being of nature. Therefore, Ecuador’s endeavours unveil that the links of ecosystems and safeguarding by covering environmental concerns eventually led to an achievable political structure, making granting legal status to a natural entity feasible, especially in establishing policies.
Obstacles to Nature’s Legal Rights: Viability, Moral Issues, and Real-World Consequences
Although granting legal status to nature may seem environmentally sound and ethically compelling, there are shortcomings that come with it, which question whether it is legitimately realistic and feasible for nature to have human-like necessities. The moral rights of natural entities can be seen as a controversial and challenging topic because there is scepticism regarding granting legal rights to nature. If the prospect of enforcing environmental law on our nature is already met with scepticism, would that suggest that the process of establishing these laws was not entirely competent? According to an academic scholar, Visa A.J Kurki, who authored a journal called ‘Can Nature Hold Rights? It’s Not as Easy as You Think,’ stated that the process of conferring natural legal rights may not be as simple or efficient as initially envisioned because, for practical reasons, legal systems across the globe already encounter obstacles in attempting to handle the rights of natural entities suitably. Expressing his scepticism, Kurki features a quotation from the High Court of the State of Uttarakhand in his article, explaining how the ‘evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic person becomes inevitable.’ Nevertheless, the idea of entities being granted legal rights is unavoidable; it continues to be campaigned for and discussed for many years. Kurki also mentions the phrase “legal fiction” to show that legal personhood is a versatile concept and practical legal applications are set based on necessities and objectives. From an international and environmental perspective, Bolivia’s laws have been surrounded by debates regarding the effectiveness of protecting natural rights. Their president, Evo Morales, proposed to build a highway through the natural territories of Tipnis Park despite indigenous communities having shown their opposition. This means that Morales used legal fiction that devalued the idea of nature attaining the status of personhood in exchange for practical use and the prioritisation of economic development. Legal fiction and personhood can bring practicality that can fulfil legal goals, but it may not often coincide with the objective of a breathing, living person. This shows that it is not realistic for nature to be granted rights as there is a lack of further enforcement of the existing laws targeted at the environment.
As the High Court of Uttarakhand mentioned previously, there has been a ruling regarding the Yamuna and Ganges Rivers cases within the state government. The court views nature as “legal minors” and “conferred guardianship responsibilities.” While showing the increasing relevance of natural rights, this case can be uncertain. Nature’s dependence on legal rights can be perceived as a threat, which makes it less feasible to apply successful legislation on nature. If nature is constantly developed as a legal subject, this could mean that environmental law would be the primary focus and would shift away from public law, which is essential to acknowledge that there can be consequences that deprive attention and resources away from human-centred needs. In some cases, there are ‘bigger problems’ that need to be resolved swiftly, which means legal systems in other countries are unlikely to have sufficient time to handle non-human entities over human beings, emphasising that it can be absurd to focus on extending the rights of nature. One of the reasons for this is that third-world countries like India are currently facing socio-economic issues that are demanding urgent priority, such as poverty, followed by extreme environmental degradation and lack of accessibility to healthcare. This revolves around ethical considerations, such as debates between human-centric and ecocentric values. These arguments discuss the prioritisation of the well-being of humans (anthropocentrism) versus the inherent value of nature (ecocentrism). Divan and Rosecranz, who wrote the book ‘Environmental Law and Policy in India, stated that judges since the 1980s have not ‘resolved cases between the citizen and the state’ but have ‘shaped the contours of environmental policy.’ However, the environmental laws are still ‘largely ineffective.’ Because India’s legal and political frameworks are eco-oriented, they have overlooked the rights of citizens. Suppose human rights in India are not taken into legal consideration. In that case, those who lack basic needs will continue to use natural resources, causing continued deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution, making environmental laws ineffective and unrealistic. This perpetuates a cycle where both ecological and human rights are not adequately addressed. Ecocentrism does not always guarantee a positive light for natural entities to be granted legal rights.
Conclusion
Recognising the unavoidable reliance of mankind on natural resources is essential to evaluating the prospect of supplying rights to nature. Although some laws might not be passed, this concept is still possible considering its significance in politics and culture and the persistent worldwide discussion. Growing public awareness will likely end in more regulations protecting the environment. In conclusion, when evaluating the realism and the feasibility of granting rights to nature, it is crucial to first acknowledge that in human civilization, natural resources are automatically depending on whether if it is indirectly and directly, meaning that individuals would share the same value for secured environmental preservation, making legislation and habitat management inevitable to guarantee sustainable use of these resources for generations. Critically, although some legislations are infeasible, granting natural rights remains realistic as it holds immense cultural and political significance due to its global recognition and continuous discussion regarding the topic. As awareness progresses, the expansion of legal safeguarding for nature will become more transparent.
Reference (S):
Draft Policy Statement: Use of environmental offsets under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Richard B. Bradbury., Stuart H. M. Butchart, Brendan Fisher, Francine M. R. Hughes, Lisa Ingwall King,
Micheal A. MacDonald, Jennifer C. Merriman, Kevin Peh, Anne-Sophie Pellier, David H. L. Thomas Rosie
Trevelyan, “The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature’” (2021) ResearchGate
Dcceew.gov.au. (2022). The Reef Trust – DCCEEW. [online] Available at:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/great-barrier-reef/protecting/our-investments/reef-trust [Accessed 15 Jan. 2025].
Hugo Echeverria, “Rights of Nature: The Ecuadorian Case” (2017) Revista Esmat
Marianne Dahlén, Victoria Enkvist, Elin Boyer, “Liberalism and Rights of Nature: A Comparative and
Historical Perspective” (2022) Law, Culture, and The Humanities
Nicole Fabricant, Nancy Postero, “Performing Indigenity in Bolivia: The Struggle Oer the TIPNIS” (2018) JSTOR
Deepa Kansra, ‘Law and the Rights of the Non-Humans’ (2023) 8 Indian Institute of Legal Studies 58
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368691256>
Epstein S and others, ‘Liberalism and Rights of Nature: A Comparative Legal and Historical Perspective’
[2022] Law, Culture and the Humanities
Fabricant N and Postero N, ‘The Struggle over the TIPNIS’ (2018) 91 Anthropological Quarterly 905
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/48730506>
Fischer-Lescano A, ‘Nature as a Legal Person: Proxy Constellations in Law’ (2020) 32 Law & Literature 237
Gellers JC, ‘Earth System Law and the Legal Status of Non-Humans in the Anthropocene’ (2020) 7 Earth
System Governance 100083
Gilbert J and others, ‘Understanding the Rights of Nature: Working Together across and beyond Disciplines’ (2023) 51 Human Ecology
Kurki VAJ, ‘Can Nature Hold Rights? It’s Not as Easy as You Think’ (2022) 11 Transnational Environmental Law 525
Lewsey F, ‘Economic Benefits of Protecting Nature Now Outweigh Those of Exploiting It’ (University of
Cambridge8 March 2021) <https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/economicsofprotectingnature>
May A, ‘Realising Rights of Nature: Understanding the Variety of Legal Instruments’ (2023)
Meher S, ‘Does Poverty Cause Forest Degradation? Evidence from a Poor State in India’ [2022] Environment, Development and Sustainability
O’Donnell EL, ‘Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India’ (2018) 30 Journal of Environmental Law 135 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26501336>
Pietari K, ‘Ecuador’s Constitutional Rights of Nature: Implementation, Impacts, and Lessons Learned’ (Willamette.edu2025) <https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/welj/pdf/2016/2016-f-welj-pietari.pdf.> accessed 15 January 2025
Political Database of the Americas, ‘Ecuador: 2008 Constitution in English’ (pdba.georgetown.edu2008) <https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html>
‘Rights of Nature: A Catalyst for the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Agenda on Water |
Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ (sdgs.un.org)
<https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/rights-nature-catalyst-implementation-sustainable-development-agenda-water>
Sanchez-Lopez D, ‘Reshaping Notions of Citizenship: The TIPNIS Indigenous Movement in Bolivia’ (2015) 2
Development Studies Research 20
Squintani L, ‘Balancing Nature and Economic Interests in the European Union: On the Concept of Mitigation under the Habitats Directive’ (2019) 29 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 129
Sylvan JC, ‘How to Protect a Coral Reef: The Public Trust Doctrine and the Law of the Sea’ (2006) 7 Ocean & Fisheries Law
Zander L, ‘Legal Fictions’ (Lawandliterature.eu2022)
<https://lawandliterature.eu/index.php/en/content-en?view=article&id=42&catid=10> accessed 15 January 2025
