It is known as rights of Nature or Earth Rights, a legal and jurisprudential theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, similar to the concept of fundamental human rights. The concept of the rights of nature challenges 20th century law as it is generally based on a flawed framing of nature as a “resource” to be owned, used and degraded. Proponents argue that rights-of-nature laws direct humanity to act appropriately and consistently with modern systems-based science, demonstrating that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected.
This school of thought is based on two basic lines of reasoning. First, since the recognition of human rights is based in part on the philosophical belief that those rights emanate from the very existence of humanity, logically the inherent rights of the natural world also arise from the very existence of the natural world. A second, more pragmatic argument asserts that the survival of human beings depends on healthy ecosystems, and therefore the protection of the rights of nature, in turn, promotes human rights and well-being.
From a rights of nature perspective, most 20th century environmental laws are based on an outdated framework that views nature as composed of separate, independent parts, rather than components of a larger whole. A more significant criticism is that such laws tend to be subordinate to economic interests and aim to partially react to and mitigate economic-driven degradation, rather than placing the right to prosper as the primary objective of those laws. This critique of existing environmental laws is an important component of tactics such as climate change litigation that seek to force social action to mitigate climate change.
As of 2024, there were almost 500 rights of nature laws at local and national levels in 40 countries, taking the form of constitutional provisions, treaty agreements, statutes, local ordinances and judicial decisions.[1][2].
Basic principles
Rights of nature advocates argue that, just as human rights have increasingly been recognized in law, the rights of nature should be recognized and incorporated into human ethics and laws.[3] This claim is supported by two lines of reasoning: that the same ethics that justify human rights also justify the rights of nature, and that the survival of humans depends on healthy ecosystems.[4][5][6].
Sustainability Ordinance
Introduction
It is known as rights of Nature or Earth Rights, a legal and jurisprudential theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, similar to the concept of fundamental human rights. The concept of the rights of nature challenges 20th century law as it is generally based on a flawed framing of nature as a “resource” to be owned, used and degraded. Proponents argue that rights-of-nature laws direct humanity to act appropriately and consistently with modern systems-based science, demonstrating that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected.
This school of thought is based on two basic lines of reasoning. First, since the recognition of human rights is based in part on the philosophical belief that those rights emanate from the very existence of humanity, logically the inherent rights of the natural world also arise from the very existence of the natural world. A second, more pragmatic argument asserts that the survival of human beings depends on healthy ecosystems, and therefore the protection of the rights of nature, in turn, promotes human rights and well-being.
From a rights of nature perspective, most 20th century environmental laws are based on an outdated framework that views nature as composed of separate, independent parts, rather than components of a larger whole. A more significant criticism is that such laws tend to be subordinate to economic interests and aim to partially react to and mitigate economic-driven degradation, rather than placing the right to prosper as the primary objective of those laws. This critique of existing environmental laws is an important component of tactics such as climate change litigation that seek to force social action to mitigate climate change.
As of 2024, there were almost 500 rights of nature laws at local and national levels in 40 countries, taking the form of constitutional provisions, treaty agreements, statutes, local ordinances and judicial decisions.[1][2].
Basic principles
Rights of nature advocates argue that, just as human rights have increasingly been recognized in law, the rights of nature should be recognized and incorporated into human ethics and laws.[3] This claim is supported by two lines of reasoning: that the same ethics that justify human rights also justify the rights of nature, and that the survival of humans depends on healthy ecosystems.[4][5][6].
First, it is argued that if inherent human rights arise from human existence, then logically the inherent rights of the natural world arise from the very existence of the natural world.[7] Human rights and the associated duties to protect those rights have expanded over time.[5][8] In particular, the adoption in 1948 by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which formalized the recognition of broad categories of inalienable human rights. The drafters of the UDHR expressed their belief that the concept of fundamental human rights did not arise from "the decision of a worldly power, but from the fact of existing."[9] Some scholars have since argued that, since basic human rights emanate from the very existence of humans, the rights of nature similarly arise from the similar existence of nature, and therefore the legal systems of humans should continue to expand to recognize the rights of nature. nature.[3][4][10].
Some notable proponents of this approach include South African lawyer Cormac Cullinan"), Indian physicist and ecosocial advocate Vandana Shiva, Canadian law professor and UN special rapporteur for human rights and the environment David Boyd, and American cultural historian Thomas Berry"),[11][12][13][14] Berry introduced a concept of legal philosophy and ethics called Earth Jurisprudence which identifies the laws of the land as primary principles and reasons that everything by the fact of its existence, therefore, has an intrinsic right to be and evolve.[11][15] Earth Jurisprudence has been increasingly recognized and promoted around the world by legal scholars, the United Nations, legislators, philosophers, ecological economists and other experts as a basis for Earth-centered governance, including laws and economic systems that protect the fundamental rights of nature.[12].
Second, support for the rights of nature also rests on the utilitarian argument that humanity can only prosper in the long term if it accepts the integrated coexistence of humans with the natural world. Berry noted that the concept of human well-being derived from natural systems without a fundamental right to exist is inherently illogical, and that by protecting the rights of nature, humans promote their own self-interest.
The legal and philosophical concept of the rights of nature offers a shift from a framework of nature as property or resource, to nature as an interconnected partner of the terrestrial community. This school of thought aims to follow the same path that human rights movements have followed, where at first the recognition of the rights of the rightsless seemed "unthinkable", but then matured into a widely adopted worldview.[5].
Fundamentals and development
Criticism of anthropocentric legal systems
Advocates for a shift to a more environmentally protective legal system argue that current legal and economic systems fail because they view nature as fundamentally property, which can be degraded for profit and human desire. They point out that the view of nature as primarily an economic resource has already degraded some ecosystems and species so significantly that leading policy experts are now examining endangered species classification strategies to decide which species will be let go instead. to reexamine the economics that drive such degradation.[19][20] While centuries-old environmental laws provide some level of protection to the ecosystem and species, it is argued that such protections fail to halt, much less reverse, overall environmental deterioration, because nature is, by definition, subordinated to anthropogenic and economic interests rather than biocentric well-being.[3][21][22].
Rights of nature advocates argue that reconsidering current environmental laws from the rights of nature framework demonstrates the limitations of current legal systems. For example, the U.S. Endangered Species Act prioritizes protecting existing economic interests by activating only when species populations are headed toward extinction. In contrast, a "Healthy Species Act" would prioritize achieving thriving species populations and facilitate economic systems that drive species conservation.[20].
As another example, the 2000 European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive, "widely accepted as the most substantial and ambitious piece of European environmental legislation to date",[23] is based on a goal of "good status" for all EU waters, which includes consideration of necessary ecological flows.[24] However, decades after the adoption of the directive, despite scientific advances in identifying flow-ecology relationships, it does not There is no EU definition of ecological flow, nor a common understanding of how it should be calculated.[23][24] A rights of nature framework would recognize not only the existing human right to water to meet basic needs, but would also recognize the rights of waterways to clean, adequate and timely water flows, and define such basic ecological flow needs accordingly.[25].
Scientific and ethical foundations
Modern environmental laws began to emerge in the 1960s from a fundamental perspective of the environment as best managed in separate parts.[26] For example, American laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and many others began to be adopted in the early 1970s to address various elements of the natural world, independently of other elements. Some laws, such as the US National Environmental Policy Act, called for a more holistic analysis of proposed infrastructure projects and required disclosure of expected negative environmental impacts. However, it did not require that measures be taken to address those impacts to ensure the health of ecosystems and species.[20] These laws reflected the science of the time, which was based on a reductionist analysis of the natural world; The modern, systems-based understanding of the natural world and humans' integrated place with it was still developing. The first major text in ecological science that described the natural world as a system rather than a collection of different parts was not written until 1983. The Gaia Hypothesis, which offered a scientific view of the world as a complex self-regulating system, first emerged in the 1980s. 1970.[29] Similarly, systems dynamics began to evolve from a commercial approach to include socioeconomic and natural systems beginning in the 1970s.[30] Since then, scientific disciplines have been converging and advancing the concept that humans live in a dynamic, relational world that "denies the possibility of isolation."[27][31].
While science at the end of the century shifted to a systems-based perspective, describing natural systems and human populations as fundamentally interconnected on a shared planet,[16] environmental laws generally did not evolve with this shift. Thus, for example, the reductionist environmental laws of the United States passed in the early 1970s remained largely unchanged, and other domestic and international environmental law regimes similarly fell short of embracing modern systemic science.[3]
The linguist and scholar of the century Edward Payson Evans), considered one of the first theorists of the rights of nature and author of the first extensive statement of environmental ethics,[6] wrote that each human being is "truly a part and product of nature like any other animal" and that the "attempt to place him in an isolated point outside of it is philosophically false and morally pernicious."[6][32] For his part, Thomas Berry") proposed that the laws of society They should derive from the laws of nature, explaining that "the universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects." From the scientific perspective that all life emerged from the context of the universe, Berry offered the ethical perspective that it is wrong to view humans as the sole subjects of the universe, with all other beings simply a collection of objects for possession and use. Rather, considering life as a network of relationships tracing back to shared ancestry confers upon everyone subject status, including the inherent rights associated with that status. Laws based on recognition of the intrinsic moral value of the natural world create a new social moral compass that directs society's interactions with the natural world more effectively toward the well-being of all.[33].
Other scientists who wrote similarly in support of expanded human moral development and ethical obligation include naturalist John Muir and scientist and forester Aldo Leopold. The latter expressed that “[w]hen we see the earth as a community to which we belong,” rather than “an asset that belongs to us,” we can “begin to use it with love and respect.” Leopold offered implementation guidance for his position, stating that “something is good when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to the opposite."[6][8] Berry similarly observed that "everything that preserves and improves this prairie in the natural cycles of its transformation is good; what opposes this meadow or denies it is not good.
The result of scientific and ethical advances around natural systems and species is a proposed new framework for legal and governance systems, based on ethics and language that move behavior away from ecological and social practices that ignore or minimize the interconnections between humans and nature. Rather than a vision of mere sustainable development, which reflects a framework of nature maintained as an economic commodity, scholars who support the rights of nature suggest that society is beginning to consider visions such as "thriving communities", where communities include nature as a whole subject, rather than simply an object to be used.[36][37].
History
Common roots with worldviews of indigenous peoples
The ethical and philosophical foundation of the theory and legal movement of the rights of nature is a worldview of respect for nature, in contrast to the worldview of “domination of nature” that underlies the concept of nature as an object and property. Indigenous law professor John Borrows observed that "[w]ithin Indigenous legal traditions, creation stories...provide guidance on how to live with the world," rather than at odds with it.[38] A 2012 International Declaration of Indigenous Peoples found that modern laws destroy the earth because they do not respect the "natural order of Creation."[39] The Declaration observed that humans "have our place and our responsibilities within the sacred order of Creation." Creation” and we benefit from “sustaining joy as things happen in harmony with the Earth and all the life it creates and sustains.”[39].
The worldviews of indigenous peoples align and have accelerated the development of the rights of the law of nature. Thus, for example, Ecuador amended its Constitution in 2008 to recognize the rights of nature in light of the perceived need to better protect and respect Pachamama, a term that embodies both the physical and spiritual aspects of the natural world.[12] Bolivia similarly amended its 2009 Constitution and enacted rights of nature statutes to reflect traditional indigenous respect for Pachamama and a worldview of natural and human systems as part of a single family.[40].
New Zealand law professor Catherine Iorns Magallanes observed that traditional indigenous worldviews embody a connection with nature so deep that nature is considered a living ancestor. From this worldview arise the responsibilities to protect nature as if it were a member of the family, and the need for a legal structure that reflects a primary framework of responsibilities with the natural world as if it were our relative.[41].
Common roots with religions
Many of the world's other religious and spiritual traditions offer ideas consistent with the rights of nature worldview.[42] Eastern religious and philosophical traditions adopt a holistic conception of spirituality that includes the Earth. Chinese Taoism and Neo-Confucianism, as well as Japanese Buddhism, teach that the world is a dynamic force field of energies known as bussho (Buddha nature or qi), the material force that flows through humans, nature, and the universe. As the pioneering neo-Confucian philosopher of the 19th century, Zhang Zai, explained, "What extends throughout the universe I consider my body, and what directs the universe I consider my nature."[43] In both Hinduism and Buddhism, karma ("action" or "declaration" in Sanskrit) reflects the reality of humanity's networked interrelationships with the Earth and the universe.[16] Buddhist concepts of "codependent arising" They similarly maintain that all phenomena are intimately connected. The Indra web of Mahayana Buddhism symbolizes a universe of infinitely repeated mutual relationships, with nothing dominating.[16].
Western religious and philosophical traditions have recognized the context of the Earth and the universe while also providing spiritual guidance. From the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, ancient European societies venerated numerous female deities as incarnations of Mother Earth.[27] In ancient Greece, the earth goddess Gaea was worshiped as a supreme deity.[44] In the Philebus and Timaeus "Timaeus (dialogue)"), Plato stated that the "world is truly a living being endowed with soul and intelligence (...) a single visible living entity containing all other entities." living things, which by their nature are all related."[45][46] The medieval theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas later wrote about the place of humans, not at the center of being, but as a part of an integrated whole with the universe as a primary element, stating that "The order of the universe is the ultimate and noblest perfection in things."[4].
More recently, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Catholic Church, reflected that, “[o]belief to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness… than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is speaking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we are to survive."[47] His successor, Pope Francis "Francis (Pope)"), has been particularly eloquent on humanity's relationship with the Earth,[48][49] describing how humans must change their current actions in light of the fact that "there is a true 'right of the environment'."[50] He warned against humanity's current path, stating that "The deepest roots of our current failures" lie in the direction and meaning of economic growth and the general rule of a "deified market."[48][49][51].
The Qur'an, Islam's primary authority in all matters of individual and communal life, reflects that "the entire creation praises God for its own being."[52] Scholars describe the "ultimate purpose of Shari'ah" as "the universal common good, the well-being of all creation" and note that "not a single creature, present or future, can be excluded from consideration in deciding a course of action."[53]
Bringing together Western and indigenous traditions, Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke of Ubuntu ("Ubuntu (philosophy)"), an African ethical concept that roughly translates as "I am because you are," observing that:
Common roots with human rights
Human rights have developed over the centuries, the most notable consequence being the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations in 1948. Key to the development of those rights are the concepts of natural rights and human rights that emanate from the existence of humanity.[6] Roderick Fraser Nash, professor of history and environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, traced the history of species rights and the natural world to the launch of the concept of natural rights in the Magna Carta of the century that underlies contemporary rights discourse.[6] Peter Burdon, professor at the University of Adelaide Law School and scholar of Earth Jurisprudence, has expanded on Nash's analysis and offers that the transformative natural rights thesis of the century English philosopher and physician John Locke led to the Revolution of the Thirteen Colonies, through the concept that the British monarchy denied the colonists their rights. [56] Based on that concept, United States President, lawyer, and philosopher Thomas Jefferson argued that the "laws of nature and of nature's God" reveal "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal" in possession of "certain unalienable rights," particularly "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 later also recognized the "natural, inalienable and sacred rights of Man", adding that the "ultimate end of every political institution is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man".[6][56].
The expansion of rights continued to animals, with the 19th century English philosopher and legal theorist Jeremy Bentham stating that "the day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which could never have been denied them but by the hand of tyranny."[56][57] Century linguist and scholar Edward Payson Evans") observed that:
The 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations was another milestone, underpinned by the belief that fundamental human rights arise from the "fact of existence."[4][9] The rights of nature movement built on this belief, arguing that if "existence" is the defining condition of fundamental rights, this defining condition could not be limited to the rights of a single form of existence, and that all forms of existence should enjoy fundamental rights.[6] For example, Aldo Leopold's land ethic explicitly recognized the "right to the continued existence" of nature and sought to "change the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the terrestrial community to member and citizen of it."[8].
Nature rights advocates also maintain that from the abolition of slavery to the enfranchisement of women, the civil rights movement, and the recognition of other fundamental rights, societies have continued to expand rights in parallel with a growing acceptance of the inherent moral worth of potential new rights holders.[5] And, that this expansion of the circle of community must continue to grow to encompass the natural world,[8] a position that has seen increasing acceptance in the late and early 20th century. .[58][59].
Developments during the 20th and 21st centuries
The adoption of the UDHR in 1948 formalized the recognition of broad categories of inalienable human rights worldwide. These include the recognition that "[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", and that "[e]veryone is entitled to an effective remedy by competent national courts for acts that violate recognized fundamental rights". The recognition of fundamental rights in instruments such as the UDHR provided guidance to nations around the world, which have since developed constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, regulations and other bodies of law based on the UDHR and the human rights it establishes. Decades later, jurist Christopher Stone called for recognition of the legal position and associated rights of the natural world as well, in accordance with the "successive extension of rights" throughout history [5][64] As was done in the UDHR, Stone described the necessary elements of nature's participation in human legal systems, and described that such a legal system necessarily includes: the recognition of injuries "Injury (civil law)") as subject to reparation "Reparation (law)") by the public body, the ability to bring legal action (with guardians acting on behalf of the natural entity), calculated reparation for the natural entity's own damages, and reparation in benefit of the injured natural entity.[5].
In addition to Stone's legal work, other drivers of the late- and early-century rights of nature movement include indigenous perspectives and the work of the indigenous rights movement; primary";[4][68] the publication of Cormac Cullinan's book Wild Law in 2003, followed by the creation of an eponymous legal association in the United Kingdom;[3] the growing concern about corporate power through the expansion of the legal status of corporations;[4] the adoption by American communities of local laws addressing the rights of nature; the creation of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature in 2010 (a non-profit organization that promotes the rights of nature globally); and the growing global concern about the loss of species, the destruction of ecosystems and the existential threat of climate change.[69][70].
These and other factors supported the development of the 2010 Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDMT). 2009.[56][73] Just as the UN recognized that human rights arise from existence, the DUDMT found that the "rights inherent to Mother Earth are inalienable as they arise from the same source as existence." Like the UDHR, the DUDMT defends the rights-bearing entity (nature and its elements) from the excesses of governing authorities. These rights include, among others, the recognition that "Mother Earth and all beings that. It is composed of people who have… the right to life and to exist” as well as the “right to comprehensive health”. The DUDMT adds that "[e]ach being has the right to a place and to play its role on Mother Earth for its harmonious functioning."[74].
Legislation on the rights of nature
Contenido
A principios de la década de 2000 se produjo una expansión significativa de instrumentos legales acerca de los derechos de la naturaleza, en forma de disposiciones constitucionales, acuerdos de tratados, estatutos nacionales y subnacionales, leyes locales y decisiones judiciales.[59][80] En 2021, existían leyes sobre derechos de la naturaleza en 17 países,[81][82] en siete naciones tribales en los Estados Unidos y Canadá, y en docenas de ciudades y condados en los Estados Unidos.[83].
Treaties
The legal status of natural systems in New Zealand emerged alongside new attention paid to long-ignored treaties with Aboriginal Maori.[84] In August 2012, a treaty agreement signed with Maori iwi recognized the Whanganui River and its tributaries as a legal entity, an "indivisible and living whole" with its own status.[85][86] The Te Awa Tupua national law was established. enacted in March 2017 to further formalize this status.[41][83] Similarly, the Te Urewera forest treaty agreement recognized the legal personality of the forest in 2013,[41][87] whose status was formalized in law the following year. In 2017 a treaty agreement was signed with Māori that recognized Mount Taranaki as "a legal personality in its own right".[88] Each of these developments promoted the indigenous principle that ecosystems are living, spiritual beings with intrinsic value, incapable of being possessed in an absolute sense.[89]
At the constitutional level
In 2008, the people of Ecuador amended their Constitution to recognize the rights inherent to Pachamama. The new text emerged largely as a result of the cosmologies of the indigenous rights movement and actions to protect the Amazon, in line with the concept of sumak kawsay ("good living" in Spanish),[90] or encapsulating life in harmony with nature, considering the human being as part of the ecosystem.[91][92] Among other provisions, Article 71 establishes that "Nature or Pachamama, where life reproduces and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate their own life cycles, structure, functions and their evolutionary processes. people».[5][93][94].
Judicial decisions
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled on a case involving pollution and illegal development along the Turag River, an upper tributary of the Buriganga River. Among its findings, the court recognized the river as a living entity with legal rights and further held that the same would apply to all rivers in Bangladesh. The court ordered the National River Protection Commission to serve as the guardian of the Turag and other river courses. of the country.[95][96][97].
In a 2016 case, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the cleanup of the polluted Atrato River, explicitly adopting an ecocentric perspective by stating that nature is an "authentic subject of rights that must be recognized by the States and exercised under the tutelage of their legal representatives, that is, by the communities that inhabit it or that have a special relationship with it."[98] The court added that humans are "just one more event in a long chain." evolutionary process that has lasted for billions of years and therefore is in no way the owner of other species, of biodiversity or natural resources, nor of the destiny of the planet."[86][98][99].
In 2018, Colombia's Supreme Court took up a climate change case from a group of children and young adults that also raised fundamental rights issues. In addition to making legal determinations related to human rights, the court considered that the Colombian Amazon is a "subject of rights, with the right to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration." It recognized the special role of Amazon deforestation in creating greenhouse gas emissions in Colombia and, as a remedy, ordered the nation and its administrative agencies to ensure the cessation of all deforestation by 2020. Additionally, the court assigned enforcement power to the plaintiffs and affected communities, requiring the agencies to inform the communities and empowering them to inform the court if the agencies were not meeting their goals. deforestation.[100][101].
An important body of jurisprudence has been expanding in Ecuador to implement the nation's constitutional provisions in relation to the rights of nature. Examples include lawsuits in the areas of biodigester contamination, damaged flow in the Vilcabamba River, and hydroelectric power.[102][103].
As in Colombia, as of 2019 no statute or constitutional provision in India specifically identified the rights of nature. However, the Supreme Court of India in 2012 laid the groundwork for the cases that would come before it on the rights of nature, concluding that "environmental justice could be achieved only if we move away from the anthropocentric principle to an ecocentric one... humans are part of nature and the non-human has intrinsic value."[104]
The Supreme Court of the state of Uttarakhand applied the principle of ecocentric law in 2017, recognizing the legal personality of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers and ecosystems, and calling them "living human entities" and legal and moral persons.[86][105][106] The court quickly followed up with similar rulings for glaciers associated with the rivers, including the Gangotri and the Yamunotri, and other systems [107][108] Although the Supreme Court of India stayed the judgment regarding Ganges and Yamuna at the request of local authorities, those authorities supported the proposed legal status in concept, but sought guidance for implementation.[109].
National, subnational and local legislation
Following the adoption of the rights of nature language in its 2009 Constitution, in 2010 the Bolivian Legislature approved the Law on the Rights of Mother Earth. Bolivia followed this broad outline of the rights of nature with the Law of Mother Earth and Comprehensive Development for Living Well of 2012, which provided some implementation details consistent with the rights of nature. It notes in part that the "violation of the rights of Mother Earth, as part of comprehensive development for Living Well, is a violation of public law and of collective and individual rights."[110] While a step forward, this piece of enforcement has not yet risen to the level. of a specific enforcement mechanism.[111].
In Spain, the legal personality of the Mar Menor ecosystem has been recognized, the first in Europe. Said personality includes the following rights:[112].
At the local level, dozens of ordinances with rights of nature provisions have been passed as of 2019 throughout the United States and on tribal lands located within the boundaries of the United States.[83][113][114] Most were passed in reaction to a specific threat to local well-being, such as threats posed by hydraulic fracturing, groundwater extraction, gravel mining, and fossil fuel extraction. For example, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, passed an anti-fracking law that included the following provision to strengthen protections: "Natural communities and ecosystems... possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and thrive." The ordinance goes on to say that "residents...shall possess legal capacity to enforce those rights."[36][115][116].
Por su parte, los residentes de Santa Mónica, California, buscaron reconocer de manera proactiva los derechos de la naturaleza en la legislación local después de que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ampliara los derechos corporativos tras el caso Citizens United v. FEC. En 2013, el ayuntamiento de Santa Mónica adoptó una ordenanza sobre derechos de sostenibilidad, que reconoce los «derechos fundamentales e inalienables» de las «comunidades y ecosistemas naturales» en la ciudad para «existir y florecer». La ordenanza enfatizó que «[l]as entidades corporativas (...) no disfrutan de privilegios o poderes especiales bajo la ley que subordinen los derechos de la comunidad a sus intereses privados». Específicamente definió como «comunidades y ecosistemas naturales» a los «acuíferos subterráneos, sistemas atmosféricos, aguas marinas y especies nativas».[20] Santa Mónica actualizó su Plan de Ciudad Sostenible en 2014 para reforzar su compromiso codificado con los derechos de la naturaleza. En 2018, el ayuntamiento adoptó una ordenanza de gestión sostenible de las aguas subterráneas que hace referencia específica a los derechos inherentes del acuífero local a prosperar.[20].
Various state, regional and local laws and local constitutional provisions on the matter have been emerging in Mexico, including adoption in the constitutions of the Mexican states of Colima and Guerrero, and that of Mexico City.[13].
International organizations
Advances at the turn of the century in international soft law (quasi-legal instruments generally without legally binding force) have precipitated broader debates about the potential for integrating rights of nature into legal systems. The United Nations has held nine General Assembly dialogues called “Harmony with Nature” as of 2019 on Earth-centered systems and governance philosophies, including discussions on the rights of nature specifically.[118][119] The complementary UN Harmony with Nature initiative compiles the rights of nature laws globally and offers a UN “Knowledge Network” of Earth Jurisprudence professionals in all disciplines.[120] These UN Dialogues and the Harmony with Nature initiative can provide a basis for the development of a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature adopted by the United Nations which, like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could form the basis for rights-based laws around the world.[12].
In 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, the only international observer organization to the UN General Assembly with environmental expertise) adopted a resolution specifically calling for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature.[77] The IUCN reaffirmed its commitment to the rights of nature at its next meeting in 2016, where the body voted to incorporate the implementation of the rights of nature into the next four-year work plan of the IUCN. IUCN.[121] IUCN's subgroup of legal experts, the World Commission on Environmental Law, later issued an IUCN Global Declaration on the Rule of Environmental Law recognizing that "nature has the inherent right to exist, thrive and evolve."[122].
Related initiatives
The development of more robust and active transnational nature rights networks in the early 2000s is a likely cause of the increased adoption of the principles advocated in the law.[59] This has occurred in close integration with other rights initiatives and movements seeking to change the system, including: the development and implementation of new economic and financial models that seek to better reflect human rights and the rights of nature;[123][124][125] indigenous leadership to promote both the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of nature;[126][127] international social movements in pursuit of the human right to water;[7][128] advancement of practical solutions compatible with the rights of nature framework, such as rewilding;[129] and the development of capacities of the rights of nature movement through the development of global activist centers.[130].
To illustrate the implementation of rights of nature laws, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature has established International Rights of Nature Tribunals. These courts are a civil society initiative and issue non-binding recommendations. The courts bring together defenders of the rights of nature, human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples in a process similar to that of the Permanent People's Courts.[131] The goal of the courts is to provide formal public recognition, visibility and voice to people and natural systems injured by alleged violations of fundamental rights and marginalized in current legislation, and to offer a model of reparation for such injuries.[132][133][134].
As awareness of the rights of nature, law and jurisprudence has spread, a new field of academic research is developing, in which legal scholars and other scholars have begun to offer strategies and analyzes to encourage broader application of such laws, particularly in the face of the successes and challenges of early implementation.[102][135][136].
References
[1] ↑ Putzer, Alex; Lambooy, Tineke; Jeurissen, Ronald; Kim, Eunsu (13 de junio de 2022). «Putting the rights of nature on the map. A quantitative analysis of rights of nature initiatives across the world». Journal of Maps 0 (0): 1-8. doi:10.1080/17445647.2022.2079432. Consultado el 21 de julio de 2022.: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2079432
[2] ↑ Putzer, Alex; Cook, John; Pollock, Ben (31 de diciembre de 2025). doi:10.1080/17445647.2024.2440376 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445647.2024.2440376. Consultado el 6 de enero de 2025. Falta el |título= (ayuda).: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F17445647.2024.2440376
[3] ↑ a b c d e Cullinan, Cormac (2011). Wild law : a manifesto for Earth justice (2da. edición). Chelsea Green Pub. ISBN 978-1-60358-377-0. OCLC 707077427. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/707077427
[4] ↑ a b c d e f g h Berry, Thomas (1999). The great work : our way into the future (1ra. edición). Bell Tower. ISBN 0-609-60525-9. OCLC 41096236. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41096236
[5] ↑ a b c d e f g h Stone, Christopher D. (1996). Should trees have standing? : and other essays on law, morals, and the environment. Oceana Publications. ISBN 0-379-21381-8. OCLC 35558961. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35558961
[6] ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Nash, Roderick (1989). The rights of nature : a history of environmental ethics. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-11843-3. OCLC 44962029. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44962029
[7] ↑ a b Voigt, Christina (2013). Rule of law for nature : new dimensions and ideas in environmental law. ISBN 978-1-4619-5386-9. OCLC 864898780. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/864898780
[8] ↑ a b c d e Leopold, Aldo (1949). A Sand County Almanac, with Essays on Conservation from Round River. UK: Oxford University Press.
[9] ↑ a b Santa Cruz, Hernán (19 de febrero de 2020). «Universal Declaration of Human Rights - History of the Document». Naciones Unidas. Archivado desde el original el 19 de febrero de 2020. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022. «Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, member of the drafting sub-Committee, wrote:
[10] ↑ Shiva, Vandana (2015). Earth democracy : justice, sustainability, and peace. ISBN 978-1-62317-041-7. OCLC 911594103. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/911594103
[12] ↑ a b c d e Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. «Harmony with Nature: Note by the Secretary General A/71/266». www.un.org. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/266
[13] ↑ a b c Boyd, David R. (2017). The rights of nature : a legal revolution that could save the world. ISBN 978-1-77041-239-2. OCLC 973292649. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/973292649
[15] ↑ a b c Berry, Thomas (2006). Evening thoughts: reflecting on earth as a sacred community. (1ra. edición). ISBN 1-61902-531-0. OCLC 892163330. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/892163330
[16] ↑ a b c d Thiele, Leslie Paul (2011). Indra's net and the Midas touch : living sustainably in a connected world. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-29885-8. OCLC 750174237. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/750174237
[18] ↑ Bookchin, Murray (1987). «Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement». Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, Nos. 4–5. (en inglés). Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://libcom.org/library/social-versus-deep-ecology-bookchin
[19] ↑ Hanak, Ellen (2011). Managing California's water : from conflict to reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California. ISBN 978-1-58213-141-2. OCLC 701493298. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/701493298
[21] ↑ a b Biggs, Shannon et al. (2017). «Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: Rights-based law for Systemic Change». Movement Rights, Women's Earth & Climate Action Network, Indigenous Environmental Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.movementrights.org/resources/RONME-RightsBasedLaw-final.pdf
[23] ↑ a b Voulvoulis, Nikolaos; Arpon, Karl Dominic; Giakoumis, Theodoros (2017-01). «The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation». Science of The Total Environment (en inglés) 575: 358-366. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896971632157X
[24] ↑ a b Ramos, V. et al (2017). «Ecological flows and the Water Framework Directive implementation: An effective coevolution?». European Water 60: 423-432. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2017_60_58.pdf
[26] ↑ Udall, Stewart L. (1988). The quiet crisis and the next generation (1st pbk. ed edición). Gibbs Smith. ISBN 0-87905-334-8. OCLC 26235941. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26235941
[27] ↑ a b c d Capra, Fritjof (1996). The web of life : a new scientific understanding of living systems (1st Anchor books ed edición). Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-47675-2. OCLC 34513628. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/34513628
[28] ↑ Odum, Howard T. (1983). Systems ecology : an introduction. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-65277-6. OCLC 8476144. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8476144
[30] ↑ Meadows, Donella H.; Meadows, Dennis L.; Randers, Jørgen; Behrens, William; Club of Rome; Potomac Associates (1974). The limits to growth : a report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind (Second edition edición). ISBN 0-87663-165-0. OCLC 2745197. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2745197
[31] ↑ Tribe, Laurence H. (1989-11). «The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics». Harvard Law Review 103 (1): 1. doi:10.2307/1341407. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341407?origin=crossref
[32] ↑ a b The Library of Congress, Edward Payson (1897). Evolutional ethics and animal psychology. New York, D. Appleton and company. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://archive.org/details/evolutionalethic00evan
[33] ↑ Koons, Judith (1 de junio de 2008). «Earth Jurisprudence: The Moral Value of Nature». Pace Environmental Law Review 25 (2): 263. ISSN 0738-6206. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol25/iss2/1
[34] ↑ Berry, Thomas (1999). The great work : our way into the future (1st ed edición). Bell Tower. ISBN 0-609-60525-9. OCLC 41096236. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41096236
[35] ↑ Lemke, Antje Bultmann (2009). Out of my life and thought: an autobiography. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9412-1. OCLC 320194163. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/320194163
[37] ↑ Garver, Geoffrey (2009). Right relationship : building a whole earth economy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57675-855-7. OCLC 309145435. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/309145435
[38] ↑ Borrows, John (2010). Canada's indigenous constitution. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-8645-8. OCLC 757587850. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/757587850
[41] ↑ a b c Magallanes, Catherine Iorns; Sheehan, Linda (2017). Reframing rights and responsibilities to prioritize nature (en inglés). Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 70-96. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/17515_4.html
[42] ↑ Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2014). Ecology and religion. p. 2014. ISBN 978-1-61091-235-8. OCLC 869281808. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/869281808
[43] ↑ Tucker, Mary Evelyn (1991). «The Relevance of Chinese Neo-Confucianism for the Reverence of Nature». Environmental History Review (en inglés) 15 (2): 55-69. ISSN 1053-4180. doi:10.2307/3984970. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/3984970
[44] ↑ Spretnak, Charlene (1992). Lost goddesses of early Greece : a collection of pre-Hellenic myths : with a new preface. Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-1343-9. OCLC 24702069. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24702069
[45] ↑ Harding, Stephan (2006). Animate earth : science, intuition and Gaia. Chelsea Green Pub. Co. ISBN 1-933392-29-0. OCLC 73499083. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/73499083
[53] ↑ Lieweliyn, Othman Abd ar-Rahman (1984). Islamic Jurisprudence and Environmental Planning (en inglés) (ID 3127477). Social Science Research Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3127477
[59] ↑ a b c Kauffmann, Craig M. (2020). «Mapping Transnational Rights of Nature Networks & Laws: New Global Governance Structures for More Sustainable Development». Harmony with Nature, Naciones Unidas. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload924.pdf
[60] ↑ a b Sheehan, Linda; Grant, Wilson (2015). «Fighting for Our Shared Future: Protecting Both Human Rights and Nature's Rights». Earth Law Center. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022. - [http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/568588a6d82d5eb432696ac2/1451591846095/Fighting+for+Our+Shared+Future+-+ELC+(Full+Page+Read)+-+Updated+12_29.pdf](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/568588a6d82d5eb432696ac2/1451591846095/Fighting+for+Our+Shared+Future+-+ELC+(Full+Page+Read)+-+Updated+12_29.pdf)
[62] ↑ Anthony, Carl (2017). The earth, the city, and the hidden narrative of race (First edition edición). ISBN 978-1-61332-022-8. OCLC 995630356. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/995630356
[63] ↑ Baderin, Mashood A.; Ssenyonjo, Manisuli (2010). International human rights law : six decades after the UDHR and beyond. Ashgate Pub. ISBN 978-1-4094-0359-3. OCLC 691852945. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/691852945
[65] ↑ Boff, Leonardo (2011). Ecología: grito de la tierra, grito de los pobres (5ta. edición). Trotta. ISBN 978-84-9879-232-4. OCLC 796329052. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/796329052
[66] ↑ Naess, Arne (1973-01). «The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary∗». Inquiry (en inglés) 16 (1-4): 95-100. ISSN 0020-174X. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00201747308601682
[67] ↑ Sessions, George (1985). Deep ecology. G.M. Smith. ISBN 0-87905-158-2. OCLC 11030397. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/11030397
[74] ↑ a b c d «Rights of Mother Earth». World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (en inglés). 4 de enero de 2010. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://pwccc.wordpress.com/programa/
[79] ↑ Cano Pecharroman, Lidia (14 de febrero de 2018). «Rights of Nature: Rivers That Can Stand in Court». Resources (en inglés) 7 (1): 13. ISSN 2079-9276. doi:10.3390/resources7010013. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/1/13
[80] ↑ Chapron, Guillaume; Epstein, Yaffa; López-Bao, José Vicente (29 de marzo de 2019). «A rights revolution for nature». Science (en inglés). doi:10.1126/science.aav5601. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aav5601
[83] ↑ a b c Turner, Stephen J.; Shelton, Dinah L.; Razzaque, Jona; McIntyre, Owen; May, James R. (2019). Environmental rights : the development of standards. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-108-66465-2. OCLC 1103220227. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1103220227
[84] ↑ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (2019). «How Courts Are Developing River Rights Jurisprudence: Comparing Guardianship in New Zealand, Colombia, and India». Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 20 (3). Archivado desde el original el 29 de septiembre de 2020. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://web.archive.org/web/20200929155618/http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2020/04/VJEL_20_3.pdf
[87] ↑ Takacs, David (4 de junio de 2020). We Are The River (en inglés) (ID 3619265). Social Science Research Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3619265
[89] ↑ «New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism». UNEP (en inglés). 12 de octubre de 2017. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.unep.org/sw/node/10714
[92] ↑ Pacari, N. (2009) Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indígenas. En Acosta, A. y Esperanza, M. (compiladores) Derechos de la Naturaleza. El futuro es ahora. Quito:Abya Yala.
[94] ↑ Tanasescu, Mihnea (2013-12). «The rights of nature in Ecuador: the making of an idea». International Journal of Environmental Studies (en inglés) 70 (6): 846-861. ISSN 0020-7233. doi:10.1080/00207233.2013.845715. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715
[102] ↑ a b Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (2017-04). «Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail». World Development (en inglés) 92: 130-142. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X16305496
[104] ↑ Corte Suprema de la India (13 de febrero de 2012). «T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors». Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187293069/
[106] ↑ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (4 de abril de 2018). «When Rivers Have Rights: Case Comparisons of New Zealand, Colombia, and India». International Studies Association Annual Conference. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload585.pdf
[108] ↑ O'Donnell, Erin L.; Talbot-Jones, Julia (2018). «Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India». Ecology and Society (en inglés) 23 (1): art7. ISSN 1708-3087. doi:10.5751/ES-09854-230107. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art7/
[111] ↑ Nachmany, Michal, et al. (2014). «The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change Legislation in 66 Countries». GLOBE International and the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics. (4ta. edición). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Globe2014.pdf
[112] ↑ Jefatura del Estado (3 de octubre de 2022), Ley 19/2022, de 30 de septiembre, para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica a la laguna del Mar Menor y su cuenca (Ley 19/2022), pp. 135131-135135, consultado el 6 de septiembre de 2024 .: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2022-16019
[113] ↑ «Cities, Tribes Try a New Environmental Approach: Give Nature Rights». pew.org (en inglés). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://pew.org/2pYynyb
[116] ↑ Tanasescu, Mihnea (2015). Environment, political representation and the challenge of rights : speaking for nature. ISBN 978-1-137-53895-6. OCLC 919440822. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/919440822
[119] ↑ «The Role of Nature's Rights in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals». Interactive Dialogue of the United Nations General Assembly on Harmony with Nature. 21 de abril de 2017. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload651.pdf
[123] ↑ Kelly, Marjorie (2003). The divine right of capital : dethroning the corporate aristocracy (1st ed edición). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60994-545-9. OCLC 83613121. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83613121
[124] ↑ McKibben, Bill (2007). Deep economy : the wealth of communities and the durable future (1st ed edición). Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-7626-3. OCLC 71812887. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71812887
[125] ↑ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics : seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. ISBN 978-1-60358-674-0. OCLC 961205457. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/961205457
[128] ↑ Barlow, Maude (2019). Whose water is it, anyway? : taking water protection into public hands. ISBN 978-1-77041-430-3. OCLC 1089906808. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1089906808
[129] ↑ Monbiot, George (2013). Feral : searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. ISBN 978-1-84614-748-7. OCLC 844312136. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/844312136
[132] ↑ Cullinan, Cormac (19 de enero de 2015). «A Tribunal for Earth: Why it matters - Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN)» (en inglés estadounidense). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.garn.org/a-tribunal-for-earth-why-it-matters/
[134] ↑ Sikkink, Kathryn; Kim, Hun Joon (3 de noviembre de 2013). «The Justice Cascade: The Origins and Effectiveness of Prosecutions of Human Rights Violations». Annual Review of Law and Social Science (en inglés) 9 (1): 269-285. ISSN 1550-3585. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133956. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133956
[136] ↑ Binjaku, Xhulo; Dixit, Milap (2019). Other equators : measures for an international tribunal for the Rights of Nature. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122518
First, it is argued that if inherent human rights arise from human existence, then logically the inherent rights of the natural world arise from the very existence of the natural world.[7] Human rights and the associated duties to protect those rights have expanded over time.[5][8] In particular, the adoption in 1948 by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which formalized the recognition of broad categories of inalienable human rights. The drafters of the UDHR expressed their belief that the concept of fundamental human rights did not arise from "the decision of a worldly power, but from the fact of existing."[9] Some scholars have since argued that, since basic human rights emanate from the very existence of humans, the rights of nature similarly arise from the similar existence of nature, and therefore the legal systems of humans should continue to expand to recognize the rights of nature. nature.[3][4][10].
Some notable proponents of this approach include South African lawyer Cormac Cullinan"), Indian physicist and ecosocial advocate Vandana Shiva, Canadian law professor and UN special rapporteur for human rights and the environment David Boyd, and American cultural historian Thomas Berry"),[11][12][13][14] Berry introduced a concept of legal philosophy and ethics called Earth Jurisprudence which identifies the laws of the land as primary principles and reasons that everything by the fact of its existence, therefore, has an intrinsic right to be and evolve.[11][15] Earth Jurisprudence has been increasingly recognized and promoted around the world by legal scholars, the United Nations, legislators, philosophers, ecological economists and other experts as a basis for Earth-centered governance, including laws and economic systems that protect the fundamental rights of nature.[12].
Second, support for the rights of nature also rests on the utilitarian argument that humanity can only prosper in the long term if it accepts the integrated coexistence of humans with the natural world. Berry noted that the concept of human well-being derived from natural systems without a fundamental right to exist is inherently illogical, and that by protecting the rights of nature, humans promote their own self-interest.
The legal and philosophical concept of the rights of nature offers a shift from a framework of nature as property or resource, to nature as an interconnected partner of the terrestrial community. This school of thought aims to follow the same path that human rights movements have followed, where at first the recognition of the rights of the rightsless seemed "unthinkable", but then matured into a widely adopted worldview.[5].
Fundamentals and development
Criticism of anthropocentric legal systems
Advocates for a shift to a more environmentally protective legal system argue that current legal and economic systems fail because they view nature as fundamentally property, which can be degraded for profit and human desire. They point out that the view of nature as primarily an economic resource has already degraded some ecosystems and species so significantly that leading policy experts are now examining endangered species classification strategies to decide which species will be let go instead. to reexamine the economics that drive such degradation.[19][20] While centuries-old environmental laws provide some level of protection to the ecosystem and species, it is argued that such protections fail to halt, much less reverse, overall environmental deterioration, because nature is, by definition, subordinated to anthropogenic and economic interests rather than biocentric well-being.[3][21][22].
Rights of nature advocates argue that reconsidering current environmental laws from the rights of nature framework demonstrates the limitations of current legal systems. For example, the U.S. Endangered Species Act prioritizes protecting existing economic interests by activating only when species populations are headed toward extinction. In contrast, a "Healthy Species Act" would prioritize achieving thriving species populations and facilitate economic systems that drive species conservation.[20].
As another example, the 2000 European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive, "widely accepted as the most substantial and ambitious piece of European environmental legislation to date",[23] is based on a goal of "good status" for all EU waters, which includes consideration of necessary ecological flows.[24] However, decades after the adoption of the directive, despite scientific advances in identifying flow-ecology relationships, it does not There is no EU definition of ecological flow, nor a common understanding of how it should be calculated.[23][24] A rights of nature framework would recognize not only the existing human right to water to meet basic needs, but would also recognize the rights of waterways to clean, adequate and timely water flows, and define such basic ecological flow needs accordingly.[25].
Scientific and ethical foundations
Modern environmental laws began to emerge in the 1960s from a fundamental perspective of the environment as best managed in separate parts.[26] For example, American laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and many others began to be adopted in the early 1970s to address various elements of the natural world, independently of other elements. Some laws, such as the US National Environmental Policy Act, called for a more holistic analysis of proposed infrastructure projects and required disclosure of expected negative environmental impacts. However, it did not require that measures be taken to address those impacts to ensure the health of ecosystems and species.[20] These laws reflected the science of the time, which was based on a reductionist analysis of the natural world; The modern, systems-based understanding of the natural world and humans' integrated place with it was still developing. The first major text in ecological science that described the natural world as a system rather than a collection of different parts was not written until 1983. The Gaia Hypothesis, which offered a scientific view of the world as a complex self-regulating system, first emerged in the 1980s. 1970.[29] Similarly, systems dynamics began to evolve from a commercial approach to include socioeconomic and natural systems beginning in the 1970s.[30] Since then, scientific disciplines have been converging and advancing the concept that humans live in a dynamic, relational world that "denies the possibility of isolation."[27][31].
While science at the end of the century shifted to a systems-based perspective, describing natural systems and human populations as fundamentally interconnected on a shared planet,[16] environmental laws generally did not evolve with this shift. Thus, for example, the reductionist environmental laws of the United States passed in the early 1970s remained largely unchanged, and other domestic and international environmental law regimes similarly fell short of embracing modern systemic science.[3]
The linguist and scholar of the century Edward Payson Evans), considered one of the first theorists of the rights of nature and author of the first extensive statement of environmental ethics,[6] wrote that each human being is "truly a part and product of nature like any other animal" and that the "attempt to place him in an isolated point outside of it is philosophically false and morally pernicious."[6][32] For his part, Thomas Berry") proposed that the laws of society They should derive from the laws of nature, explaining that "the universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects." From the scientific perspective that all life emerged from the context of the universe, Berry offered the ethical perspective that it is wrong to view humans as the sole subjects of the universe, with all other beings simply a collection of objects for possession and use. Rather, considering life as a network of relationships tracing back to shared ancestry confers upon everyone subject status, including the inherent rights associated with that status. Laws based on recognition of the intrinsic moral value of the natural world create a new social moral compass that directs society's interactions with the natural world more effectively toward the well-being of all.[33].
Other scientists who wrote similarly in support of expanded human moral development and ethical obligation include naturalist John Muir and scientist and forester Aldo Leopold. The latter expressed that “[w]hen we see the earth as a community to which we belong,” rather than “an asset that belongs to us,” we can “begin to use it with love and respect.” Leopold offered implementation guidance for his position, stating that “something is good when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to the opposite."[6][8] Berry similarly observed that "everything that preserves and improves this prairie in the natural cycles of its transformation is good; what opposes this meadow or denies it is not good.
The result of scientific and ethical advances around natural systems and species is a proposed new framework for legal and governance systems, based on ethics and language that move behavior away from ecological and social practices that ignore or minimize the interconnections between humans and nature. Rather than a vision of mere sustainable development, which reflects a framework of nature maintained as an economic commodity, scholars who support the rights of nature suggest that society is beginning to consider visions such as "thriving communities", where communities include nature as a whole subject, rather than simply an object to be used.[36][37].
History
Common roots with worldviews of indigenous peoples
The ethical and philosophical foundation of the theory and legal movement of the rights of nature is a worldview of respect for nature, in contrast to the worldview of “domination of nature” that underlies the concept of nature as an object and property. Indigenous law professor John Borrows observed that "[w]ithin Indigenous legal traditions, creation stories...provide guidance on how to live with the world," rather than at odds with it.[38] A 2012 International Declaration of Indigenous Peoples found that modern laws destroy the earth because they do not respect the "natural order of Creation."[39] The Declaration observed that humans "have our place and our responsibilities within the sacred order of Creation." Creation” and we benefit from “sustaining joy as things happen in harmony with the Earth and all the life it creates and sustains.”[39].
The worldviews of indigenous peoples align and have accelerated the development of the rights of the law of nature. Thus, for example, Ecuador amended its Constitution in 2008 to recognize the rights of nature in light of the perceived need to better protect and respect Pachamama, a term that embodies both the physical and spiritual aspects of the natural world.[12] Bolivia similarly amended its 2009 Constitution and enacted rights of nature statutes to reflect traditional indigenous respect for Pachamama and a worldview of natural and human systems as part of a single family.[40].
New Zealand law professor Catherine Iorns Magallanes observed that traditional indigenous worldviews embody a connection with nature so deep that nature is considered a living ancestor. From this worldview arise the responsibilities to protect nature as if it were a member of the family, and the need for a legal structure that reflects a primary framework of responsibilities with the natural world as if it were our relative.[41].
Common roots with religions
Many of the world's other religious and spiritual traditions offer ideas consistent with the rights of nature worldview.[42] Eastern religious and philosophical traditions adopt a holistic conception of spirituality that includes the Earth. Chinese Taoism and Neo-Confucianism, as well as Japanese Buddhism, teach that the world is a dynamic force field of energies known as bussho (Buddha nature or qi), the material force that flows through humans, nature, and the universe. As the pioneering neo-Confucian philosopher of the 19th century, Zhang Zai, explained, "What extends throughout the universe I consider my body, and what directs the universe I consider my nature."[43] In both Hinduism and Buddhism, karma ("action" or "declaration" in Sanskrit) reflects the reality of humanity's networked interrelationships with the Earth and the universe.[16] Buddhist concepts of "codependent arising" They similarly maintain that all phenomena are intimately connected. The Indra web of Mahayana Buddhism symbolizes a universe of infinitely repeated mutual relationships, with nothing dominating.[16].
Western religious and philosophical traditions have recognized the context of the Earth and the universe while also providing spiritual guidance. From the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, ancient European societies venerated numerous female deities as incarnations of Mother Earth.[27] In ancient Greece, the earth goddess Gaea was worshiped as a supreme deity.[44] In the Philebus and Timaeus "Timaeus (dialogue)"), Plato stated that the "world is truly a living being endowed with soul and intelligence (...) a single visible living entity containing all other entities." living things, which by their nature are all related."[45][46] The medieval theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas later wrote about the place of humans, not at the center of being, but as a part of an integrated whole with the universe as a primary element, stating that "The order of the universe is the ultimate and noblest perfection in things."[4].
More recently, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Catholic Church, reflected that, “[o]belief to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness… than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is speaking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we are to survive."[47] His successor, Pope Francis "Francis (Pope)"), has been particularly eloquent on humanity's relationship with the Earth,[48][49] describing how humans must change their current actions in light of the fact that "there is a true 'right of the environment'."[50] He warned against humanity's current path, stating that "The deepest roots of our current failures" lie in the direction and meaning of economic growth and the general rule of a "deified market."[48][49][51].
The Qur'an, Islam's primary authority in all matters of individual and communal life, reflects that "the entire creation praises God for its own being."[52] Scholars describe the "ultimate purpose of Shari'ah" as "the universal common good, the well-being of all creation" and note that "not a single creature, present or future, can be excluded from consideration in deciding a course of action."[53]
Bringing together Western and indigenous traditions, Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke of Ubuntu ("Ubuntu (philosophy)"), an African ethical concept that roughly translates as "I am because you are," observing that:
Common roots with human rights
Human rights have developed over the centuries, the most notable consequence being the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations in 1948. Key to the development of those rights are the concepts of natural rights and human rights that emanate from the existence of humanity.[6] Roderick Fraser Nash, professor of history and environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, traced the history of species rights and the natural world to the launch of the concept of natural rights in the Magna Carta of the century that underlies contemporary rights discourse.[6] Peter Burdon, professor at the University of Adelaide Law School and scholar of Earth Jurisprudence, has expanded on Nash's analysis and offers that the transformative natural rights thesis of the century English philosopher and physician John Locke led to the Revolution of the Thirteen Colonies, through the concept that the British monarchy denied the colonists their rights. [56] Based on that concept, United States President, lawyer, and philosopher Thomas Jefferson argued that the "laws of nature and of nature's God" reveal "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal" in possession of "certain unalienable rights," particularly "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 later also recognized the "natural, inalienable and sacred rights of Man", adding that the "ultimate end of every political institution is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man".[6][56].
The expansion of rights continued to animals, with the 19th century English philosopher and legal theorist Jeremy Bentham stating that "the day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which could never have been denied them but by the hand of tyranny."[56][57] Century linguist and scholar Edward Payson Evans") observed that:
The 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations was another milestone, underpinned by the belief that fundamental human rights arise from the "fact of existence."[4][9] The rights of nature movement built on this belief, arguing that if "existence" is the defining condition of fundamental rights, this defining condition could not be limited to the rights of a single form of existence, and that all forms of existence should enjoy fundamental rights.[6] For example, Aldo Leopold's land ethic explicitly recognized the "right to the continued existence" of nature and sought to "change the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the terrestrial community to member and citizen of it."[8].
Nature rights advocates also maintain that from the abolition of slavery to the enfranchisement of women, the civil rights movement, and the recognition of other fundamental rights, societies have continued to expand rights in parallel with a growing acceptance of the inherent moral worth of potential new rights holders.[5] And, that this expansion of the circle of community must continue to grow to encompass the natural world,[8] a position that has seen increasing acceptance in the late and early 20th century. .[58][59].
Developments during the 20th and 21st centuries
The adoption of the UDHR in 1948 formalized the recognition of broad categories of inalienable human rights worldwide. These include the recognition that "[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", and that "[e]veryone is entitled to an effective remedy by competent national courts for acts that violate recognized fundamental rights". The recognition of fundamental rights in instruments such as the UDHR provided guidance to nations around the world, which have since developed constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, regulations and other bodies of law based on the UDHR and the human rights it establishes. Decades later, jurist Christopher Stone called for recognition of the legal position and associated rights of the natural world as well, in accordance with the "successive extension of rights" throughout history [5][64] As was done in the UDHR, Stone described the necessary elements of nature's participation in human legal systems, and described that such a legal system necessarily includes: the recognition of injuries "Injury (civil law)") as subject to reparation "Reparation (law)") by the public body, the ability to bring legal action (with guardians acting on behalf of the natural entity), calculated reparation for the natural entity's own damages, and reparation in benefit of the injured natural entity.[5].
In addition to Stone's legal work, other drivers of the late- and early-century rights of nature movement include indigenous perspectives and the work of the indigenous rights movement; primary";[4][68] the publication of Cormac Cullinan's book Wild Law in 2003, followed by the creation of an eponymous legal association in the United Kingdom;[3] the growing concern about corporate power through the expansion of the legal status of corporations;[4] the adoption by American communities of local laws addressing the rights of nature; the creation of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature in 2010 (a non-profit organization that promotes the rights of nature globally); and the growing global concern about the loss of species, the destruction of ecosystems and the existential threat of climate change.[69][70].
These and other factors supported the development of the 2010 Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDMT). 2009.[56][73] Just as the UN recognized that human rights arise from existence, the DUDMT found that the "rights inherent to Mother Earth are inalienable as they arise from the same source as existence." Like the UDHR, the DUDMT defends the rights-bearing entity (nature and its elements) from the excesses of governing authorities. These rights include, among others, the recognition that "Mother Earth and all beings that. It is composed of people who have… the right to life and to exist” as well as the “right to comprehensive health”. The DUDMT adds that "[e]ach being has the right to a place and to play its role on Mother Earth for its harmonious functioning."[74].
Legislation on the rights of nature
Contenido
A principios de la década de 2000 se produjo una expansión significativa de instrumentos legales acerca de los derechos de la naturaleza, en forma de disposiciones constitucionales, acuerdos de tratados, estatutos nacionales y subnacionales, leyes locales y decisiones judiciales.[59][80] En 2021, existían leyes sobre derechos de la naturaleza en 17 países,[81][82] en siete naciones tribales en los Estados Unidos y Canadá, y en docenas de ciudades y condados en los Estados Unidos.[83].
Treaties
The legal status of natural systems in New Zealand emerged alongside new attention paid to long-ignored treaties with Aboriginal Maori.[84] In August 2012, a treaty agreement signed with Maori iwi recognized the Whanganui River and its tributaries as a legal entity, an "indivisible and living whole" with its own status.[85][86] The Te Awa Tupua national law was established. enacted in March 2017 to further formalize this status.[41][83] Similarly, the Te Urewera forest treaty agreement recognized the legal personality of the forest in 2013,[41][87] whose status was formalized in law the following year. In 2017 a treaty agreement was signed with Māori that recognized Mount Taranaki as "a legal personality in its own right".[88] Each of these developments promoted the indigenous principle that ecosystems are living, spiritual beings with intrinsic value, incapable of being possessed in an absolute sense.[89]
At the constitutional level
In 2008, the people of Ecuador amended their Constitution to recognize the rights inherent to Pachamama. The new text emerged largely as a result of the cosmologies of the indigenous rights movement and actions to protect the Amazon, in line with the concept of sumak kawsay ("good living" in Spanish),[90] or encapsulating life in harmony with nature, considering the human being as part of the ecosystem.[91][92] Among other provisions, Article 71 establishes that "Nature or Pachamama, where life reproduces and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate their own life cycles, structure, functions and their evolutionary processes. people».[5][93][94].
Judicial decisions
In 2019, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled on a case involving pollution and illegal development along the Turag River, an upper tributary of the Buriganga River. Among its findings, the court recognized the river as a living entity with legal rights and further held that the same would apply to all rivers in Bangladesh. The court ordered the National River Protection Commission to serve as the guardian of the Turag and other river courses. of the country.[95][96][97].
In a 2016 case, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the cleanup of the polluted Atrato River, explicitly adopting an ecocentric perspective by stating that nature is an "authentic subject of rights that must be recognized by the States and exercised under the tutelage of their legal representatives, that is, by the communities that inhabit it or that have a special relationship with it."[98] The court added that humans are "just one more event in a long chain." evolutionary process that has lasted for billions of years and therefore is in no way the owner of other species, of biodiversity or natural resources, nor of the destiny of the planet."[86][98][99].
In 2018, Colombia's Supreme Court took up a climate change case from a group of children and young adults that also raised fundamental rights issues. In addition to making legal determinations related to human rights, the court considered that the Colombian Amazon is a "subject of rights, with the right to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration." It recognized the special role of Amazon deforestation in creating greenhouse gas emissions in Colombia and, as a remedy, ordered the nation and its administrative agencies to ensure the cessation of all deforestation by 2020. Additionally, the court assigned enforcement power to the plaintiffs and affected communities, requiring the agencies to inform the communities and empowering them to inform the court if the agencies were not meeting their goals. deforestation.[100][101].
An important body of jurisprudence has been expanding in Ecuador to implement the nation's constitutional provisions in relation to the rights of nature. Examples include lawsuits in the areas of biodigester contamination, damaged flow in the Vilcabamba River, and hydroelectric power.[102][103].
As in Colombia, as of 2019 no statute or constitutional provision in India specifically identified the rights of nature. However, the Supreme Court of India in 2012 laid the groundwork for the cases that would come before it on the rights of nature, concluding that "environmental justice could be achieved only if we move away from the anthropocentric principle to an ecocentric one... humans are part of nature and the non-human has intrinsic value."[104]
The Supreme Court of the state of Uttarakhand applied the principle of ecocentric law in 2017, recognizing the legal personality of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers and ecosystems, and calling them "living human entities" and legal and moral persons.[86][105][106] The court quickly followed up with similar rulings for glaciers associated with the rivers, including the Gangotri and the Yamunotri, and other systems [107][108] Although the Supreme Court of India stayed the judgment regarding Ganges and Yamuna at the request of local authorities, those authorities supported the proposed legal status in concept, but sought guidance for implementation.[109].
National, subnational and local legislation
Following the adoption of the rights of nature language in its 2009 Constitution, in 2010 the Bolivian Legislature approved the Law on the Rights of Mother Earth. Bolivia followed this broad outline of the rights of nature with the Law of Mother Earth and Comprehensive Development for Living Well of 2012, which provided some implementation details consistent with the rights of nature. It notes in part that the "violation of the rights of Mother Earth, as part of comprehensive development for Living Well, is a violation of public law and of collective and individual rights."[110] While a step forward, this piece of enforcement has not yet risen to the level. of a specific enforcement mechanism.[111].
In Spain, the legal personality of the Mar Menor ecosystem has been recognized, the first in Europe. Said personality includes the following rights:[112].
At the local level, dozens of ordinances with rights of nature provisions have been passed as of 2019 throughout the United States and on tribal lands located within the boundaries of the United States.[83][113][114] Most were passed in reaction to a specific threat to local well-being, such as threats posed by hydraulic fracturing, groundwater extraction, gravel mining, and fossil fuel extraction. For example, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, passed an anti-fracking law that included the following provision to strengthen protections: "Natural communities and ecosystems... possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and thrive." The ordinance goes on to say that "residents...shall possess legal capacity to enforce those rights."[36][115][116].
Por su parte, los residentes de Santa Mónica, California, buscaron reconocer de manera proactiva los derechos de la naturaleza en la legislación local después de que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ampliara los derechos corporativos tras el caso Citizens United v. FEC. En 2013, el ayuntamiento de Santa Mónica adoptó una ordenanza sobre derechos de sostenibilidad, que reconoce los «derechos fundamentales e inalienables» de las «comunidades y ecosistemas naturales» en la ciudad para «existir y florecer». La ordenanza enfatizó que «[l]as entidades corporativas (...) no disfrutan de privilegios o poderes especiales bajo la ley que subordinen los derechos de la comunidad a sus intereses privados». Específicamente definió como «comunidades y ecosistemas naturales» a los «acuíferos subterráneos, sistemas atmosféricos, aguas marinas y especies nativas».[20] Santa Mónica actualizó su Plan de Ciudad Sostenible en 2014 para reforzar su compromiso codificado con los derechos de la naturaleza. En 2018, el ayuntamiento adoptó una ordenanza de gestión sostenible de las aguas subterráneas que hace referencia específica a los derechos inherentes del acuífero local a prosperar.[20].
Various state, regional and local laws and local constitutional provisions on the matter have been emerging in Mexico, including adoption in the constitutions of the Mexican states of Colima and Guerrero, and that of Mexico City.[13].
International organizations
Advances at the turn of the century in international soft law (quasi-legal instruments generally without legally binding force) have precipitated broader debates about the potential for integrating rights of nature into legal systems. The United Nations has held nine General Assembly dialogues called “Harmony with Nature” as of 2019 on Earth-centered systems and governance philosophies, including discussions on the rights of nature specifically.[118][119] The complementary UN Harmony with Nature initiative compiles the rights of nature laws globally and offers a UN “Knowledge Network” of Earth Jurisprudence professionals in all disciplines.[120] These UN Dialogues and the Harmony with Nature initiative can provide a basis for the development of a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature adopted by the United Nations which, like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could form the basis for rights-based laws around the world.[12].
In 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, the only international observer organization to the UN General Assembly with environmental expertise) adopted a resolution specifically calling for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature.[77] The IUCN reaffirmed its commitment to the rights of nature at its next meeting in 2016, where the body voted to incorporate the implementation of the rights of nature into the next four-year work plan of the IUCN. IUCN.[121] IUCN's subgroup of legal experts, the World Commission on Environmental Law, later issued an IUCN Global Declaration on the Rule of Environmental Law recognizing that "nature has the inherent right to exist, thrive and evolve."[122].
Related initiatives
The development of more robust and active transnational nature rights networks in the early 2000s is a likely cause of the increased adoption of the principles advocated in the law.[59] This has occurred in close integration with other rights initiatives and movements seeking to change the system, including: the development and implementation of new economic and financial models that seek to better reflect human rights and the rights of nature;[123][124][125] indigenous leadership to promote both the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of nature;[126][127] international social movements in pursuit of the human right to water;[7][128] advancement of practical solutions compatible with the rights of nature framework, such as rewilding;[129] and the development of capacities of the rights of nature movement through the development of global activist centers.[130].
To illustrate the implementation of rights of nature laws, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature has established International Rights of Nature Tribunals. These courts are a civil society initiative and issue non-binding recommendations. The courts bring together defenders of the rights of nature, human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples in a process similar to that of the Permanent People's Courts.[131] The goal of the courts is to provide formal public recognition, visibility and voice to people and natural systems injured by alleged violations of fundamental rights and marginalized in current legislation, and to offer a model of reparation for such injuries.[132][133][134].
As awareness of the rights of nature, law and jurisprudence has spread, a new field of academic research is developing, in which legal scholars and other scholars have begun to offer strategies and analyzes to encourage broader application of such laws, particularly in the face of the successes and challenges of early implementation.[102][135][136].
References
[1] ↑ Putzer, Alex; Lambooy, Tineke; Jeurissen, Ronald; Kim, Eunsu (13 de junio de 2022). «Putting the rights of nature on the map. A quantitative analysis of rights of nature initiatives across the world». Journal of Maps 0 (0): 1-8. doi:10.1080/17445647.2022.2079432. Consultado el 21 de julio de 2022.: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2079432
[2] ↑ Putzer, Alex; Cook, John; Pollock, Ben (31 de diciembre de 2025). doi:10.1080/17445647.2024.2440376 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445647.2024.2440376. Consultado el 6 de enero de 2025. Falta el |título= (ayuda).: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F17445647.2024.2440376
[3] ↑ a b c d e Cullinan, Cormac (2011). Wild law : a manifesto for Earth justice (2da. edición). Chelsea Green Pub. ISBN 978-1-60358-377-0. OCLC 707077427. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/707077427
[4] ↑ a b c d e f g h Berry, Thomas (1999). The great work : our way into the future (1ra. edición). Bell Tower. ISBN 0-609-60525-9. OCLC 41096236. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41096236
[5] ↑ a b c d e f g h Stone, Christopher D. (1996). Should trees have standing? : and other essays on law, morals, and the environment. Oceana Publications. ISBN 0-379-21381-8. OCLC 35558961. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35558961
[6] ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Nash, Roderick (1989). The rights of nature : a history of environmental ethics. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-11843-3. OCLC 44962029. Consultado el 3 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44962029
[7] ↑ a b Voigt, Christina (2013). Rule of law for nature : new dimensions and ideas in environmental law. ISBN 978-1-4619-5386-9. OCLC 864898780. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/864898780
[8] ↑ a b c d e Leopold, Aldo (1949). A Sand County Almanac, with Essays on Conservation from Round River. UK: Oxford University Press.
[9] ↑ a b Santa Cruz, Hernán (19 de febrero de 2020). «Universal Declaration of Human Rights - History of the Document». Naciones Unidas. Archivado desde el original el 19 de febrero de 2020. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022. «Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, member of the drafting sub-Committee, wrote:
[10] ↑ Shiva, Vandana (2015). Earth democracy : justice, sustainability, and peace. ISBN 978-1-62317-041-7. OCLC 911594103. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/911594103
[12] ↑ a b c d e Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. «Harmony with Nature: Note by the Secretary General A/71/266». www.un.org. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/266
[13] ↑ a b c Boyd, David R. (2017). The rights of nature : a legal revolution that could save the world. ISBN 978-1-77041-239-2. OCLC 973292649. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/973292649
[15] ↑ a b c Berry, Thomas (2006). Evening thoughts: reflecting on earth as a sacred community. (1ra. edición). ISBN 1-61902-531-0. OCLC 892163330. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/892163330
[16] ↑ a b c d Thiele, Leslie Paul (2011). Indra's net and the Midas touch : living sustainably in a connected world. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-29885-8. OCLC 750174237. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/750174237
[18] ↑ Bookchin, Murray (1987). «Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement». Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, Nos. 4–5. (en inglés). Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://libcom.org/library/social-versus-deep-ecology-bookchin
[19] ↑ Hanak, Ellen (2011). Managing California's water : from conflict to reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California. ISBN 978-1-58213-141-2. OCLC 701493298. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/701493298
[21] ↑ a b Biggs, Shannon et al. (2017). «Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: Rights-based law for Systemic Change». Movement Rights, Women's Earth & Climate Action Network, Indigenous Environmental Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.movementrights.org/resources/RONME-RightsBasedLaw-final.pdf
[23] ↑ a b Voulvoulis, Nikolaos; Arpon, Karl Dominic; Giakoumis, Theodoros (2017-01). «The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation». Science of The Total Environment (en inglés) 575: 358-366. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896971632157X
[24] ↑ a b Ramos, V. et al (2017). «Ecological flows and the Water Framework Directive implementation: An effective coevolution?». European Water 60: 423-432. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2017_60_58.pdf
[26] ↑ Udall, Stewart L. (1988). The quiet crisis and the next generation (1st pbk. ed edición). Gibbs Smith. ISBN 0-87905-334-8. OCLC 26235941. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26235941
[27] ↑ a b c d Capra, Fritjof (1996). The web of life : a new scientific understanding of living systems (1st Anchor books ed edición). Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-47675-2. OCLC 34513628. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/34513628
[28] ↑ Odum, Howard T. (1983). Systems ecology : an introduction. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-65277-6. OCLC 8476144. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8476144
[30] ↑ Meadows, Donella H.; Meadows, Dennis L.; Randers, Jørgen; Behrens, William; Club of Rome; Potomac Associates (1974). The limits to growth : a report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind (Second edition edición). ISBN 0-87663-165-0. OCLC 2745197. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2745197
[31] ↑ Tribe, Laurence H. (1989-11). «The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics». Harvard Law Review 103 (1): 1. doi:10.2307/1341407. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341407?origin=crossref
[32] ↑ a b The Library of Congress, Edward Payson (1897). Evolutional ethics and animal psychology. New York, D. Appleton and company. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://archive.org/details/evolutionalethic00evan
[33] ↑ Koons, Judith (1 de junio de 2008). «Earth Jurisprudence: The Moral Value of Nature». Pace Environmental Law Review 25 (2): 263. ISSN 0738-6206. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol25/iss2/1
[34] ↑ Berry, Thomas (1999). The great work : our way into the future (1st ed edición). Bell Tower. ISBN 0-609-60525-9. OCLC 41096236. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41096236
[35] ↑ Lemke, Antje Bultmann (2009). Out of my life and thought: an autobiography. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9412-1. OCLC 320194163. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/320194163
[37] ↑ Garver, Geoffrey (2009). Right relationship : building a whole earth economy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57675-855-7. OCLC 309145435. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/309145435
[38] ↑ Borrows, John (2010). Canada's indigenous constitution. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-8645-8. OCLC 757587850. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/757587850
[41] ↑ a b c Magallanes, Catherine Iorns; Sheehan, Linda (2017). Reframing rights and responsibilities to prioritize nature (en inglés). Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 70-96. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/17515_4.html
[42] ↑ Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2014). Ecology and religion. p. 2014. ISBN 978-1-61091-235-8. OCLC 869281808. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/869281808
[43] ↑ Tucker, Mary Evelyn (1991). «The Relevance of Chinese Neo-Confucianism for the Reverence of Nature». Environmental History Review (en inglés) 15 (2): 55-69. ISSN 1053-4180. doi:10.2307/3984970. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/3984970
[44] ↑ Spretnak, Charlene (1992). Lost goddesses of early Greece : a collection of pre-Hellenic myths : with a new preface. Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-1343-9. OCLC 24702069. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24702069
[45] ↑ Harding, Stephan (2006). Animate earth : science, intuition and Gaia. Chelsea Green Pub. Co. ISBN 1-933392-29-0. OCLC 73499083. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/73499083
[53] ↑ Lieweliyn, Othman Abd ar-Rahman (1984). Islamic Jurisprudence and Environmental Planning (en inglés) (ID 3127477). Social Science Research Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3127477
[59] ↑ a b c Kauffmann, Craig M. (2020). «Mapping Transnational Rights of Nature Networks & Laws: New Global Governance Structures for More Sustainable Development». Harmony with Nature, Naciones Unidas. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload924.pdf
[60] ↑ a b Sheehan, Linda; Grant, Wilson (2015). «Fighting for Our Shared Future: Protecting Both Human Rights and Nature's Rights». Earth Law Center. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022. - [http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/568588a6d82d5eb432696ac2/1451591846095/Fighting+for+Our+Shared+Future+-+ELC+(Full+Page+Read)+-+Updated+12_29.pdf](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/568588a6d82d5eb432696ac2/1451591846095/Fighting+for+Our+Shared+Future+-+ELC+(Full+Page+Read)+-+Updated+12_29.pdf)
[62] ↑ Anthony, Carl (2017). The earth, the city, and the hidden narrative of race (First edition edición). ISBN 978-1-61332-022-8. OCLC 995630356. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/995630356
[63] ↑ Baderin, Mashood A.; Ssenyonjo, Manisuli (2010). International human rights law : six decades after the UDHR and beyond. Ashgate Pub. ISBN 978-1-4094-0359-3. OCLC 691852945. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/691852945
[65] ↑ Boff, Leonardo (2011). Ecología: grito de la tierra, grito de los pobres (5ta. edición). Trotta. ISBN 978-84-9879-232-4. OCLC 796329052. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/796329052
[66] ↑ Naess, Arne (1973-01). «The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary∗». Inquiry (en inglés) 16 (1-4): 95-100. ISSN 0020-174X. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00201747308601682
[67] ↑ Sessions, George (1985). Deep ecology. G.M. Smith. ISBN 0-87905-158-2. OCLC 11030397. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/11030397
[74] ↑ a b c d «Rights of Mother Earth». World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (en inglés). 4 de enero de 2010. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://pwccc.wordpress.com/programa/
[79] ↑ Cano Pecharroman, Lidia (14 de febrero de 2018). «Rights of Nature: Rivers That Can Stand in Court». Resources (en inglés) 7 (1): 13. ISSN 2079-9276. doi:10.3390/resources7010013. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/1/13
[80] ↑ Chapron, Guillaume; Epstein, Yaffa; López-Bao, José Vicente (29 de marzo de 2019). «A rights revolution for nature». Science (en inglés). doi:10.1126/science.aav5601. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aav5601
[83] ↑ a b c Turner, Stephen J.; Shelton, Dinah L.; Razzaque, Jona; McIntyre, Owen; May, James R. (2019). Environmental rights : the development of standards. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-108-66465-2. OCLC 1103220227. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1103220227
[84] ↑ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (2019). «How Courts Are Developing River Rights Jurisprudence: Comparing Guardianship in New Zealand, Colombia, and India». Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 20 (3). Archivado desde el original el 29 de septiembre de 2020. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://web.archive.org/web/20200929155618/http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2020/04/VJEL_20_3.pdf
[87] ↑ Takacs, David (4 de junio de 2020). We Are The River (en inglés) (ID 3619265). Social Science Research Network. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3619265
[89] ↑ «New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism». UNEP (en inglés). 12 de octubre de 2017. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.unep.org/sw/node/10714
[92] ↑ Pacari, N. (2009) Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indígenas. En Acosta, A. y Esperanza, M. (compiladores) Derechos de la Naturaleza. El futuro es ahora. Quito:Abya Yala.
[94] ↑ Tanasescu, Mihnea (2013-12). «The rights of nature in Ecuador: the making of an idea». International Journal of Environmental Studies (en inglés) 70 (6): 846-861. ISSN 0020-7233. doi:10.1080/00207233.2013.845715. Consultado el 4 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715
[102] ↑ a b Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (2017-04). «Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail». World Development (en inglés) 92: 130-142. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X16305496
[104] ↑ Corte Suprema de la India (13 de febrero de 2012). «T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors». Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187293069/
[106] ↑ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (4 de abril de 2018). «When Rivers Have Rights: Case Comparisons of New Zealand, Colombia, and India». International Studies Association Annual Conference. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload585.pdf
[108] ↑ O'Donnell, Erin L.; Talbot-Jones, Julia (2018). «Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India». Ecology and Society (en inglés) 23 (1): art7. ISSN 1708-3087. doi:10.5751/ES-09854-230107. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art7/
[111] ↑ Nachmany, Michal, et al. (2014). «The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change Legislation in 66 Countries». GLOBE International and the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics. (4ta. edición). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Globe2014.pdf
[112] ↑ Jefatura del Estado (3 de octubre de 2022), Ley 19/2022, de 30 de septiembre, para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica a la laguna del Mar Menor y su cuenca (Ley 19/2022), pp. 135131-135135, consultado el 6 de septiembre de 2024 .: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2022-16019
[113] ↑ «Cities, Tribes Try a New Environmental Approach: Give Nature Rights». pew.org (en inglés). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://pew.org/2pYynyb
[116] ↑ Tanasescu, Mihnea (2015). Environment, political representation and the challenge of rights : speaking for nature. ISBN 978-1-137-53895-6. OCLC 919440822. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/919440822
[119] ↑ «The Role of Nature's Rights in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals». Interactive Dialogue of the United Nations General Assembly on Harmony with Nature. 21 de abril de 2017. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload651.pdf
[123] ↑ Kelly, Marjorie (2003). The divine right of capital : dethroning the corporate aristocracy (1st ed edición). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60994-545-9. OCLC 83613121. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83613121
[124] ↑ McKibben, Bill (2007). Deep economy : the wealth of communities and the durable future (1st ed edición). Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-7626-3. OCLC 71812887. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71812887
[125] ↑ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics : seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. ISBN 978-1-60358-674-0. OCLC 961205457. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/961205457
[128] ↑ Barlow, Maude (2019). Whose water is it, anyway? : taking water protection into public hands. ISBN 978-1-77041-430-3. OCLC 1089906808. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1089906808
[129] ↑ Monbiot, George (2013). Feral : searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. ISBN 978-1-84614-748-7. OCLC 844312136. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/844312136
[132] ↑ Cullinan, Cormac (19 de enero de 2015). «A Tribunal for Earth: Why it matters - Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN)» (en inglés estadounidense). Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.garn.org/a-tribunal-for-earth-why-it-matters/
[134] ↑ Sikkink, Kathryn; Kim, Hun Joon (3 de noviembre de 2013). «The Justice Cascade: The Origins and Effectiveness of Prosecutions of Human Rights Violations». Annual Review of Law and Social Science (en inglés) 9 (1): 269-285. ISSN 1550-3585. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133956. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133956
[136] ↑ Binjaku, Xhulo; Dixit, Milap (2019). Other equators : measures for an international tribunal for the Rights of Nature. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Consultado el 7 de febrero de 2022.: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122518
Proponents suggest that rights derived from existence in nature do not confer human rights on all beings, but rather confer unique rights on different types of beings. Thomas Berry theorized that rights “are species-specific and limited”; that is, “rivers have rights to rivers,” “birds have rights to birds,” and “humans have human rights.” In his opinion, the difference is "qualitative, not quantitative."[5][15].
Expanding on this point, the common ethical and moral foundation of human rights and the rights of nature gives rise to the concept of "co-violations" of rights, defined as a "situation in which governments, industries or others violate both the rights of nature and human rights, including indigenous rights, with the same action." to 1992 resulted in an epidemic of congenital diseases, miscarriages and approximately 1,400 cancer deaths, which were particularly devastating for indigenous communities. These operations further caused more than one million acres of deforestation and contaminated local waterways with 18 billion gallons of toxic and polluting wastewater, severely damaging a previously pristine rainforest of extraordinary biodiversity.[60][61] Claiming that the same human actions that created such impacts violated the fundamental rights of both people and natural systems, it is argued that ethical and legal theories that recognize both sets of rights will better guide human behavior to recognize and respect the interconnected relationships of humans with each other and with the natural world.[62].
Just as the rights protected by the UDHR are enforceable by the right to an effective remedy by competent national courts,[75] so the DUDMT specifically requires that human beings and their institutions "recognize and promote the full implementation and fulfillment of the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration."[74] The DUDMT addresses enforcement by requiring that "harms caused by human violations of inherent rights" be "rectified",[74] with those responsible "must respond".[73] In addition, it calls on States to "empower human beings and institutions to defend the rights of Mother Earth and all beings".[12][74].
Bolivian President Evo Morales urged then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to make UN adoption of the DUDMT a priority.[76] While that recommendation has yet to be addressed, the DUDMT has since served to inform other international and national efforts, such as a 2012 resolution by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposing a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature.[77] Mainstreaming the Rights of Nature was adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii in 2016.[72][78][79].
Part 1, Section 4 of the Uganda National Environment Act 2019 addresses the Rights of Nature and states in part that “Nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its life cycles, structure, functions and evolving processes.” Advocates who had sought the inclusion of such language noted that "Ugandans' right to a healthy environment cannot be realized unless the health of nature itself is protected," and that the adoption of the language reflected "recent gains for the growing African movement for Earth jurisprudence."[117]
Proponents suggest that rights derived from existence in nature do not confer human rights on all beings, but rather confer unique rights on different types of beings. Thomas Berry theorized that rights “are species-specific and limited”; that is, “rivers have rights to rivers,” “birds have rights to birds,” and “humans have human rights.” In his opinion, the difference is "qualitative, not quantitative."[5][15].
Expanding on this point, the common ethical and moral foundation of human rights and the rights of nature gives rise to the concept of "co-violations" of rights, defined as a "situation in which governments, industries or others violate both the rights of nature and human rights, including indigenous rights, with the same action." to 1992 resulted in an epidemic of congenital diseases, miscarriages and approximately 1,400 cancer deaths, which were particularly devastating for indigenous communities. These operations further caused more than one million acres of deforestation and contaminated local waterways with 18 billion gallons of toxic and polluting wastewater, severely damaging a previously pristine rainforest of extraordinary biodiversity.[60][61] Claiming that the same human actions that created such impacts violated the fundamental rights of both people and natural systems, it is argued that ethical and legal theories that recognize both sets of rights will better guide human behavior to recognize and respect the interconnected relationships of humans with each other and with the natural world.[62].
Just as the rights protected by the UDHR are enforceable by the right to an effective remedy by competent national courts,[75] so the DUDMT specifically requires that human beings and their institutions "recognize and promote the full implementation and fulfillment of the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration."[74] The DUDMT addresses enforcement by requiring that "harms caused by human violations of inherent rights" be "rectified",[74] with those responsible "must respond".[73] In addition, it calls on States to "empower human beings and institutions to defend the rights of Mother Earth and all beings".[12][74].
Bolivian President Evo Morales urged then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to make UN adoption of the DUDMT a priority.[76] While that recommendation has yet to be addressed, the DUDMT has since served to inform other international and national efforts, such as a 2012 resolution by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposing a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature.[77] Mainstreaming the Rights of Nature was adopted at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii in 2016.[72][78][79].
Part 1, Section 4 of the Uganda National Environment Act 2019 addresses the Rights of Nature and states in part that “Nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its life cycles, structure, functions and evolving processes.” Advocates who had sought the inclusion of such language noted that "Ugandans' right to a healthy environment cannot be realized unless the health of nature itself is protected," and that the adoption of the language reflected "recent gains for the growing African movement for Earth jurisprudence."[117]