Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Manifestation of the Nature Rights Movement in Domestic Legal ‎Systems and Judicial Practices

Document Type : Article

Authors

Fatemeh Irannezhadparizi 1
Mehriar Dashab 2

1 PhD. Student in Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i ‎University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law and Public International Law, Faculty of Law and ‎Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.368555.3435
Abstract
As of May 2023, more than 180 provisions declared in constitutional and ordinary laws, regulatory policies, and court rulings in over 30 countries have recognized the rights of nature or the legal personality of nature. A general look at the experiences of these countries shows that although the way of institutionalizing an ecosystem-centered approach aligns with the normative beliefs of Earth jurisprudence, they provide different answers to key normative questions, such as which components of nature have rights, which rights should be recognized, and who can represent nature, advocate for it, or initiate legal actions on its behalf. In this regard, a comparison of the different methods adopted in five countries—Ecuador, Bolivia, the United States, New Zealand, and Colombia—reveals that the diversity of domestic legal systems and the political, social, and cultural structures of each of these countries has inspired two main models for moving towards ecosystem-centered norms. Nevertheless, in some cases, the definition or scope of rights in both models remains relatively ambiguous, which can, in turn, challenge the effective protection of these rights in practice.

Keywords

rights of nature
earth ‎jurisprudence
earth law
‎rights of mother earth
‎legal personality of nature
‎domestic legal systems.‎

  1. - انگلیسی

    1. Books
    2. Abate, R. (2020). Climate Change and the Voiceless: Protecting Future Generations, Wildlife, and Natural Resources. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Berry, T. (1999). The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York, Bell Tower.
    4. Boyd, D. R. (2017). The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World. Toronto, ECW Press.
    5. Burdon, P. ed. (2012b). Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. Kent Town, S. Aust., Wakefield Press.
    6. Corrigan, D. P., & Markku Oksanen, eds. (2021) Rights of Nature: A Re-Examination. New York, Routledge.
    7. Cullinan, C. (2011). Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. New York, UIT Cambridge Ltd.
    8. Graham, N. (2011). Lawscape: Property, Environment, Law. New York, Routledge.
    9. Kauffman, C. M., & Pamela, Martin (2021). The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.
    10. La Follette, C., & Chris Maser, eds. (2019). Sustainability and the Rights of Nature in Practice. Boca Raton, CRC Press.
    11. La Follette, C., & Chris Maser (2017). Sustainability and the Rights of Nature: An Introduction. Social-Environmental Sustainability Series. Boca Raton, CRC Press.
    12. Zelle, A. R., Grant Wilson, Rachelle Adam, and Herman F. Greene, eds. (2021). Earth Law: Emerging Ecocentric Law: A Practitioner’s Guide. Aspen Coursebook Series. New York, Wolters Kluwer.

     

    1. Articles
    2. Beitl, C. M. (2016). The Changing Legal and Institutional Context for Recognizing Nature’s Rights in Ecuador: Mangroves, Fisheries, Farmed Shrimp, and Coastal Management Since 1980. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 19(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2016.1248688.
    3. Burdon, P. (2012a). Earth Jurisprudence and the Murray-Darling: The Future of a River. Alternative Law Journal, 37(2), 82–85.
    4. Burdon, P. (2012c). A Theory of Earth Jurisprudence. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, (37), 28–60.
    5. Hamilton, T. (January 18, 2023). Speculative Constitutions in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Hainish Cycle and the Rights of Nature. Law & Literature, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685X.2022.2157102.
    6. Jaiven, K. N. King (2014). A Proposed Reconciliation of Stakeholder Interests in the GE Soybean Industry and Role of Earth Jurisprudence Principles. Florida A & M University Law Review, 10(1), 139–174. Available at: https://commons.law.famu.edu/famulawreview/vol10/iss1/5
    7. Kauffman, C. M., & Pamela L. Martin (2017). Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail. World Development, (92), 130–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017.
    8. Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L (2018). Constructing Rights of Nature Norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand. Global Environmental Politics, 18(4), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00481.
    9. Krämer, L. (2020). Rights of Nature and Their Implementation. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 17(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701005.
    10. Loder, R. E. (2018). Asteroid Mining: Ecological Jurisprudence Beyond Earth. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 36(3), 275–317.
    11. Macpherson, E., Axel Borchgrevink, Rahul Ranjan, and Catalina Vallejo Piedrahíta (2021). Where Ordinary Laws Fall Short: ‘Riverine Rights’ and Constitutionalism. Griffith Law Review, 30(3), 438–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1982119.
    12. Macpherson, E., Julia Torres Ventura, and Felipe Clavijo Ospina (2020). Constitutional Law, Ecosystems, and Indigenous Peoples in Colombia: Biocultural Rights and Legal Subjects. Transnational Environmental Law, 9(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710252000014X.
    13. Richardson, W., & Camila Bustos (2023). “Implementing Nature’s Rights in Colombia: The Atrato and Amazon Experiences. Revista Derecho Del Estado, (54), 227–75. https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n54.08.
    14. Villavicencio Calzadilla, P. (2019). A Paradigm Shift in Courts’ View on Nature: The Atrato River and Amazon Basin Cases Colombia. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 15(1), 1–11. Available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/19001.pdf
    15. Whittemore, M. E. (2011). The Problem of Enforcing Nature’s Rights under Ecuador’s Constitution: Why the 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite | IWRM Action Hub. https://iwrmactionhub.org/resource/problem-enforcing-natures-rights-under-ecuadors-constitution-why-2008-environmental.
    16. Castro-Nunez, A., Mertz O., Buritica A., Sosa C. C., and Lee S. T. (2017). Land Related Grievances Shape Tropical Forest-Cover in Areas Affected by Armed Conflict. Applied Geography. 85, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.11.001
    17. Yessenia Funes (Apr. 9, 2018). The Colombian Amazon is Now a Person, and You Can Thank Actual People, Earther. https://earther.com/the-colombian-amazon-is-now-a-person-and-youcan-thank-1825059357. [Accessed 1 December 2022]

     

    1. Essays in Book
    2. Berry, T. (2012). Rights of The Earth: We Need a New Legal Framework Which Recognises the Rights of All Living Beings. in: Burdon, Peter (ed.), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence,Kent Town, S. Aust.,Wakefield Press, pp. 227–229.
    3. Finlayson, C. (2019). A River Is Born: New Zealand Confers Legal Personhood on the Whanganui River to Protect It and Its Native People. in: La Follette, Cameron, and Chris Maser (eds.), Sustainability and the Rights of Nature in Practice, Boca Raton, CRC Press, 259–278.

     

    1. Instruments
    2. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008).
    3. Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well (Law 300 of the Plurinational State of Bolivia), October 2012.
    4. Law 071-Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (2010), Bolivia.
    5. Ordinance No. 2421, (City Council Series), An Ordinance of the City Council of Santa Monica Establishing Sustainability Rights (2013).
    6. Packer Township Local Control, Sewage Sludge and Chemical Trespass Ordinance (2010).
    7. Resolution Establishing Rights of Manoomin (2018).
    8. Tamaqua Borough, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania Ordinance No. 612 (2006).
    9. Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act (2017).
    10. Te Urewera Act (2014), Public Act 2014 No 51.

     

    1. Cases
    2. Center for Social Justice Studies et al. v. Presidency of the Republic et al. Judgment T-622/16 Constitutional Court of Colombia (2016) The Atrato River Case.
    3. Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente (2018). (Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1407-1427

  • Receive Date 02 December 2023
  • Revise Date 13 February 2024
  • Accept Date 15 April 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us