Rights of nature as an alternative or a complement to existing environmental protection
Julián Suárez
Abstract
One of the most refined expressions of rights-based approaches to environmental protection, rights of nature have come a long way since the early 2000s. They have developed into full-fledged governance structures that could either improve or potentially replace duty-based existing environmental protection within domestic jurisdictions. However, even though they advance sustainable development values, both eco-theological and local participative governance strands of rights of nature have encountered shortcomings; several of them particularly related with the scope of protection derived from their explicit content. From a legal analysis perspective, a predominantly doctrinal and comparative approach can contribute to shedding light on rights of nature legal potency. Preliminary conclusions would
show that from a legal analysis under this approach comprising four European domestic rights of nature legal frameworks, a bundle of indicators can be extracted to determine whether a certain rights of nature provision could be discarded as capable of enhancing or even substituting existing environmental protection
Keywords:
rights of nature, rights-based approach, effectiveness, eco-theological rights, local participative governanceReferences
Aguila, Yann. 2021. The Right to a Healthy Environment. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/202110/right-a- healthy-environment#:~:text=By%20Yann%20Aguila%20%2D%20On%20October,as%20an%
Google Scholar
important%20human%20right.
Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert. 2000. On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris 13(3): 294–304
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00157
Google Scholar
Atienza, Manuel, and Juan Ruiz Manero. 1998. Values in the Law. In: A Theory of Legal Sentences, (eds.) Francisco Laporta, Aleksander Peczenik, and Frederick Schauer,120–140. New York: Springer.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0848-8_4
Google Scholar
Autin, Whitney, and John Holbrook. 2012. Is the Anthropocene an issue of stratigraphy or pop culture? GSA Today 22(7): 60–61. DOI: 10.1130/G153GW.1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1130/G153GW.1
Google Scholar
Autonomous Decentralised Government of Santa Ana de Cotacachi v Minister for the Environment & Anor, Ecuadorian Constitutional Court, 10 November 2021, 1149-19- JP/21.
Google Scholar
Bétaille, Julien. 2019. Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 16: 35–64. DOI: 10.1163/18760104- 01601004.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01601004
Google Scholar
Bogdanova, Iryna. 2022. Unilateral Sanctions in International Law and the Enforcement of Human Rights. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004507890
Google Scholar
Brondizio, Eduardo, Karen O’Brien, Xuemei Bai, Frank Biermann, Will Steffen, Frans Berkhout, Christophe Cudennec, Maria Carmen Lemos, Alexander Wolfe, Jose Palma- -Oliveira, and Chen-Tung Arthur Chen. 2016. Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene:
Google Scholar
A call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39: 318–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006
Google Scholar
Cahill v Sutton [1980] I.R. 269.
Google Scholar
Charan Lal Sahu v India & Ors [1990] AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597.
Google Scholar
Chynoweth, Paul. Legal research. In: Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, (eds.) Andrew Knight, and Les Ruddock, 28–38. Chichester: Willey-Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Coyne v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC412 (Holland J).
Google Scholar
Crutzen, Paul, and Eugene Stoermer. 2000. The ‘Anthropocene’. IGBP Global Change Newsletter 41: 17–18.
Google Scholar
Cullet, Philippe. 1995. Definition of an Environmental Right in a Human Rights Context. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 13: 25–40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016934419501300103
Google Scholar
Dalby, Simon. 2015. Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. The Anthropocene Review 3(1): 33–51. DOI: 10.1177/2053019615618681.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615618681
Google Scholar
Daly, Erin. 2016. La doctrine environnementaliste aux États-Unis d’Amérique – Les suites de la “public trust doctrine”, développée par le professeur Joseph L. Sax. HS16 Revue
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rjenv.2016.7018
Google Scholar
Juridique de l’Environnement, 183–200. https://www.cairn.info/revue-juridique-de-l--environnement-2016-HS16-page-183.htm.
Google Scholar
Dancer, Helen. 2021. Harmony with Nature: towards a new deep legal pluralism. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 53(1): 21–41. DOI: 10.1080/07329113.2020.1845503.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2020.1845503
Google Scholar
De Lucia, Vito. 2013. Towards an ecological philosophy of law: a comparative discussion. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 4(2): 167–190.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2013.02.03
Google Scholar
De Lucia, Vito. 2015. Competing Narratives and Complex Genealogies: The Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental Law. Journal of Environmental Law 27: 91–117. DOI: 10.1093/jel/equ031.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ031
Google Scholar
Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland & Ors [2020] IESC 49 (Clarke CJ).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, Jérémie. 2023. Creating Synergies between International Law and Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law 12(3): 671–697. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102523000195.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000195
Google Scholar
Hassan, Tirana. 2022. A new model for global leadership on Human Rights. In: World Report 2023, (ed.) Human Rights Watch, 1–12. New York: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World_Report_2023_
Google Scholar
WEBSPREADS_0.pdf.
Google Scholar
Houck, Oliver. 2017. Noah’s Second Voyage: The Rights of Nature as Law. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 31(1): 1–50.
Google Scholar
Jolly, Stellina, and K.S. Roshan Menon. 2021. Of Ebbs and Flows: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Granting Personhood to Natural Entities in India. Transnational Environmental Law 10(3):1–26. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102520000424.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102520000424
Google Scholar
Kauffman, Craig, and Pamela Martin. 2021. The Politics of Rights of Nature. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Google Scholar
Khaitan, Tarunabh, and Sandy Steel. 2023. Areas of Law: Three Questions in Special Jurisprudence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 43(1): 76–96. DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqac025.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac025
Google Scholar
Knox, John. 2020. Constructing the Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16: 79–95. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- 031720-074856.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-031720-074856
Google Scholar
Kotzé, Louis, and Paola Villavicencio Calzadilla. 2017. Somewhere between Rhetoric and Reality: Environmental Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature in Ecuador. Transnational Environmental Law 6(3): 401–433.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102517000061
Google Scholar
Kotzé, Louis, and Paola Villavicencio Calzadilla. 2018. Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. Transnational Environmental Law 7(3): 397–424. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102518000201.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102518000201
Google Scholar
Kotzé, Louis, and Rakhyun Kim. 2019. Earth system law: The juridical dimensions of earth system governance. Earth System Governance 1: 100003. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2019.100003.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100003
Google Scholar
Krämer, Ludwig. 2020. Rights of Nature and Their Implementation. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 17: 47–75. DOI: 10.1163/18760104.01701005.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701005
Google Scholar
Lambooy, Tineke, Tessa van Soest, and Ignace Breemer. 2022. Granting Rights of Nature to the Wadden Sea? An Exploratory Study. Breukelen: Waddenacademie, and Nyenrode Business Universiteit. https://www.waddenacademie.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/pdf/04- biblio-
Google Scholar
theek/2022-04_Granting_Rights_of_Nature_to_the_Wadden_Sea.pdf.
Google Scholar
Macpherson, Elizabeth. 2023. Can Western water law become more ‘relational’? A survey of comparative laws affecting water across Australasia and the Americas. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 53(3): 395–424. DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2022.2143383.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2143383
Google Scholar
Macpherson, Elizabeth, and Felipe Clavijo Ospina. 2015. The pluralism of river rights in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Colombia. Journal of Water Law 25(6): 283–293.
Google Scholar
Macpherson, Elizabeth, 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. DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2021.1982119.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1982119
Google Scholar
Massip, Nathalie. 2020. The 1964 Wilderness Act, from “wilderness idea” to governmental oversight and protection of wilderness. Miranda 20: 1–17. DOI: 10.4000/miranda.26787.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/miranda.26787
Google Scholar
Matthews, Daniel. 2019. Law and Aesthetics in the Anthropocene: From the Rights of Nature to the Aesthesis of Obligations. Law, Culture and the Humanities 19(2): 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/1743872119871830.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872119871830
Google Scholar
May, James, and Erin Daly. Can the U.S. Constitution Encompass a Right to a Stable Climate? (Yes, it Can.) UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 39(1): 39–64. DOI: 10.5070/L5391052535.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/L5391052535
Google Scholar
McCrudden, Christopher. Legal research and the social sciences. Law Quarterly Review 122: 632–650.
Google Scholar
Mohan v Ireland [2019] IESC 18 (O’Donnell J).
Google Scholar
Moscati Hawkes, Lisa. 1988. Parens Patriae and the Union Carbide case: The Disaster at
Google Scholar
Bhopal Continues. Cornell International Law Journal 21(1): 181–200.
Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Erin. 2021. Rivers as living beings: rights in law, but no rights to water? Griffith
Google Scholar
Law Review: 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304
Google Scholar
Odote, Collins. 2020. Human rights-based approach to environmental protection: Kenyan, South African and Nigerian constitutional architecture and experience. In: Human rights and the environment under African Union Law, (eds.) Michael Addaney, and Ademola
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46523-0_15
Google Scholar
Jegede Oluborode, 381–414. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Google Scholar
Paris, Marie-Luce. 2016. The Comparative Method in Legal Research: The Art of Justifying Choices. In: Legal Research Methods: Principles and Practicalities, (eds.) Laura Cahillane, and Schweppe Jennifer, 39–55. Dublin: Clarus Press.
Google Scholar
Pereira Calumby, Luíza, and Aðalheiður Jóhansdóttir. 2021. From Aarhus to Escazú and the Cross-fertilisation of Ideas and Principles. Nordisk miljörättslig tidskrift 2021(1): 53–73.
Google Scholar
https://nordiskmiljoratt.se/onewebmedia/NMT2021nr1_inlaga_tryck.pdf.
Google Scholar
Pérez de los Cobos Hernandez, Elisa. 2023. La acción popular como instrumento de garantía de la tutela judicial efectiva del Mar Menor y su cuenca. Medio Ambiente y Derecho 41. https://huespedes.cica.es/gimadus/.
Google Scholar
Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn
Google Scholar
Nykvist, Cynthia de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg,
Google Scholar
Robert Corell, Victoria Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan Foley. 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Google Scholar
Sajeva, Giulia. 2021. Environmentally Conditioned Human Rights: A Good Idea? In: Rights of Nature: A Re-examination, (eds.) Daniel Corrigan, and Markku Oksanen, 85–100. New York: Routledge.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367479589-6
Google Scholar
Salim v State of Uttarakhand & Ors, High Court of Uttarakhand, 20 March 2017, Writ Petition (PIL) 126/2014.
Google Scholar
Salim v State of Uttarakhand & Ors, Supreme Court of India, 7 July 2017, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 016879/2017.
Google Scholar
Sevillano Callejas v Panama, Panamanian Supreme Court, 27 November 2023. https:// cdn.corprensa.com/la-prensa/uploads/2023/11/28/fallo_27nov2023_corte_suprema.pdf.
Google Scholar
Soro Mateo, Blanca, and Álvarez Carreño, Santiago. 2022. El reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica y derechos propios al Mar Menor y su cuenca como respuesta a la crisis del derecho ambiental. In: Estudios sobre la efectividad del derecho de la biodiversidad y
Google Scholar
del cambio climático, directed by Soro Mateo, Blanca, and Álvarez Carreño, Santiago,
Google Scholar
–194. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Google Scholar
Suárez, Julián. 2023. Could rights of nature be overlapping, redundant and conflicting regarding existing environmental protection? An overview of four selected European domestic law frameworks. Environmental Liability: Law, Policy and Practice 28(2): 90–107.
Google Scholar
Taekema, Sanne. 2018. Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice. Law and Method (no number): 1–17. DOI: 10.5553/REM/.000031
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000031
Google Scholar
Tănăsescu, Mihnea. 2020. Rights of Nature, Legal Personality and Indigenous Philosophies. Transnational Environmental Law 9(3): 429–453. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102520000217.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102520000217
Google Scholar
Tănăsescu, Mihnea. 2022. Understanding Rights of Nature. Bielefeld: Transcript. Tierra Digna Social Justice Study Centre & Ors v President of Colombia & Ors, Colombian Constitutional Court, 10 November 2016, T-622/16.
Google Scholar
Toubes Muñiz, Joaquín. 1997. Legal Principles and Legal Theory. Ratio Juris 10(3); 267– 287.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00061
Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program. 2022. Adopting a Human Rights-based Approach to Ecosystem-based Adaptation: A Contribution to Sustainable Development (DEO/2490/NA). Nairobi: United Nations. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41325.
Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program. 2023. Environmental Rule of Law: Tracking Progress and Charting Future Directions (DEL/2587/NA). Nairobi: United Nations. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/43943.
Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly. 2022. The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/76/L.75). Geneva: United Nations.
Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council. 2021. The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1). Geneva: United Nations.
Google Scholar
Van Houcke, Mark. 2015. Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method: 1–35. DOI: 10.5553/REM/.000010.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000010
Google Scholar
Venn, Alice. 2019. Social justice and climate change. In: Managing Global Warming, (ed.) Trevor Letcher, 711–728. London: Elsevier.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814104-5.00024-7
Google Scholar
Vicente Giménez, Teresa, and Eduardo Salazar Ortuño. 2022. La Iniciativa Legislativa Popular para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica y derechos propios al Mar Menor y su cuenca. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental 13(1): 1–38. DOI: 10.17345/rcda3312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17345/rcda3312
Google Scholar
Villavicencio Calzadilla, Paola, and Louis Kotzé. 2023. Re-imagining Participation in the Anthropocene: The Potential of the Rights of Nature Paradigm. In: Sustainability through Participation? Perspectives from National, European and International Law, (eds.) Birgit
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004509382_004
Google Scholar
Peters, and Eva Julia Lohse, 51–72. Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff.
Google Scholar
Warren, Lynda. 2006. Wild Law – the theory. Environmental Law and Management 18: 11– 1.
Google Scholar
Wesche, Tilo. 2022. Who owns nature? About the rights of nature. Estudios de Filosofía 65:
Google Scholar
–68. DOI: 10.17533/udea.ef.347573.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.347573
Google Scholar
Wilk, Bettina, Dries Hegger, Carel Dieperink, Rakhyun Kim, and Peter Driessen. 2019. The potential limitations on its basin decision-making processes of granting self-defence rights to Father Rhine. Water International 44(6–7): 684–700. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2019.1651965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1651965
Google Scholar
Authors
Julián SuárezStatistics
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2024 The Opole Studies in Administration and Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author’s economic rights to published works are held by Opole University (collective works) and individual Authors (individual parts of the collective work, ones that form a separate entity).
The journal Opole Studies in Administration and Law accepts for publication only works which have not been in circulation before.
On the basis of the Regulation (2016/679) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (referred to as General Data Protection Regulation or RODO) Opole University, based at 11a Plac Kopernika, 45-040 Opole, is the personal data controller for all the authors publishing their works in the Opole Studies in Administration and Law.
The articles published in Opole Studies in Administration and Law are available under a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
For aricles till 2017 your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation – see:
Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych
Read more about the license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
View Legal Code:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode