This blog post examines how the concept of natural rights is driving institutional transformation, through constitutional and legislative examples from two countries that view nature not merely as a resource but as a subject of rights.
In legal tradition, nature is generally regarded as the sum of things useful to humans, or as the collective or individual property of humans. This nature is set as an object of ownership and has functioned as a premise for establishing the rights and obligations between humans surrounding that ownership. Ecological thinker Berry points out that the relational patterns humans form with the world as a whole or with others have been reflected in anthropocentric legal norms, while simultaneously being reinforced by those very norms. Laws that limit the subjects of rights and obligations solely to legal persons, treating all non-persons as objects of action, have evaluated nature’s value solely in relation to human profit and loss, failing to respect nature itself. The conservationist perspective, which argues that natural resources must be protected to be enjoyed in a way that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number over the longest period, also fundamentally fails to escape human-centered thinking. The Earth Jurisprudence advocated by Berry is a radical legal philosophy that seeks to transcend these limitations by establishing the rights of all beings constituting the ecosystem as Earth Rights.
Discussions on whether non-human beings can be granted rights have unfolded in various ways. Regan defends animal rights through the argument that any being capable of experiencing itself as the subject of its own life, beyond mere existence, should not have its interests sacrificed for the sake of relatively superior beings. Taylor views all living beings as possessing their own good and believes the potential for their inherent value must be realized, understanding even plants and other life forms as subjects of rights. Furthermore, Earth Jurisprudence draws the normative conclusion that the very fact something exists within the cosmic order confers rights upon it. Accordingly, it also recognizes the rights of inanimate objects that possess a physically enduring substance or occupy a specific geographical area. Cullinan, who described the orientation of Earth Jurisprudence as the ‘law of the wild,’ emphasizes that the survival and well-being of diverse creations are granted not by humans but by the planet Earth itself, urging a bold shift in perception regarding rights holders. Humanity must revive the sensibilities and perceptions long suppressed by law, join the dance of the Earth community, and attune its own movements to its rhythm. The rights of the Earth manifest as the right to exist, the right to habitat, and the right to perform one’s role and function within the Earth community’s ceaseless process of renewal. Rivers have the rights of rivers, birds have the rights of birds, humans have the rights of humans, and the mode of existence for each right is distinct.
There are indeed cases where this concept of rights has been adopted as a concrete legal basis. A prime example is the Ecuadorian Constitution, which mentions harmony with “Mother Earth, of which we are part and which is essential for our survival” right from its preamble. While most countries that enshrine environmental rights in their constitutions primarily view environmental conservation and management as serving the purposes of improving citizens’ lives and ensuring human sustainability, Ecuador’s constitution stipulates the “right to maintain the cycle of life and the evolutionary process and to be respected in its regeneration” and the “right of nature to restore itself.” It also explicitly states that anyone can exercise the right to petition to enforce the rights of nature. Bolivia’s “Law on the Rights of Mother Earth” similarly recognizes nature’s inherent rights and stipulates that it is the duty of citizens to assist ecosystems in maintaining and restoring themselves in their natural state.
Meanwhile, New Zealand has chosen to protect the rights of specific ecosystems or species individually, rather than protecting the rights of nature as a whole. An example is the “Te Awa Tupua Act,” which respects the Maori belief that “I am the river and the river is me,” designating the Whanganui River as a legal person and specifying that its rights are exercised by a legally appointed guardian acting on behalf of the river.
The rights of a river whose flow is obstructed or a bird whose habitat is invaded are now addressed not only in environmental campaigns designed to raise social awareness but also at the concrete stage of constructing legal principles.
