Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies

1. INTRODUCTION

The first constitutional rights of nature in history appeared in Ecuador in 2008,¹ and thus far is the most prominent case of constitutional recognition of rights for the natural environment.² Other states have implemented the general model of rights for nature at different levels. In the United States (US), several dozen municipal ordinances declare the rights of the municipal environment, inspired by the first such case in Tamaqua Borough (Pennsylvania) in 2006.³ In 2010, Bolivia adopted the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth,⁴ followed in 2012 by the Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well.⁵ New Zealand has so far recognized rights of the natural environment in two cases: for Te Urewera (a former national park in the North Island),⁶ and for the Whanganui River.⁷ Rights for Mount Taranaki⁸ are poised to soon become the third such case. The latest additions to this already impressive collection are Colombia, where the Atrato River acquired rights in 2017,⁹ and India, which has recognized the rights of the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers.¹⁰ As is already apparent from this list, rights of nature so far have been most commonly bestowed on water bodies.

All cases have in common the appeal to rights in order to protect the natural environment.¹¹ Ecuador is often seen as the pioneer that led the way, with other countries following suit in a classic example of a transnational movement. Although Ecuador is the only state to date with a constitution which grants rights to nature, other efforts can be interpreted as having similar constitutional significance.¹² More often than not, Indigenous nations have been involved, in one way or another, in establishing rights for nature. Scholars, commentators and Indigenous leaders themselves have often argued that the rights of nature borrow heavily from Indigenous ecocentric legal frameworks. Particularly in the cases of Ecuador, Bolivia, and New Zealand, the name of the rights-bearing entity itself suggests the recognition of ontologies and legal frameworks that are distinct from purely western versions.¹³ Importantly, developments in the rights of nature have so far played out mostly in relation to water bodies, which themselves have important genealogical connections with many Indigenous peoples.