Search

Earth-centred law (ECL) promotes Nature's intrinsic value and rights, challenging anthropocentric legal frameworks. Drawing from traditional knowledge, systems science, and Earth Jurisprudence, ECL addresses global ecological crises by redefining the human–Nature relationship. This opinion highlights the necessity and challenges of adopting ECL, emphasising its role in making legal and policy decisions that align human activities with Nature's stability. Despite significant obstacles, ECL is, it is argued, critical for living in harmony with Nature and for a just future for all life on Earth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article critically examines how the structure of international law falls short of embracing common global problems. In this context, the article focuses on the ecological aspects of governance that tend to go beyond state-centric interests. Putting forward an overview of how issues beyond the states' national jurisdiction are addressed in the present structure of international law, the article examines the challenges of incorporating the Earth-centric approach reflected in the Indigenous cosmovision into that body of law. While the analysis does not attempt to provide any conclusive solutions, it argues that the Earth-centric approach cannot be incorporated into the current international legal framework. Although absolutely indispensable for a sustainable planetary process, the approach would require a complete deconstruction of the global legal order or a radical re-organization of the current structure of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is the technical-legal analysis of the rights of nature. Starting from the ecocentric conceptual framework in which these rights originate, the article exposes, in the first place, the States that have recognized rights to nature as a whole. In relation to these States, the article examines which are, specifically, the rights that are recognized, how these rights are protected, who is responsible for guaranteeing them and what practical results, from the jurisprudential point of view, said protection is having. This first part culminates with an analysis of the accommodation that these rights would have in the Spanish Constitution of 1978. Secondly, the article directs its attention to those States that have proceeded to the personification of specific ecosystems, taking as reference the personification of the Mar Menor, in Spain. In relation to them, the article explores the legal instruments that have carried out these personification processes, the characteristics of the personified ecosystems, the legal implications that personification represents, the bodies that will act as guardians of these ecosystems, the rights that are recognized and the procedural instruments for their protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Anthropocene thesis contends that the earth has entered a new geological epoch, dominated by human action. This article examines the Anthropocene in relation to law and aesthetics, arguing that the concepts of law and the stories of law's origins that we mobilise in this context play a significant role in rendering us sensitive or insensitive to the multifarious challenges that the Anthropocene poses to social life. In arguing against aspects of Earth Jurisprudence scholarship, which has developed a novel understanding of the 'rights of nature', this article argues that it is through an attention to obligations, rather than rights, that a sensitivity to the forces and relations that define the Anthropocene might be fostered. The shift from rights to obligations entails a commensurate movement from aesthetics – where questions of form, integrity and harmony predominate – to aesthesis, the study of the somatic, sensory and affective dimensions of human experience. The article concludes by arguing that it is within the contemporary city, understood as a discrete form of human and infrastructural association, that an aesthesis of obligations in the context of the Anthropocene can be most acutely perceived. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper establishes interpretative criteria for the aesthetic evaluation of contemporary gardens and parks, specifically focusing on a dendrological park. Initially, it examines the potential of a "contract with nature" as a foundational basis for such evaluation but subsequently challenges this notion. The paper posits that political and material-ecological aspects significantly influence aesthetic judgments in these spaces. It argues that these elements are integral to eliciting a direct aesthetic experience and necessitates explicit explication in their interpretation. This study further interprets gardens and parks as akin to works of art in that they represent, albeit without conventional subject matter, the nuanced relationships to the lives of individuals. The paper elucidates the more profound, often unspoken dialogues between nature, culture, and individual experience by viewing these spaces as representational mediums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rights of Nature (RoN) promote a new understanding of the human environment, where natural entities are conceived as subjects with intrinsic value independent of human interests. The implementation of this idea gained momentum in the United States in 2006. One decade and a half later, the idea has spread all over the world. Despite some efforts, a sophisticated geographical inventory of the movement is missing. Building on Kauffman (2020), we identified and analysed 409 initiatives in 39 countries, creating the most comprehensive database of RoN initiatives to date. We developed a taxonomy that may guide further research. We also present two detailed maps which can help policymakers, legislators, judges, researchers, and the public at large to evaluate and compare initiatives. The findings of this investigation directly help the UN Harmony with Nature Programme and have contributed to the launch of the Eco-Jurisprudence Monitor, an online database of RoN initiatives.

This article explores, from my perspective as a white person, how the recognition of rights of nature under native title is one mechanism that could contribute to healing from, and moving beyond, colonial Australia. I use 'listening' as a methodology, drawing upon the works of Indigenous academics and activists to examine the need for reform to native title and the responsibilities of non-Indigenous people to contribute to healing Country. The article concludes that the recognition of rights of nature would be a meaningful form of healing, for both Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples in an era of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2009, the United Nations programme on Harmony with Nature has sought a new philosophy of global environmental governance known as Earth jurisprudence. This paper examines how Harmony with Nature has advanced Earth jurisprudence to unite Indigenous legal traditions, rights of nature, and mounting evidence from Earth system science regarding anthropogenic forcing on the planet. It does so through a policy analysis of annual UN reports, resolutions, and dialogues with international experts. Situating Harmony with Nature in the broader intellectual heritage of Earth jurisprudence and contemporary efforts to address anthropogenic forcing on the Earth system in the Anthropocene, I argue that Harmony with Nature operates at the juncture of two powerful ways of ordering relations, knowledge, and obligation: kin and system. The critical analysis shows how a new geography of global environmental governance has been produced within the constraints of the UN precisely by scaling Indigenous kinship to the planetary diagnoses made by system‐based planetary sciences. The resulting form of Earth jurisprudence in Harmony with Nature holds important, cautionary lessons both for understanding how Indigenous legal traditions are made to comport with UN sustainable development programmes and for contemporary efforts to transform governance to meet the pressing demands of global environmental change. For over a decade, the UN's Harmony with Nature programme has pursued a new philosophy for global governance known as Earth jurisprudence. Earth jurisprudence seeks to align Indigenous legal traditions, rights of nature, and a systems‐view of law. This paper critically examines the conceptual basis and policy development of Earth jurisprudence within the Harmony with Nature programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We introduce here a new critical judgments project: the Anthropocene Judgments project. The project is intended to be an interdisciplinary, collaborative, visionary initiative, a collective effort on the part of legal scholars, writers of speculative fiction, literary scholars and climate scientists to anticipate what may lie ahead. Participants will engage in futuristic modelling and write judgments of, and for, the future – constructing innovative pathways of legal reasoning to address the novel, socio-legal and environmental challenges of the Anthropocene. In this article, we develop our ideas for the project, canvass possible directions for future judgment writing and explain the importance of this ambitious endeavour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human pervasiveness on the Earth System, characterised by unprecedented social and environmental crises, demands a reimagining of human-Nature relations. Emerging from Earth Jurisprudence, a Rights of Nature (RoN) approach has been proposed as a legal and conceptual mechanism to interrogate exploitative human-Nature relations and facilitate an Earth-centric transition within Western systems of law and governance. While this concept has gained recent traction in Australia, RoN creation and recognition still faces significant practical and conceptual barriers. This article presents the results of an exploratory qualitative analysis articulating the perspectives of state members of parliament, local councillors, lawyers, academics, advocates, and community volunteers to provide insight and understanding into perceived obstacles to RoN creation and recognition in Australia. Twenty-five key barriers were identified and categorised into a novel taxonomy called the Barriers and Enablers to Rights of Nature (BERN) Framework , with the most salient including: (1) Dominant Paradigms, namely anthropocentrism, economic ideologies, political ideologies and partisanship, and social and political conservatism; (2) Regulatory Obstacles, including the existing regulatory system and rights structures; (3) Vested Interests; and (4) Power, including limited opportunity to participate in decision-making, access to decision-makers, and government levels. In articulating these factors, stakeholder dissonance regarding the employment, definition, and framing of RoN was observed, indicating RoN functions as a boundary object in the Australian context. We consider how identifying RoN as a boundary object may impact advocacy, as well as the implications it may have for overcoming barriers to RoN creation and recognition. • The most salient Rights of Nature barrier was "dominant paradigms". • Regulatory obstacles, vested interests, and power are other salient barriers. • Rights of Nature functions as a boundary object in the Australian context. • The BERN Framework is a new barrier taxonomy specific to the Australian Rights of Nature context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We pointed out in the first part of the paper that the ecological destruction comes from anthropocentric visions on nature, perceived by humans and corporations only as a natural resource available for exploitation. From this perspective, people appear as separate subjects and superior to Nature and, consequently, its exploitation and degradation to increase the availability of resources, is as legitimate as can be. For such reasons, moving to an eco-centric perspective, based on the understanding that humans are an integral part of Nature is important, and shows that human well-being derived from ecosystems cannot be achieved and maintained to the detriment of ecosystems. Despite all the obstacles we point out in this study, the idea of the Rights of Nature has progressed, as so many countries and jurisdictions have recently adopted rules of law and decisions involving the granting of legal rights to nature, to ecosystems. Not only the successful lawsuits, constitutional changes from many countries and successful trials, as well as attempts at a draft legal definition of ecocide by renowned jurists of the International Criminal Court, indicate that the Rights of Nature, a concept rooted in indigenous worldviews, is extended into environmental criminal jurisdiction. Legislatures and Courts are increasingly extending legal personhood to some environmental factors and to entire ecosystems, granting them a right not to be harmed and placing them on the same legal level as corporations, which being accused of environmental degradation, are given a new enforceable obligation to care for nature. Regarding the European Union, we show that, although several decades have passed since the adoption of the first environmental laws and policies, environmental destruction continues and climate change is happening and having extraordinary impacts on ecosystems and human life. Circumstances in which, in the light of international developments, the EU has begun to shift its narrative and paradigm through significant efforts to explicitly recognize Nature's right to exist, to persist, to maintain and to regenerate its life cycles. In this regard, we will set out the position of the European Union in the legislative approach to the issue of recognizing the rights of nature (Caduci & others, 2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why should we bear responsibility for the degradation of the environment? A wide range of responses is on offer to this question. Common to them all is they are all rooted in one or the other ontological and epistemic point of departure or set of premises. This raises the question of the relationship between law and religion and linkages of religion with environmental concerns. What emerges, perhaps against the volition of the scientific world, is that the foundational links between environmental law and religion are significant – even where environmentalists shirk from or even denounce religion. Justification of this view is found in concise survey of the essence of law and religion. The analysis leads to the notion of stewardship, a concept steeped in, but not exclusive to religion in its diverse manifestations. Examples of ecocentric religious attitudes – ranging from the traditions of the North American Anishinabek, aboriginal Australians and indigenous African culture to Buddhism and Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity in its principal manifestations – provide a broad picture of adherence to beliefs in human responsibility to take care of the environment. This widespread conviction of stewardship endures despite awareness of the human inability to create or sovereignly determine the course of nature (here termed "the hypothesis of incompetence").

Why should we bear responsibility for the degradation of the environment? A wide range of responses is on offer to this question. Common to them all is that they are all rooted in one or the other ontological and epistemic point of departure or set of premises. This raises the question of the relationship between law and religion and linkages of religion with environmental concerns. What emerges, perhaps against the volition of the scientific world, is that the foundational links between environmental law and religion are significant - even where environmentalists shirk from or even denounce religion. Justification of this view is found in a concise survey of the essence of law and religion. The analysis leads to the notion of stewardship, a concept steeped in, but not exclusive to religion in its diverse manifestations. Examples of ecocentric religious attitudes - ranging from the traditions of the North American Anishinabek, aboriginal Australians and indigenous African culture to Buddhism and Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity in its principal manifestations - provide a broad picture of adherence to beliefs in human responsibility to take care of the environment. This widespread conviction of stewardship endures despite awareness of the human inability to create or sovereignly to determine the course of nature (here termed "the hypothesis of incompetence"). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rights of Nature (RoN) promote a new understanding of the human environment, where natural entities are conceived as subjects with intrinsic value independent of human interests. The implementation of this idea gained momentum in the United States in 2006. One decade and a half later, the idea has spread all over the world. Despite some efforts, a sophisticated geographical inventory of the movement is missing. Building on Kauffman (2020), we identified and analysed 409 initiatives in 39 countries, creating the most comprehensive database of RoN initiatives to date. We developed a taxonomy that may guide further research. We also present two detailed maps which can help policymakers, legislators, judges, researchers, and the public at large to evaluate and compare initiatives. The findings of this investigation directly help the UN Harmony with Nature Programme and have contributed to the launch of the Eco-Jurisprudence Monitor, an online database of RoN initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The right to life of all living beings and the duty of humans to co-exist with nature have been recognized in Sri Lankan tradition and religious practice for centuries. Yet, environmental destruction, degradation and pollution due to human activities have become a common phenomenon in contemporary Sri Lanka. Anthropocentric thinking pervades Sri Lankan jurisprudence. Laws and judicial decisions have largely failed to recognize the rights of nature to be protected for its relational and intrinsic values. There is also limited acknowledgement that the very survival of human beings depends on the continuous existence of Mother Earth. Significant shifts from human-centred thinking are increasingly observed in other jurisdictions. This article considers how environmental protection in Sri Lanka could be strengthened through the adoption of a greater ethic of ecocentrism. The overarching question posed considers how the examination of eco-centrism in Sri Lankan religious and cultural texts might enable the emergence of an Earth jurisprudence approach to nature protection. The article highlights traditional and religious teachings from Sri Lanka to emphasise the need for greater recognition of existing histories and cultures as the foundation of contemporary law for the protection of nature. The article draws on lessons from the emergence of Earth jurisprudence globally to provide recommendations for legal reform in the Sri Lankan context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice Douglas called for judicial standing for the land, wildlife, and aesthetic vistas in the US environment independent of human or organizational actors (Sierra Club 1972, 741–751). In the 48 years since the Douglas dissent, the federal institutions have failed to expand any legal standing to elements of nature. Any environmental protection has been based on current property law theory of nature as the property of humans, to be managed or used. A nascent "Rights of Nature" movement proposes a new way of considering the environment based not on human values and concerns but viewing nature endowed with independent rights and legal standing. Advocates for this Earth Jurisprudence policy image have used local venues of direct democracy, town councils, and citizen ballot initiatives to protect local environmental treasures. The countermobilization of powerful interests at the state level has blocked the Rights of Nature movement. Existing court strategies under current jurisprudence continue to be necessary to offer some hope for protecting pro-environmental gains against negative actions in the executive. The paper proposes a model for predicting the possibilities of success by the Rights of Nature movement in local attempts to protect natural resources. Finally, the paper calls for Congressional and Constitutional actions to protect the right of nature to speak for herself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through a lens of legal pluralism, this article examines the histories, ontologies and discourses that have shaped two contrasting approaches to human-Earth relations in debates and legal frameworks for sustainable development. Anthropocentric discourses of nature as service-provider underpin the dominant approaches within ecology and economics. Ecocentric discourses of Nature as subject are reflected in Rights of Nature movements, particularly in the Americas, and at an international level, in the United Nations Harmony with Nature Programme. Drawing particularly on examples from forest governance in global and national contexts, this article analyses the ways in which international organisations and states have instrumentalised and embedded these discourses in law and policy and reflects on the challenges and possibilities for pluricultural legal orders, Rights of Nature and sustainable development. Moving away from conventional understandings of rights and entitlement to natural resources, the article argues for a deep legal pluralism that both decentres anthropocentric thinking on the environment and decentres the state in the development of Earth law. This places responsibility for the environment and the equitable sharing of power at the heart of legal frameworks on human-Earth relations and recognises the diversity of ontologies that shape these relationships in law and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new paradigmatic shift in confronting the climactic endgame of the Anthropocene in Asia is in order. Scientific studies warned that Asia would become the epicentre of anthropogenic catastrophes and environmental disasters in the world. As the outgoing Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) president, I wish to contribute to critical discussions on two issues: (1) Earth Jurisprudence and (2) the Rights of Nature. These legal concepts must be critically examined, discussed, and developed by socio-legal researchers and policy-makers in order to avert the impending crises of the Anthropocene in Asia. This report examines the recent development of a robust movement toward Earth Jurisprudence in multiple countries of Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific—that is, countries that have recently enshrined the concept of the Rights of Nature into their legal system through transforming nature into rights-bearing entities in order to protect them from harmful human activities. Failing any significant remedial measures, many Asian cities, shores, and coastlines, including the archipelagos of multiple island states in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean may soon disappear due to the many decades of egregious human activities of industrialized countries and the corporate world. A robust system of Earth Jurisprudence must be established, in which the Rights of Nature must be imbedded in the centre of legislative and constitutional discussions and deliberations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the campaign for legal personhood for the Great Barrier Reef launched by the Environmental Defenders Office of North Queensland in 2014. Although this campaign has been unofficially shelved, the paper argues that it still provides a useful chance to think through the practicality and politics of some of the current experiments in environmental law, especially contemporary attempts to expand legal definitions of personhood. The EDO campaign is held up to critical scrutiny by considering its practical efficacy, environmental merits, conceptual foundations and ethico-political import, especially in relation to Indigenous justice. It argues that such experiments are to be welcomed, whether as immediate opportunities, thought experiments or pressure points, and that public and scholarly discussion of the legal personhood mechanism needs to be alert to the dangers of unknowingly and ironically replicating dominant power relations while seeking to overthrow them, but also of shutting down alternatives at precisely the moment we need them most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amidst the developing and progressive world that ensures the balance of needs-rights- duties and politics for human rights i.e. to attain the highest form of self-actualization, the world has truly become anthropocentric. It is only about human beings as such. But, in this process, what we often forget is the reason human beings exist- mother earth or nature. The paper seeks to take a break from anthropocentrism and take a journey of and through ecocentrism that would finally enable human beings to take a step forwards in fulfilling the duties of humans in the truest sense. The paper hopes to contribute to the emerging earth jurisprudence and elaborates on the path that has been traversed and the work yet to be done, both from a philosophical and legal point of view. The paper is primarily a work of doctrinal research using the analytical mode of research to present the developing jurisprudence in the field of earth justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue motivating this article is the extent to which ecological legal thinking needs to change and adapt to the Anthropocene. My contention is that legal scholars tend to use the notion of the 'Anthropocene' as a synonym for the extreme impact human beings are having on the environment. Yet, few go further and consider whether the intellectual foundations or prescriptive proposals of ecological law have been challenged by Earth systems science. This is precisely the gap I intended to address in this article. Part one provides a descriptive summary of key findings in Earth systems science. Following this, part two presents two challenges to ecological lawyers. First I argue that we ought to abandon attempts to formulate a non-anthropocentric theory of law and embrace descriptive and perceptual forms of anthropocentrism. Second, I argue that earth systems science undermines many versions of ecological integrity found in legislation around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We examined diverse conceptualizations of nature in more than 60 languages. • Inclusive and non-inclusive natures imply humans as part of, or separate from, nature. • Deifying natures depict nature within a spiritual dimension. • Diverse conceptualizations of nature influence environmental policy and future scenarios. • Acknowledging this diversity is key to representative environmental governance. Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of "nature" in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humanity's land management practices reconstruct nature by destroying and degrading habitats, species and ecosystems, and creating environmental imbalance. The latter can manifest in overabundant or invasive species, imposing a welfare burden on unwanted animals when they are targeted for eradication and control. Such approaches not only overlook animal wellbeing, but also ignore the role that humans have played in species' classifications. As societies grapple to manage the unstable environments they have created, they have also started to realize that standards set by paradigms, such as sustainable development, do not sufficiently engage with the efficacy or ethics of existing practices. This article argues that a synthesis of law and science, drawn respectively from emerging paradigms, such as the Great Law of Earth jurisprudence and principles of compassionate conservation, can help guide environmental regimes towards more effective and ethical outcomes. From a legal perspective, the Great Law subordinates human law to a metaphorical nature's voice, while from a scientific perspective the scientific underpinnings of compassionate conservation identify that voice. Although compassionate conservation injects empathy into the decision-making processes, it is a form of empathy based on science that commences from the stipulation that regulators should first do no harm. It is a call that is specifically relevant to invasive species, where current regulation is based on harming certain species, while simultaneously overlooking environmental threats generated by humans. By using science to identify nature's voice, and law to listen to that voice, regulators can start to design regimes that work with nature, rather than trying to reconstruct and dominate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This public policy essay discusses the various criminological facets of the Golden Rule in the context of urban stewardship – the concept which emphasizes the role of the protection of the environment as a part of people’s natural habitat. Among these facets the right to safety in the Global North cities experiencing the influx of refugees and other migrants from the Global South deserves critical attention. It invites the question how to operationalize that right to the mutual advantage of such newcomers and native residents. In a broader socio-economic context of reducing inequalities promoted by the 2016-2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, the findings which suggest that both groups of residents appreciate a clean and safe habitat, and, finally, against the background of terrorist attacks in the Global North cities, the author of the essay advances the thesis that urban stewardship programmes/projects embracing concerned residents may be helpful to strengthen the feeling of safety in the cities.

Throughout the years cultural communities across the world have borne witness to many unending attempts at the destruction of their places of worship. This endemic problem has arisen in a number of places, such as in the USA and in most of the world's former colonies. Having been colonised, South African cultural communities have experienced the same threats to their various sacred sites. This article seeks to argue and demonstrate that cultural communities in South Africa stand to benefit from the properly construed and rich earth jurisprudence arising out of the courtroom experiences of some of the cultural communities identified elsewhere in the world. It also proposes several arguments peculiar to South Africa which could be advanced by cultural communities seeking to protect their sacred lands.

Over the past decade, the debate on Rights of Nature as a promising novel discourse within the ever-changing context of environmental governance has gained considerable traction. An increasing number of countries, amongst whom New Zealand and Ecuador, has moved to explicitly grant legal personhood to nature, with some national courts following suit. Underlying this trend is the need to correct the prevailing instrumentalist approach to nature, which sees nature merely as an object. For now, the idea of giving certain procedural and substantive rights to nature has passed relatively unnoticed in the European Union (EU), which prides itself over its set of progressive environmental directives and regulations. This paper, which is published in two parts, posits that a rights-based approach to nature might be relevant for the EU as well, seeing that anthropocentric frames are still permeating many of the EU's environmental strategies. Having conducted an in-depth case-law analysis of a string of relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU as regards the procedural and substantive underpinnings of Rights of Nature, it is argued that some of the most well-known EU environmental directives, such as the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive, can effectively be used as a catalyst on a path towards a more ecocentric approach to EU environmental governance. That said, the lack of standing for nature in its own right before EU courts, which is at the forefront of the first part of this article, remains one of the most prominent legal obstacles on the road towards a more rights-based approach to nature conservation. In the remainder of this article, it is argued that introducing a rights-based approach through the adoption of a new directive might sound appealing yet would ultimately be unable to comprehensively implement the rationale underpinning Rights of Nature. Seeing that a reform of the EU Treaties in light of a more rights-based approach towards nature appears unlikely for now, the first, concrete manifestations of nature's rights in the EU will probably be seen at Member States' level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal philosophers and environmental activists concerned with transforming the human-Earth relationship typically focus on expanding the community of legal subjects to include the non-human. The limited success of this strategy prompts consideration of an alternative: expanding the concept of the human legal subject to facilitate mutually beneficial human- Earth relations. The abstract character of the rational autonomous individual normalises the pursuit of the individual life project with devastating consequences for the earth. The Cosmic Person introduced here is a Universe-centred, Earth-embedded multi-dimensional self that normalises an interest in the project of life itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal philosophical discourse tends to be animated by some conception of self and the parameters of community. Reflecting a vast heritage of humanist philosophy and theology, western legal concepts reflect anthropocentric values. Theories of law and legal concepts promote human beings as separate to the environment and define frameworks for the exploitation of nature. Against this paradigm, environmental philosophers have sought to redefine human beings as integral members of a greater Earth community – nature is a community of subjects, not a collection of objects. This alternative conception of self carries important consequences for legal philosophy. This paper explores these consequences first by analysing the ecological conception of self and community articulated by ‘geologian’ Thomas Berry (1914-2009). Second, this paper uses Berry’s analysis to develop an ecological theory of jurisprudence. This theory connects human law with ecological integrity and holds that human law attains legal quality (in part) when enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth community. Throughout this analysis, the paper also highlights the limitations Berry’s philosophical and legal writing and seeks dialogue with leftist political theory. El discurso filosófico jurídico tiende a estimularse por una concepción del individuo y por parámetros de comunidad. Como reflejo de una vasta herencia de la filosofía humanista y la teología, los conceptos jurídicos occidentales reflejan valores antropocéntricos. Teorías del derecho y conceptos legales promueven seres humanos separados del medio ambiente y definen los marcos para la explotación de la naturaleza. Frente a este paradigma, los filósofos ambientales han tratado de redefinir los seres humanos como miembros de una comunidad de la Tierra más amplia – la naturaleza es una comunidad de sujetos, no una colección de objetos. Esta concepción alternativa del individuo conlleva importantes consecuencias para la filosofía del derecho. Este artículo explora estas consecuencias, primero mediante el análisis de la concepción ecológica del individuo y de la comunidad articulada por el geólogo Thomas Berry (1914-2009). En segundo lugar, este trabajo utiliza el análisis de Berry para desarrollar una teoría ecológica de la jurisprudencia. Esta teoría conecta el derecho humano con la integridad ecológica y sostiene que el derecho humano alcanza (en parte) la calidad jurídica cuando se promulga por el bien común de la comunidad global de la Tierra. A lo largo de este análisis, el informe también pone de relieve las limitaciones de la escritura filosófica y jurídica de Berry y busca el diálogo con la teoría política de izquierdas.