Literature Review

A healthy environment is not only key to the achievement of human rights such as the most fundamental of all, the right to life, but also increasingly recognised as a human right in itself. This healthy environment, in fact the entire earth ecosystem, is threatened by the increasing depletion of resources, biodiversity loss and climate change. Dangerous industrial activity is responsible for a large proportion of this - but the corporations and individuals causing wide-spread damage and destruction often remain unpunished. For over 40 years, different formulations of an international environmental crime, called 'ecocide', have been discussed to halt this destruction through criminal liability of decision-makers. This article presents the proposed crime of ecocide, explores its history, and links it with recent developments in law recognising the human right to a healthy environment, but also the rights of nature, future generations, and indigenous peoples. It concludes that the law of ecocide prevention as well as a supranational court to enforce it are necessary to ensure these rights.

Book Summary: Provides a summary of all major environmental theories, based on case studies from all over the world Demonstrates the link between social theories and environmental policies and advocates Argues that an integrated approach to social and ecological justice is key to successful environmental management and provides tools to improve current conservation practices

This paper discusses the question: How does one lead a good life in the law? and the teaching of Richard Brooks, Professor Emeritus at Vermont Law School.

This paper shows and describes a collection of art exhibitions relating to the rights of nature.

‘Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf’ (Aldo Leopold. (1949/1989). A Sand county almanac, p. 129). How do we think about rivers and waterways? In this paper I meditate on the notion of ‘thinking like a river’, to ask questions about how rivers and other waterways are conceptualised in the human imaginary, and in relation to peoples, place and ecology. The paper speculates on an ontology and phenomenology of watery places; to explore alternative ways of seeing and thinking. It poses the possibility that alternative epistemologies of nature can facilitate a deeper thinking that embraces connectivity - the idea that rivers and waterways are intrinsically connected with place, peoples and landscape. I draw on three rivers and bodies of water, two in Australia and one in Aotearoa, New Zealand, to explore how these are being re-imagined in more holistic ways, embracing Indigenous First Law, cosmologies and epistemologies, and framing them in discourses of Earth laws.

Using Indigenous Australians' oral histories as primary sources, this paper seeks to explore the Aboriginal peoples' image of self (the colonised) and other (the coloniser) within the dimensions ofthe Australian colonial landscape. I begin by contextualising Aboriginal landscape and history within anthropological and historiographical arguments. However, the main aim is not to present my investigation of Aboriginal history, but rather to introduce and reflect upon historical analysis by an Aboriginal historian.

Since 2006, governments around the world have adopted legal provisions recognizing Nature as a subject with inherent rights (e.g., to exist, regenerate vital cycles, and be restored when damaged). Initiatives to enact Rights of Nature (RoN) legal provisions are also underway in international policy spheres, including the United Nations Harmony with Nature Programme,1 the draft Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature,2 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).3 Efforts to enact Earth law domestically and internationally are driven by transnational networks of activists, NGOs, lawyers, scientists, policymakers and others who reject dominant anthropocentric development norms and practices. Arguing that human wellbeing is dependent on the wellbeing of Earth’s ecosystems, they advocate a new approach to sustainable development that prioritizes sustaining ecosystem functioning over increased consumption, and that places the wellbeing of the planet as a whole ahead of human self-interest alone. Much is written on the moral and legal philosophy behind RoN (e.g., Berry 1999, 2002; Biggs, Goldtooth & Orielle Lake 2017; Cullinan 2011; Hosken 2019; Stone 1972). Yet, few if any studies have analyzed the transnational networked governance structures that have emerged to promote RoN legal provisions, and the resulting expansion of RoN legal provisions worldwide. This paper fills this gap in two ways. First, it analyzes an original database of RoN legal provisions worldwide (the most comprehensive to date) to show their global expansion over the last decade. Second, it maps and analyzes the various transnational networks that are spurring a recent dramatic expansion of RoN legal provisions. Using original datasets of network ties and member attributes, the paper employs social network analysis to understand the structure of existing RoN networks as well as the attributes and relationship among various RoN organizations.

During the question period, I grabbed the microphone and expressed my opinion hoping for everyone to hear it and take some of the information I provided into account. Since that day, I have been trying to spread the word. [...]the government approved these two laws which were prepared mostly by pro-government assembly members, government officials and a few pro-government Indigenous organizations that broke away from the Unity Pact. [...]the resulting laws were considered a watered-down version of the draft law that had been agreed upon. [...]the adoption of both these laws was opposed by the members of the Unity Pact, who felt alienated and deceived by the government, and decided to withdraw from the legislative process, arguing irreconcilable differences regarding the content of the laws. Since the passing of these laws, the Bolivian government has pushed for numerous projects which involve the invasion of protected areas and the violation of Indigenous people rights.

The call for institutionalizing Earth trusteeship cannot easily be reconciled with state sovereignty. The concept of state sovereignty emerged at a time of great distances and absolute national autonomy. However, in a globalized, interconnected world utterly depending on the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, absolute territorial sovereignty is counterproductive and potentially life threatening. The chapter argues that the time is right for reconceptualizing state sovereignty. Sovereignty includes not just fiduciary and trusteeship obligations towards the state’s own citizens, but also towards humanity at large and Earth as a whole. The UN Agenda 2030 with its Sustainable Development Goals offer a window opportunity for institutionalizing Earth trusteeship at international and national levels. A critical tool for achieving this has been the adoption of the “Hague Principles for a Universal Declaration on Responsibilities for Human Rights and Earth Trusteeship” in the Peace Palace, The Hague, on the day of the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (10 December 2018).

Environmental justice is a well-established concept functioning on the borderland between environmental law and human rights. Social elements of ecosystem service trade-offs, which are inextricably linked with the concept of environmental justice, require insight into three main areas of concern dominating the theories of social justice: distribution, recognition and procedure. It is a paradox that current environmental governance is shaped by the representatives of privileged classes of industrialised developed states who gained their position on externalising the environmental effects of their industrial development. Demands for representativeness and pluralism of world-views should be included in the frameworks of Earth system law.

The personification of Planet Earth as a mother implies its recognition as a subject and not as an object, with its own rights regardless of their usefulness to people and with respect for its dignity and integrity. Despite indigenous, social, academic and political movements, the rights of Mother Earth remain contested in most countries and international law continues to protect the environment for the sake of human interests.