Literature Review

In this paper, Kotzé critiques the effectiveness of law as an institution in the Anthropocene epoch. He describes how international environmental law as we have developed it over the past few decades is no longer a satisfactory means of confronting the challenges faced by our ever-changing and increasingly interdependent planetary systems. Ultimately, Kotzé argues that we should reimagine regulation in the time of climate change through the development of a more interdisciplinary body of Earth System law, which he believes is a necessary framework to address our current socio-ecological crisis.

This paper from Hastings Environmental Law Journal examines the required paradigm shift in socio-legal philosophical thinking and the shared values between the Public Trust Doctrine and Earth Law. These legal frameworks were born from different social narratives, which greatly impacted their ability to serve the public and the Earth Community. Exploring each legal framework's origins and current practice will illuminate how the Public Trust Doctrine can bridge the gap between Western legal systems toward Earth Law--a holistic approach to justice in the context of history, society, ecology, and humanity's relationship with our planet. Earth Law focuses on the roles of beings within their ecosystem, and the requirements for ecosystems to flourish. At its core, Earth Law is a practice that acknowledges that everything is connected. Results of Earth Law includes rights for rivers, granting personhood to mountains, and acknowledging colonial wrongdoings. Given today's environmental devastation, Earth Law challenges practitioners to have incorporate healing practices. This paradigm shift will provide the necessary philosophy and legal tools to address climate change in a timely, adequate, and equitable manner. For this paradigm shift to occur, we must take control of our narrative--currently, Western binary thinking separates humanity from its habitat, Nature. Environmentalists are consistently faced with owls-versus-jobs style arguments. This false dichotomy has created modern environmental laws that permit inequitable environmental destruction, none more dramatic than climate change. By pushing a core Western legal doctrine, the Public Trust Doctrine, deeper into its own logic and values, we find Earth Law.

This paper aims to look at the role and rule of law in the making of society and, more importantly, the arguments for a shift in the paradigm from an Anthropocentric ontology to a more Earth-centered one. The paper critiques the current approach to sustainable development and environmental protection, review arguments on the Rights of Nature and explore the potential for the concept of Earth Jurisprudence building on current literature. In particular, the paper outlines that a constitutional right of nature is needed to address the challenges globally faced. Finally, the paper we also examines in detail the case study of the constitution of Ecuador where the rights of nature have been codified. It outlines some of the key issues involved in this proposed approach to new legal frameworks and make recommendations for future research.

The idea of human dominion over nature has become entrenched by the dominant rights-based interpretation of private property. Accordingly, nature is not attributed any inherent value and becomes merely the matter of a human property relationship. Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment explores how an alternative conception of property might be instead grounded in the ecocentric concept of an Earth community. Recognising that human beings are deeply interconnected with and dependent on nature, this concept is proposed as a standard and measure for human law.This book argues that the anthropocentric institution of private property needs to be reconceived; drawing on international case law, indigenous views of property and the land use practices of agrarian communities, Peter Burdon considers how private property can be reformulated in a way that fosters duties towards nature. Using the theory of earth jurisprudence as a guide, he outlines an alternative ecocentric description of private property as a relationship between and among members of the Earth community.

Voight analyzes the question of whether the unalienable rights granted to people in the United States should be granted to nonhuman entities, ultimately concluding that allocation of an entity’s rights is determined by that entity’s value to humanity. Key to issues of environmental law is the concept of standing, which is a legal prerequisite to a party’s right to make a legal claim, bring a legal action, and seek recourse for rights violations. Previously, environmental groups have failed to establish a “direct stake in the outcome” of corporate development threatening natural resources, and no other U.S. jurisprudence has granted legal rights to aspects of the environment. Nature cannot claim legal rights without the intervention of a human whose rights have been invaded, but there is promise in establishing guardianship for nature. Additionally, it is difficult to discern rights for natural entities because they are frequently intertwined, for example, how do you separate a stream from its source, and guardianship for two separate but connected natural objects could lead to inconsistent judgments.

In this lead article, the authors build on the idea that we do not need more environmental law in response to the deteriorating health of the natural world. Rather, they argue that what is needed are different approaches to managing human relationships with the earth. They argue that the burgeoning Earth jurisprudence movement offers a deep philosophical anchor and a range of practical and multi-disciplinary approaches necessary to create law reform and societal change that will better support the natural world and human societies than our current system. The authors will outline the origins and key elements of the Earth jurisprudence movement. In addition, they explore some of the ways groups inspired by Earth laws have implemented their work. Lastly, they will provide an overview of the work being carried out by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, the Earth Advocates, the Center for Earth Jurisprudence, and the Australian Earth Laws Alliance.

In this interactive article, The Gaia Foundation explains Earth Jurisprudence, provides legal precedents, examples of earth jurisprudence in practice as well as its core principles : Wholeness, Lawfulness, Duty of Care, Rights of Eart, Mutual Enhancement and Resilience. The present international legal system is, in large part, based on a jurisprudence developed during the industrial era to serve colonists, industrialists and corporations. Thomas Berry was clear that Earth Jurisprudence, whilst a new term, is not a new philosophy or practice. He pointed towards two sources of inspiration - Mother Earth and Indigenous Peoples

Given that the International Tribunal has emerged from civil society rather than state- centered international law, and given that countries like Australia and the United States do not recognize, in State or Federal law, the intrinsic rights of plants, animals, or ecosystems to exist, what possible benefits do Rights of Nature Tribunals offer the natural world, and what impact can they have on the current legal system?In this paper, I the author outlines the creation and ongoing hearings of the International Tribunal and its Regional Chambers and provide an overview of Earth jurisprudence, the emerging theory of Earth-centered law and governance from which the Tribunals have emerged. The author then contextualizes the Rights of Nature Tribunals within the phenomenon of peoples’ tribunals during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. She suggests that like many “peoples’ tribunals” before them, Rights of Nature Tribunals provide a powerful voice for civil society concerns and create an alternative narrative to that offered by western legal systems regarding environmental destruction. They also have the potential to play a role in transforming existing law and offer a welcome, cathartic contribution to the burgeoning field of Earth jurisprudence.

Most legal systems promote the interest of the human community while giving no real protection to other species, or to the planet itself. They reflect and perpetuate a view of the Earth as simply a collection of ‘resources' or objects which human beings are entitled to exploit for their exclusive benefit.So what if there were another jurisprudence based upon the concept that the planet and all species have rights? And they have those rights by virtue of their existence as members of a single Earth community?

This dialogue/interview outlines the benefits of an earth-centered law, the recommendations in the approaches for achieving its implementation and the obstacles that may impede it.

This article calls for a reassessment of our core beliefs on how we relate to the environment through a deep dive into the philosophical foundations of environmental protection. With this purpose, it shows how Earth-centered discourses have existed in human societies and civilizations for millennia. Different religious and philosophical underpinnings all share a view of humanity as an integral part of an organic whole, revering all living things. While recent developments in jurisprudence may appear novel, they are somewhat latent and emergent. Theories of land ethics, rights of nature, Earth-centered environmental ethics, wild law, and Earth jurisprudence all build on these philosophical crescendos and have proved influential at the international level. It is time to find new approaches to the law that rely on the value of nature. This article tells us the why and the how.

This article presents an interpretation of Earth Jurisprudence as a legal philosophy. It has sought to outline the legal categories proposed in Earth Jurisprudence and consider how they interact with each other. It began by describing Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law. It posited the existence of two kinds of ‘law’, organised in a hierarchy. At the apex is Great Law, which represents the principle of Earth community. Below the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules articulated by human authorities that are consistent with the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth community. Human Law was also described as purposive rather than neutral or value free. The stated purpose of human law is to secure conditions that favour the health and future flourishing of the Earth community. On this account, Human Law cannot truly be understood without reference to the ideal or common good toward which it is striving.