UnEarth Magazine.

Words by Clarissa Bell, art by Emily Warden.

You’ve read the title – hold your howls of anguish! I’m not going to make you read dense legalese – no winding exposition of legal acts, no court process contexts, no case studies of core judgment cases, nada. There’s going to be none of my usual “well actually if we look at the technicalities of this…” antics whilst you can practically sense me pushing my suitably nerdy glasses. Promise is a promise.   

I want to pose a question rather than an argument. A question that I’m not going to give my own concluding opinion on, but instead, will pose for you to answer. So, get out your gavels, the motion is in full swing, and court is now in session. Today we’re ruling on whether nature – everything we assume to be nature, the trees, birds, marshes, mudflats, oceans and everything humanity still hasn’t laid its eyes on– should be classified as having a legal personality.   

My question to you isn’t a random thought that just occurred to me. The UK Government earlier this very year challenged the recognition of the rights of nature by the United Nations. Simply put, the UK delegate’s reasoning for this stance was presented with the view that “rights can only be held by legal entities with a legal personality”.   

Generally, this would be the point where I try and challenge the UK Government’s logic: throw in recent events, some statistics, argue that the UK isn’t the epicentre of the world, and go on another mini hunt for an opposing argument. In this case however, I didn’t need to. Numerous countries have passed legislation to affirm that nature has rights and therefore, entitlement to a legal personality. Upon reading articles on Ecuador’s legal personality and rights of nature, I found that initiatives to pass these rights have been sought in no less than 44 countries. We’ve had the same question posed to us years ago with the coverage of the Magpie River in Quebec, New Zealand’s Whanganui Treaty, to name just a couple. The entire ‘rights of nature’ movement started over 50 years ago. I would be remiss not to note that many of these movements are mobilised by Indigenous groups across the world, often accredited with protecting 80% of global biodiversity and still remain some of the most marginalised communities. There are already serious implications about whose nature we’re talking about here, and brings in broader struggles around land rights, property, dispossession, inequality and who gets to make these laws. 

So, the UK is obviously a bit of an outlier in its ‘principle’ of non-recognition. However, many have stated that there are complications associated with nature’s legal status. Recognising something as a subject of law indicates its ability to participate in decision-making, as well as bear responsibility and assert their rights and obligations in court. This obviously ties back into wider connections of representation and voice in these debates. After all, our conception of nature is never completely natural.  

Well then, how do we use this law to strengthen the protection of nature outside of the courtroom, in everyday life, in everyday decisions that may impact its wellbeing? How do we guarantee adequate documentation to fulfil the obligation of giving nature inherent rights? Are representative groups seen as separate legal personalities in themselves? I kept my promise to refrain from complicated technicalities, but in practice, complicated legal technicalities reveal themselves when applying these laws and moving beyond the abstract. As a result, legal technicalities will have a very real, very possibly disheartening, societal character embedded within their practice. 

I must admit I’m biased. I suspect that those of you choosing to read this environmental magazine in the first place may risk being a tad biased, too. How much of environmental law, laws around rights and obligations, are politics at the end of the day? But that’s a different article topic altogether.  

Anyhow, I’ve tried to present the case for you as balanced as I can. You be the judge. We will all be the judge, at the end of the day. At least, not if we become the witnesses first.