Rights of nature as an alternative or a complement to existing environmental protection

• Authors: Julián Suárez

Title variants

PL

Prawa do przyrody jako alternatywa lub uzupełnienie istniejącej ochrony przyrody

Abstracts

PL

Jedno z najbardziej wyrafinowanych wyrażeń podejścia do ochrony środowiska, opartego na prawach, tj. prawa do przyrody, przebyło długą drogę od wczesnych lat 2000. Zdążyło się w tym okresie przekształcić w pełnowymiarowe struktury rządowe, które mogą albo poprawić, albo potencjalnie zastąpić ochronę środowiska, polegającą na obowiązku, jaki jest nakładany w ramach narodowych systemów prawnych. Jednakże pomimo postępu, jaki dokonuje się za sprawą wartości zrównoważonego rozwoju, zarówno ekoteologiczność, jak i aspekt praw do przyrody posiadają pewne niedoskonałości; niektóre z nich są szczególnie powiązane ze swoją jednoznacznie określoną zawartością oraz zakresem ochrony. Z perspektywy prawnej dominujące podejście doktrynalne oraz porównawcze w analizie prawnej może przyczynić się do rzucenia światła na skuteczność prawa do przyrody. Wstępne wnioski mają za cel wykazanie, że z punktu widzenia analizy prawnej odnoszącej się do tego podejścia, które skupia cztery europejskie krajowe prawnicze ujęcia praw do przyrody, można wyodrębnić pakiet wskaźników, które określają, czy jest zasadne porzucenie idei zapewnienia praw do przyrody jako zdolnej polepszyć, a nawet zastąpić istniejącą ochronę przyrody.

EN

One of the most refined expressions of rights-based approaches to environmental protection, rights of nature have come a long way since the early 2000s. They have developed into full-fledged governance structures that could either improve or potentially replace duty-based existing environmental protection within domestic jurisdictions. However, even though they advance sustainable development values, both eco-theological and local participative governance strands of rights of nature have encountered shortcomings; several of them particularly related with the scope of protection derived from their explicit content. From a legal analysis perspective, a predominantly doctrinal and comparative approach can contribute to shedding light on rights of nature legal potency. Preliminary conclusions would show that from a legal analysis under this approach comprising four European domestic rights of nature legal frameworks, a bundle of indicators can be extracted to determine whether a certain rights of nature provision could be discarded as capable of enhancing or even substituting existing environmental protection.

Keywords

EN

rights of nature; rights-based approach; effectiveness; eco-theological rights; local participative governance

PL

prawa do przyrody; podejście oparte na prawach; skuteczność; rządy partycypacji regionalnej; prawo ekoteologiczne

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski
• Journal: Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 87-117

Dates

published

2024

Contributors

author

Julián Suárez

• University College Cork, School of Law

• https://orcid.org/0000000270875772

References

• Aguila, Yann. 2021. The Right to a Healthy Environment. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/202110/right-a- healthy-environment#:~:text=By%20Yann%20Aguila%20%2D%20On%20October,as%20an%20important%20human%20right.
• Alexy, Robert. 2000. On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris 13(3): 294–304.
• Atienza, Manuel, and Juan Ruiz Manero. 1998. Values in the Law. In: A Theory of Legal Sentences, (eds.) Francisco Laporta, Aleksander Peczenik, and Frederick Schauer, 120–140. New York: Springer.
• Autin, Whitney, and John Holbrook. 2012. Is the Anthropocene an issue of stratigraphy or pop culture? GSA Today 22(7): 60–61. DOI: 10.1130/G153GW.1.
• Autonomous Decentralised Government of Santa Ana de Cotacachi v Minister for the Environment & Anor, Ecuadorian Constitutional Court, 10 November 2021, 1149-19- JP/21.
• Bétaille, Julien. 2019. Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 16: 35–64. DOI: 10.1163/18760104- 01601004.
• Bogdanova, Iryna. 2022. Unilateral Sanctions in International Law and the Enforcement of Human Rights. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
• Brondizio, Eduardo, Karen O’Brien, Xuemei Bai, Frank Biermann, Will Steffen, Frans Berkhout, Christophe Cudennec, Maria Carmen Lemos, Alexander Wolfe, Jose Palma-Oliveira, and Chen-Tung Arthur Chen. 2016. Reconceptualizing the Anthropocene: A call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39: 318–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006.
• Cahill v Sutton [1980] I.R. 269.
• Charan Lal Sahu v India & Ors [1990] AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597.
• Chynoweth, Paul. Legal research. In: Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, (eds.) Andrew Knight, and Les Ruddock, 28–38. Chichester: Willey-Blackwell.
• Coyne v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC412 (Holland J).
• Crutzen, Paul, and Eugene Stoermer. 2000. The ‘Anthropocene’. IGBP Global Change Newsletter 41: 17–18.
• Cullet, Philippe. 1995. Definition of an Environmental Right in a Human Rights Context. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 13: 25–40.
• Dalby, Simon. 2015. Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. The Anthropocene Review 3(1): 33–51. DOI: 10.1177/2053019615618681.
• Daly, Erin. 2016. La doctrine environnementaliste aux États-Unis d’Amérique – Les suites de la “public trust doctrine”, développée par le professeur Joseph L. Sax. HS16 Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, 183–200. https://www.cairn.info/revue-juridique-de-l-environnement-2016-HS16-page-183.htm.
• Dancer, Helen. 2021. Harmony with Nature: towards a new deep legal pluralism. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 53(1): 21–41. DOI: 10.1080/07329113.2020.1845503.
• De Lucia, Vito. 2013. Towards an ecological philosophy of law: a comparative discussion. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 4(2): 167–190.
• De Lucia, Vito. 2015. Competing Narratives and Complex Genealogies: The Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental Law. Journal of Environmental Law 27: 91–117. DOI: 10.1093/jel/equ031.
• Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland & Ors [2020] IESC 49 (Clarke CJ).
• Gilbert, Jérémie. 2023. Creating Synergies between International Law and Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law 12(3): 671–697. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102523000195.
• Hassan, Tirana. 2022. A new model for global leadership on Human Rights. In: World Report 2023, (ed.) Human Rights Watch, 1–12. New York: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World_Report_2023_WEBSPREADS_0.pdf.
• Houck, Oliver. 2017. Noah’s Second Voyage: The Rights of Nature as Law. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 31(1): 1–50.
• Jolly, Stellina, and K.S. Roshan Menon. 2021. Of Ebbs and Flows: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Granting Personhood to Natural Entities in India. Transnational Environmental Law 10(3):1–26. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102520000424.
• Kauffman, Craig, and Pamela Martin. 2021. The Politics of Rights of Nature. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Khaitan, Tarunabh, and Sandy Steel. 2023. Areas of Law: Three Questions in Special Jurisprudence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 43(1): 76–96. DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqac025.
• Knox, John. 2020. Constructing the Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16: 79–95. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- 031720-074856.
• Kotzé, Louis, and Paola Villavicencio Calzadilla. 2017. Somewhere between Rhetoric and Reality: Environmental Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature in Ecuador. Transnational Environmental Law 6(3): 401–433.
• Kotzé, Louis, and Paola Villavicencio Calzadilla. 2018. Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. Transnational Environmental Law 7(3): 397–424. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102518000201.
• Kotzé, Louis, and Rakhyun Kim. 2019. Earth system law: The juridical dimensions of earth system governance. Earth System Governance 1: 100003. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2019.100003.
• Krämer, Ludwig. 2020. Rights of Nature and Their Implementation. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 17: 47–75. DOI: 10.1163/18760104.01701005.
• Lambooy, Tineke, Tessa van Soest, and Ignace Breemer. 2022. Granting Rights of Nature to the Wadden Sea? An Exploratory Study. Breukelen: Waddenacademie, and Nyenrode Business Universiteit. https://www.waddenacademie.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/pdf/04-bibliotheek/2022-04_Granting_Rights_of_Nature_to_the_Wadden_Sea.pdf.
• Macpherson, Elizabeth. 2023. Can Western water law become more ‘relational’? A survey of comparative laws affecting water across Australasia and the Americas. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 53(3): 395–424. DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2022.2143383.
• Macpherson, Elizabeth, and Felipe Clavijo Ospina. 2015. The pluralism of river rights in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Colombia. Journal of Water Law 25(6): 283–293.
• Macpherson, Elizabeth, Axel Borchgrevink, Rahul Ranjan, and Catalina Vallejo Piedrahíta. 2021. Where ordinary laws fall short: ‘riverine rights’ and constitutionalism. Griffith Law Review 30(3): 438–473. DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2021.1982119.
• Massip, Nathalie. 2020. The 1964 Wilderness Act, from “wilderness idea” to governmental oversight and protection of wilderness. Miranda 20: 1–17. DOI: 10.4000/miranda.26787.
• Matthews, Daniel. 2019. Law and Aesthetics in the Anthropocene: From the Rights of Nature to the Aesthesis of Obligations. Law, Culture and the Humanities 19(2): 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/1743872119871830.
• May, James, and Erin Daly. Can the U.S. Constitution Encompass a Right to a Stable Climate? (Yes, it Can.) UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 39(1): 39–64. DOI: 10.5070/L5391052535.
• McCrudden, Christopher. Legal research and the social sciences. Law Quarterly Review 122: 632–650.
• Mohan v Ireland [2019] IESC 18 (O’Donnell J).
• Moscati Hawkes, Lisa. 1988. Parens Patriae and the Union Carbide case: The Disaster at Bhopal Continues. Cornell International Law Journal 21(1): 181–200.
• O’Donnell, Erin. 2021. Rivers as living beings: rights in law, but no rights to water? Griffith Law Review: 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304.
• Odote, Collins. 2020. Human rights-based approach to environmental protection: Kenyan, South African and Nigerian constitutional architecture and experience. In: Human rights and the environment under African Union Law, (eds.) Michael Addaney, and Ademola Jegede Oluborode, 381–414. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Paris, Marie-Luce. 2016. The Comparative Method in Legal Research: The Art of Justifying Choices. In: Legal Research Methods: Principles and Practicalities, (eds.) Laura Cahillane, and Schweppe Jennifer, 39–55. Dublin: Clarus Press.
• Pereira Calumby, Luíza, and Aðalheiður Jóhansdóttir. 2021. From Aarhus to Escazú and the Cross-fertilisation of Ideas and Principles. Nordisk miljörättslig tidskrift 2021(1): 53–73. https://nordiskmiljoratt.se/onewebmedia/NMT2021nr1_inlaga_tryck.pdf.
• Pérez de los Cobos Hernandez, Elisa. 2023. La acción popular como instrumento de garantía de la tutela judicial efectiva del Mar Menor y su cuenca. Medio Ambiente y Derecho 41. https://huespedes.cica.es/gimadus/.
• Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert Corell, Victoria Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan Foley. 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32.
• Sajeva, Giulia. 2021. Environmentally Conditioned Human Rights: A Good Idea? In: Rights of Nature: A Re-examination, (eds.) Daniel Corrigan, and Markku Oksanen, 85–100. New York: Routledge.
• Salim v State of Uttarakhand & Ors, High Court of Uttarakhand, 20 March 2017, Writ Petition (PIL) 126/2014.
• Salim v State of Uttarakhand & Ors, Supreme Court of India, 7 July 2017, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 016879/2017.
• Sevillano Callejas v Panama, Panamanian Supreme Court, 27 November 2023. https://cdn.corprensa.com/la-prensa/uploads/2023/11/28/fallo_27nov2023_corte_suprema.pdf.
• Soro Mateo, Blanca, and Álvarez Carreño, Santiago. 2022. El reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica y derechos propios al Mar Menor y su cuenca como respuesta a la crisis del derecho ambiental. In: Estudios sobre la efectividad del derecho de la biodiversidad y del cambio climático, directed by Soro Mateo, Blanca, and Álvarez Carreño, Santiago, 151–194. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
• Suárez, Julián. 2023. Could rights of nature be overlapping, redundant and conflicting regarding existing environmental protection? An overview of four selected European domestic law frameworks. Environmental Liability: Law, Policy and Practice 28(2): 90–107.
• Taekema, Sanne. 2018. Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice. Law and Method (no number): 1–17. DOI: 10.5553/REM/.000031.
• Tănăsescu, Mihnea. 2020. Rights of Nature, Legal Personality and Indigenous Philosophies. Transnational Environmental Law 9(3): 429–453. DOI: 10.1017/S2047102520000217.
• Tănăsescu, Mihnea. 2022. Understanding Rights of Nature. Bielefeld: Transcript.
• Tierra Digna Social Justice Study Centre & Ors v President of Colombia & Ors, Colombian Constitutional Court, 10 November 2016, T-622/16.
• Toubes Muñiz, Joaquín. 1997. Legal Principles and Legal Theory. Ratio Juris 10(3); 267– 287.
• United Nations Environment Program. 2022. Adopting a Human Rights-based Approach to Ecosystem-based Adaptation: A Contribution to Sustainable Development (DEO/2490/NA). Nairobi: United Nations. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41325.
• United Nations Environment Program. 2023. Environmental Rule of Law: Tracking Progress and Charting Future Directions (DEL/2587/NA). Nairobi: United Nations. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/43943.
• United Nations General Assembly. 2022. The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/76/L.75). Geneva: United Nations.
• United Nations Human Rights Council. 2021. The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1). Geneva: United Nations.
• Van Houcke, Mark. 2015. Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method: 1–35. DOI: 10.5553/REM/.000010.
• Venn, Alice. 2019. Social justice and climate change. In: Managing Global Warming, (ed.) Trevor Letcher, 711–728. London: Elsevier.
• Vicente Giménez, Teresa, and Eduardo Salazar Ortuño. 2022. La Iniciativa Legislativa Popular para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica y derechos propios al Mar Menor y su cuenca. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental 13(1): 1–38. DOI: 10.17345/rcda3312.
• Villavicencio Calzadilla, Paola, and Louis Kotzé. 2023. Re-imagining Participation in the Anthropocene: The Potential of the Rights of Nature Paradigm. In: Sustainability through Participation? Perspectives from National, European and International Law, (eds.) Birgit Peters, and Eva Julia Lohse, 51–72. Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff.
• Warren, Lynda. 2006. Wild Law – the theory. Environmental Law and Management 18: 11– 1.
• Wesche, Tilo. 2022. Who owns nature? About the rights of nature. Estudios de Filosofía 65: 49–68. DOI: 10.17533/udea.ef.347573.
• Wilk, Bettina, Dries Hegger, Carel Dieperink, Rakhyun Kim, and Peter Driessen. 2019. The potential limitations on its basin decision-making processes of granting self-defence rights to Father Rhine. Water International 44(6–7): 684–700. DOI: 10.1080/ 02508060.2019.1651965.

Identifiers

DOI

10.25167/osap.5340

Biblioteka Nauki

38697122