Mar 18

SHOULD TREES HAVE STANDING? - TOWARD LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NATURAL OBJECTS

INTRODUCTION: THE UNTHINKABLE

• In Descent of Man, Charles Darwin discusses the moral development of humanity.

  • The idea is that moral instincts have broadened over time.

  • Initially, concern was primarily for oneself and close kin.

  • Over time, this concern expanded to encompass all fellow humans, including those of different races, disabilities, and eventually lower animals.

• The history of law has similarly evolved.

  • Earlier legal concepts often related to Hobbesian notions of state — rights mainly concerning self-defense.

  • Early families or kinship groups had suspicious views of outsiders, creating a framework where rights were restricted.

• The status of children historically lacked rights, with practices like infanticide commonplace, suggesting a rightlessness that has since been challenged.

  • For instance, the Roman law concept of patria potestas gave fathers ultimate authority over their children’s lives.

  • Maine notes that this authority included control over aspects like marriage and personal freedom, reducing children to mere objects with no rights.

• There has been a long-term shift in recognizing rights for children, prisoners, women, racial minorities, and even fetuses in specific contexts.

COMMON LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

• The evolution of rights has extended beyond humans to inanimate entities.

  • Legal persons now include trusts, corporations, municipalities, etc.

• The concept of personhood has historically been challenging, particularly regarding corporations.

  • Early legal scholars grappled with whether entities like the Church or State had a legal status independent of physical beings.

• The proposal at hand is to extend legal rights to natural objects like forests, oceans, and rivers.

• The notion of personhood has faced historical resistance.

  • Examples include racial and ethnic tensions in legal decisions concerning citizenship and rights.

  • Commentary over time has illustrated feelings of superiority and inferiority based on race.

• Legal constructs historically prevented the recognition of rights for various groups and should provoke questions about extending such considerations to natural entities.

THE UNTHINKABLE: A CASE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

• The text emphasizes that granting rights to the environment is rational, though may seem unconventional.

  • Rights for the natural environment are not equivalent to rights for humans but acknowledge a form of inherent value.

• Two significant aspects must be considered:
  — Legal-Operational Aspects
  — Psychic and Socio-Psychic Aspects

• Legal-Operational Aspects:

  • Rights holders must have support from legal authorities to defend their rights.

  • Example: A student expelled from a university must be able to seek judgment from courts to claim their rights.

  • Three essential criteria must be fulfilled for an entity to be considered a holder of legal rights:

  1. The entity can initiate legal actions.

  2. The courts must consider injury to the entity when determining legal relief.

  3. Relief granted must benefit the entity.

• The common law viewpoint currently lacks these frameworks for natural objects, rendering them rights-less.

  • Current law views natural objects like streams as subject to pollution without regard for their health, often only allowing human riparians to address grievances.

  • The problem persists because lower riparians may ignore pollution for financial reliance on polluting industries.

• The protective measures in place do not adequately consider the damage to the environment itself but rather the economic impacts on human plaintiffs involved.

• The result is a structure where pollution continues unchecked, and the environment suffers substantially without legal recourse.

THE RIGHTLESSNESS OF NATURAL OBJECTS AT COMMON LAW

• At common law, natural objects such as streams lack any recognized rights.

  • Standing: Natural objects cannot sue or challenge legal violations directly, only through human representatives.

  • Court decisions often ignore the unique interests of the natural objects themselves.

  • The first aspect of common law denies a voice to the environment in matters of pollution and damage.

  • Second: When assessing damages, the law predominantly focuses on human economic interests rather than the health of natural objects.

  • This leads to judgments that prioritize human economic gain over the condition of the natural environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTS IN LEGAL DISCOURSE

• Different environmental entities face varying legal treatments but share a common lack of rights.

  • Streams, lakes, forests, and even oceans fail to have mechanisms for protecting their interests under the law.

  • They are frequently viewed strictly as resources for human benefit rather than entities that deserve their rights.

  • Law today continues to view nature as an object of human appropriation and exploitation.

• Conservation efforts often support this anthropocentric view, seeking to preserve resources primarily for human use rather than for intrinsic value.

• The implications of assigning rights to environmental entities should be explored further.

LEGAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

• Exploring natural rights could change perspectives on how society values the environment.

  • There is potential for law to recognize intrinsic values in natural objects, moving towards a system where they're not merely seen as tools for human use.

  • This could radically alter conservation practices and engagement with nature itself.

CONCLUSION

• The proposal to grant rights to natural objects seeks to challenge and rethink how legal rights are applied universally.

• The current legal frameworks protect human interests predominantly while neglecting the environment's rights and needs.

• Moving forward, it is crucial to advocate for the recognition of rights that afford natural objects legal standing and protection, aligning legal discourse with contemporary environmental ethics.