On March 20, a community rally on the Margaret River south of Perth, Australia, called for the river to be recognized as a legal entity with the local council as its custodian.
Under the banner “Is it time to give our river rights?” more than 100 people discussed ways of protecting the river, prompted by plans for a mountain-bike and walking track along the foreshore.
A rights-of-nature approach has majority support in the council, river advocate Ray Swarts said.
Illustration: Mountain People
The emerging international rights-of-nature movement aims to address the way Western legal systems treat nature as property, making the living world invisible to the law. It uses Western legal constructs, such as personhood and rights-based approaches, to shift the status of nature from property to a subject in law in an effort to protect the natural world.
This new approach to environmental law was introduced in the US by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, whose first success came in 2006 when it helped to defend a Pennsylvania community’s right to reject sludge being dumped in their borough.
In just over a decade the rights-of-nature movement has grown from one law adopted in a small community in the US to a movement which has seen countries enact laws, even constitutional protections, recognizing the rights of nature, fund cofounder Margi Margil said.
In 2008 Ecuador became the first country to enshrine the rights of nature in its constitution.
Margil helped draft the legislation and said that during the process: “Indigenous members of Ecuador’s constitutional assembly told us that codifying the rights of nature would expand their collective rights as Indigenous peoples.”
New Zealand granted legal personhood to the Te Uruwera forest in 2014, and to the Whanganui River and Mount Taranaki last year.
An Indian court granted legal personhood to the Ganges and Yamuna rivers last year, citing the Whanganui Act, and soon after Colombia awarded rights to the Atrato River.
In a significant shift, in a report on Australia’s national environmental governance system in August last year, the Australian panel of experts on environmental law recommended exploring legal frameworks that shift the focus of law from human subjects to a “rights-of-nature” approach.
Traditional owners along the Kimberley’s Fitzroy River are also looking at ways to create legal personhood for their river. Their 2016 Fitzroy River declaration recognizes the river as a living ancestral being with a right to life and includes traditional owners’ obligation to protect the river for current and future generations.
“[It is] the first time in Australia that both first law and the inherent rights of nature have been explicitly recognized in a negotiated instrument,” traditional custodian and scientist Anne Poelina said.
This month community members urged the new Labor state government to uphold their pre-election commitment to the declaration.
Rights for nature were first proposed by Christopher Stone in his 1972 article “Should trees have standing?” and were famously endorsed by US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas’ dissenting judgement in Sierra Club versus Morton, in which he argued that trees should be granted personhood and have the ability to sue for their own protection, effectively blocking the development of a Walt Disney ski resort inside the Sequoia National Park in California.
Stone said that leaving behind the enlightenment view of nature as a collection of “useful senseless objects” would not only help to solve the planet’s material problems, but would encourage a heightened awareness of nature.
“Any system that puts no value on the life around us is wrong, it’s as simple as that,” said Michelle Maloney, who cofounded the Australian Earth Laws Alliance in 2012 to promote rights-of-nature law in Australia.
Rights of nature is inspired and led by Indigenous traditions of Earth-centered law and culture, but it is also “whitefellas talking back to the white system,” Maloney said.
“It’s looking back to the Western legal governance system and going, ‘What kind of culture develops the systems we have now that created such devastation? Can rights of nature be a bridge into a different, Earth-centered way of being?’” she said.
It was Maloney who introduced rights-of-nature thinking to the Margaret River.
The alliance’s recommendation that rights of nature be explored in Australia is “huge for the legal community here,” she said.
She is now working with communities along the Great Barrier Reef and this month addressed a gathering in Katoomba about rights of nature for the Blue Mountains near Sydney.
It is powerful “because it can capture your imagination and encourage you to think differently. To all non-lawyers, it seems logical,” Maloney said.
“I think rights-of-nature law helps us personalize and reframe our relationship with nature. It puts it in a different context and starts to tell a story,” Swarts said.
Stories were vital in developing Australia’s first legislation with a rights-of-nature component, the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017. The act affirms the river’s intrinsic and human values and recognizes the river and lands as a living and integrated system.
In doing so it acknowledges the wisdom of its traditional owners, the Wurundjeri people, who introduced the bill into the Victorian parliament with Australian Minister for Planning Richard Wynne in June last year.
The legislation was part of a broader movement in government to recognize Aboriginal rights to land, Wynne said.
In her address to the Australian parliament, Wurundjeri elder Alice Kolasa said: “The state now recognizes something that we, as the First People have always known, that the Birrarung is one integrated living entity.”
The journey to this structural inclusion began from the moment of first contact, she said.
The act recognizes “the intrinsic connection of the traditional owners to the Yarra River and its country” and their role “as the custodians of the land and waterway which they call Birrarung.”
It includes their Woi-wurrung language, making it the first legislation in Victoria to use the language of traditional owners. Its title contains the Woi-wurrung for “Keep the Birrarung alive” and its preamble includes a statement in Woi-wurrung about the Birrarung’s significance.
Conceiving the Yarra River and its lands as a single system is critical for its ecological health.
In 2004 the Yarra Riverkeeper Association was formed to tell the river’s story and monitor its health. Before the 2014 state election it proposed a policy to protect the Yarra with consistent planning laws along the river.
The then opposition Labor party committed to the plan and won the election.
Yarra riverkeeper Andrew Kelly,worked with Environmental Justice Australia lawyer Bruce Lindsay to keep Labor to its promise and help develop the Yarra River protection act, with extensive community consultation.
Lindsay saw it as a good opportunity for law reform, especially concerning water.
The plan surfed a wave of enthusiasm, Kelly said.
“It was a really fortunate conjunction of the stars that allowed this to happen,” he said.
The long-term Yarra strategic plan was critical for Kelly and Lindsay: “We didn’t want to plan for five years. We wanted to plan for 50 years. That’s what you’ve got to start thinking about when you’re dealing with ecological units, landscapes.”
Some people think the act is about the water, Kelly said. “But it’s really more about the banks. It’s as much about the birds as it is about the fish. It’s about connecting the length of the waterway and the Riverina corridor.”
Lindsay hopes the act’s powerful bicultural element will lead to a bicultural understanding of the river.
Water lawyer Erin O’Donnell also stresses its importance as a piece of bilingual legislation.
She emphasizes the symbolic value of creating an inclusive Birrarung council that has the power to genuinely provide a voice for the Yarra River.
“If through the Birrarung council First Nations and all Yarra River stakeholders can come together, this could be a powerful model for the rest of Australia. It can be used as a genuine move towards reconciliation. It’s a pathway to legitimacy for holistic views of the river and acknowledgment of First Nations,” O’Donnell said.
From the Fitzroy River in Western Australia, Poelina said that she is inspired by the Yarra River protection act and fully endorses “the Yarra River’s right to life as a legal precedent for new laws to protect our Australian rivers which are the arteries of our nation. As my elders constantly remind me: No river, no people, no life.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with