It is a well-accepted quirk of law that corporations have the right to own property, enter into contracts and sue each other — just like an actual person. Ships also enjoy the perks of legal personhood. So it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that rivers, forests and mountains — ecosystems that support a vast range of lifeforms and are vital to the functioning of the world — should also be granted legal rights.
The idea that the natural world should have a statutory voice has been around in some form or another for millennia. Animism — the concept that all natural things possess a spirit — was a core principle of many belief systems, and still is among many indigenous groups.
In 1972, the idea found a modern footing through an influential article, “Should Trees Have Standing?” — later published in a book of essays under the same name — by law professor Christopher Stone. He argued that just as women and minority groups were eventually socially enfranchised, so the rights of the natural environment should be recognized.
Around the same time, the US Supreme Court debated a claim by the Sierra Club, an environmental organization, which was suing to prevent a Walt Disney Co ski resort development in the Sierra Nevada mountains. While the court ruled there was no injury to consider, US Justice William Douglas dissented: “Before these priceless bits of America (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost ... the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.”
Since then, the rights for nature movement has scored some notable wins and is gathering momentum. In 2017, the Whanganui River in New Zealand became the first in the world to be granted legal personhood, with two humans — one appointed by the government and the other by the local Maori iwi (or tribe) — appointed as guardians.
Rivers in Colombia, Canada, Bangladesh and elsewhere have followed. Similar rights have also been granted to forests and a mountain.
In the UK, politicians from Test Valley Borough Council last month voted to acknowledge the rights of all the rivers within its boundaries, becoming the third Hampshire council to do so. Its waterways were granted the legal right to flow unimpeded and be free from pollution and contamination, among other prerogatives.
Earlier this year, Lewes District Council announced it would “support” and “champion” the principles of a river charter drawn up with the help of charity Environmental Law Foundation, law firm Hogan Lovells and international barrister Monica Feria Tinta.
The city of Paris is seeking legal personhood for the Seine, while an initiative by the Pacific Whale Fund in collaboration with international law firm Simmons & Simmons and Ocean Vision Legal is investigating granting whales and other cetaceans “standing” within the judicial system.
The increased interest in nature rights coincides with a growing recognition that humans need healthy ecosystems to thrive, and that precious natural resources are suffering amid biodiversity and climate crises.
However, there have been legitimate questions raised about whether conferring rights to these entities is the best way to go about protecting them. After all, accepting that a river has rights does not automatically eliminate threats.
Mar Menor, a salt lagoon in Spain, was granted legal personhood in 2022. Nearly three years on, the lagoon is still waiting to have its rights respected. Plagued by excessive nutrient runoff from intensive agriculture — which triggers vegetation-killing, fish-suffocating algal blooms — Mar Menor has not seen conditions improve nor protections predating the lagoon’s personhood properly enforced.
Noah Sachs, a law professor at the University of Richmond and director of the Merhige Center for Environmental Studies, described the movement as a “wrong turn” in a 2023 article published in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review.He argued that the rights are “vague and vacuous” and that the process shifts the responsibility for resolving environmental issues onto the courts, typically a slower and more expensive way to enforce the law than specific regulations.
It is better to think of nature rights not as a replacement for traditional environmental law, but, for example, as a useful tool for ensuring that nature’s voice is considered when making planning decisions.
As Emily Julier, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells who helped draft the River Ouse charter, said: “It’s a different way to look at your relationship with the river.”
While environmental laws can be “gappy” in places, acknowledging a river’s rights means that we accept a broader responsibility for its well-being.
What gives me the most hope is that in the UK, such motions have received cross-party support. In a world that feels more fractured than ever, it feels meaningful that nature still has the power to unite us.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS