Reflections on Issue Thirteen
Should Nature Have Rights?
Thank you to everyone who had a chance to read Issue Thirteen over the past week. For those who have yet to read it, the reflections from other readers below may be a good starting point, or you can read “Should Nature Have Rights?" first.
The Understory reflections between issues are intended to share thoughtful comments from readers that expand upon and challenge parts of the previous issue. I am immensely grateful for the comments added this week, and hope they provide further value in thinking about systems of rights and how they might be applied to protect the natural world.
As Shared by Mitch Taylor
Evo Morales Press Conference - World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth - Cochabamba, Bolivia by kris krüg (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
“I think we should start with a UN resolution for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth that should then be adopted by every nation on earth. I know it's a big "should", but we need a very credible Call to Action which the UN can provide.”
Mitch’s comment made me curious about what has happened since 2010 when the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDRME) was adopted by representatives of 130 nations at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. The Bolivian President at the time, Evo Morales, urged then U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to prioritize the adoption of the UDRME and to draft a resolution. Sadly, I cannot find any journalistic sources from media outlets of record nor other documents about the manifestations of how this developed within the United Nations itself.
From what I can find, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has taken a leadership role in trying to further an international agreement on natural rights. In 2012, a resolution was put forward to IUCN members to promote the development of a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature. This resolution was approved in 2016 and subsequently instigated talks in March 2017 at the European Parliament. And so things remain.
View of the protests as seen in Plaza Baquedano in 2019 by Hugo Morales ( CC BY-SA 4.0)
In thinking more about this legislative ratification, it struck me how Bolivia’s adoption of their own version of the UDRME, The Law of Mother Earth (2011), came on the heels of a new Constitution in 2009. A day after publishing Issue 13, the Chilean people overwhelmingly passed a referendum for a new Constitution. Quoted by The New York Times, law professor Fernando Atria said, “What we need is a Constitution that guarantees social rights more than market conditions.” Considering that the voters chose a newly elected constitutional convention without the automatic inclusion of Congress members, there is a possibility that Chile could be the next country to advance the rights of nature and put the Universal Declaration back on the international agenda.
See Mitch’s comment in its entirety and add your reflections to his
As Shared by Elliot Hoffman
“Thomas Berry's The Great Work is the most underlined, dog-eared books I have ever read. This is so timely, beautifully written. I've been thinking for years about a few of your main points and one that I feel needs to lifted up. Yes, we must move towards telling the truth— economically, socially, culturally—about how our "right" to own and destroy the Earth is truly insane and that "right" has no right to destroy life: human, trees, whales, elephants, trees. Certainly rights of life and the living are vital to life itself.”
I appreciated Elliot’s description of how the injustices of our current system are so palpable. Looked at objectively and outside the context of our unequal distributions of power, I suspect many would share Elliot’s view that a system conferring rights to destroy life is counter-productive.
In February 2012, David Harvey convened a panel to celebrate the launch of a new collection of essays, The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The book brought together different voices to reflect on the question: “what would our world look like if nature had rights?” One of the highlights of the panel, and a sentiment that very much echoed Elliot’s about how obvious natural rights is, was a point made by Vandana Shiva:
“I learned very clearly that for the majority of people in India, and I think the majority of people in the South, and I would imagine the majority of young people across the world, the idea that nature has rights is not strange. The idea that nature does not have rights is the strange thinking.”
Viewed in isolation, the idea that nature is without rights is indeed unthinkable. But the context for rights matters a great deal. Exploitation of nature for the benefit of humans is the seemingly inescapable context of our current laws. I encourage you to watch the discussion or buy the book for more from Shiva, Harvey, and others.
“I would add that as we have rights, we have responsibilities. I suggest that ‘we’ design our ‘Bill of Responsibilities’ as the companion to our ‘Bill of Rights,’ that both are living, dynamic works of jurisprudence, art and love—of life and our common home, Earth.”
I am grateful to Elliot for bringing up this alternative framing of responsibilities. I can imagine a “Bill of Responsibilities” being far more politically palatable than a wholesale reform of our judicial rights. With that being said, responsibilities are only effective when collectively embraced by a society. Shared responsibilities are contingent upon agreed-upon collective values—an ideological stretch for many countries around the world now. And since responsibilities do not have official means of enforcement, they rely on communal pressure for reinforcement.
In his Op-Ed celebrating the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, former UN official Hugh Roberts similarly called for “A declaration of responsibility, acknowledging what we have done and recognizing we were mistaken: a simple expression of collective responsibility for what is wrong.” I greatly appreciated his opening, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a useful idea that could only occur to a civilization estranged from Earth.”
We can once again look to Indigenous communities for alternative social contracts in communities based on responsibilities rather than rights. In The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World (2017), David R. Boyd describes how reciprocal responsibilities to the earth precede rights in Haida culture:
“These responsibilities include recognizing and respecting that we're all part of an interconnected world, conserving and restoring the Earth and the species and cultures she nurtures, managing our use of the Earth in ways that maintain her cycles and interrelationships and do not exceed planetary limits, and respecting future generations. Once these responsibilities have been fulfilled, then people have concomitant rights and privileges to live in a healthy environment and to benefit from the Earth and other species.”
See Elliot’s comment in its entirety and add your reflections to his
As Shared by Peter Tavernise
“Aristotle: ‘...undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.’ Here I thought we'd gone wrong at Descartes, but no, the separation goes farther back.”
I too was surprised to find that the Christian context for the Great Chain of Being dated back to the ancient Greek’s ladder of existence. While we can still find so much wisdom in ancient Greek philosophy, we must also recognize that scientific discoveries have and will continue to remake our visions of the world in stark contrast to what the Greeks knew. It was our fundamental misunderstanding of nature that created such false hierarchies. However, it is in that newfound understanding that we can begin to look anew at many fields such as law and consider how they should be adapted or entirely reconstructed.
“Riffing off of what Elliot has kindly written below: while I recognize it is unlikely to work for a majority of current wealth-holders worldwide, it may be a better approach to ditch the idea of rights and laws completely in favor of a new way of being in the world. We've spoken about Indigenous ways of being—no corporation should ever have been given rights, but in a world in which that has become more powerful than individual much less natural rights, perhaps we need to change the entire culture. Not just specific laws. Perhaps rule one is reciprocity, start and build from there.”
As climate scientist Kevin Anderson said in 2015 when predicting the possibility of a weak agreement coming out of the Paris talks: we “need to recognise our failure, bow our heads in shame and take a short time for some reflection before starting anew, but this time with conviction and honesty.”
See Peter’s comment in its entirety and add your reflections to his
I hope this week between issues provides the space for further discovery and reflection. Go forth and make a difference in the week ahead. See you next Saturday with Issue Fourteen.
Adam
Why I Write The Understory
We have crossed the climate-change threshold from emerging to urgent, which demands a transformative response. The scale of the issue demands not only continuous focus but also the courage to take bold action. I've found that a persistence of climate consciousness improves resilience to the noise and distractions of daily life in service of a bigger (and most of the time invisible) long-term cause.
The Understory is my way of organizing the natural and human-made curiosities that capture my attention. Within the words, research, and actions of others lies the inspiration for personal and organizational journeys. I hope that my work here will help to inform not just my persistent consciousness, but yours as well.
Thank you Adam, and thanks as well for your climate emergency declaration, with which I resonate deeply. Forza!