Jump to content

User:Al83tito/RON2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Rights of nature
Movements and schools of thought
Traditional worldviews
Scholars and authors
Other
This page is about the legislation, case law, and treaties based on the rights of nature jurisprudence. For For the description of the legal school of thought itself, see Rights of nature.

Rights of nature law is the codification and other implementations of the legal and jurisprudential theory of the rights of nature. This legal school of thought describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, similar to the concept of fundamental human rights.[1][2][3][4]

The early 2000s saw a significant expansion of rights of nature law, in the form of constitutional provisions, treaty agreements, national and subnational statutes, local laws, and court decisions.[5] As of 2021, nature's rights laws exist in 17 countries,[6][7][8] including in Canada,[9] seven Tribal Nations in the U.S. and Canada, and dozens of cities and counties throughout the United States.[10][11][12] The total number of countries with either existing or pending rights of nature legal provisions was 28 as of 2019.[5][7]

New Zealand - in 2012 a treaty agreement between the government and the indigenous group Maori iwi established the Whanganui River (top image), and its tributaries as a legal entity with its own standing.[13][14][10] Similarly, Mount Taranaki (bottom image) was recognized in 2014 as "a legal personality, in its own right".[15][16]

Treaties

[edit]

New Zealand

[edit]

Legal standing for natural systems in New Zealand arose alongside new attention paid to long-ignored treaty agreements with the Indigenous Maori.[17] In August 2012, a treaty agreement signed with the Maori iwi recognized the Whanganui River and tributaries as a legal entity, an "indivisible and living whole" with its own standing.[18][13] The national Te Awa Tupua Act was enacted in March 2017 to further formalize this status.[14][10]

In 2013, the Te Urewera Forest treaty agreement similarly recognized the legal personhood of the Forest,[19][14] with the Te Urewera Act signed into law in 2014 to formalize this status. In 2017 a treaty settlement with the Maori was signed that recognized Mount Taranaki as "a legal personality, in its own right".[15][16]

Each of these developments advanced the indigenous principle that the ecosystems are living, spiritual beings with intrinsic value, incapable of being owned in an absolute sense.[20][21]

Constitutional law

[edit]

Ecuador

[edit]
See also: Rights of nature in Ecuador
Yasuní National Park, Ecuador

In 2008, the people of Ecuador amended their Constitution to recognize the inherent rights of nature, or Pachamama. The new text arose in large part as a result of cosmologies of the indigenous rights movement and actions to protect the Amazon, consistent with the concept of sumak kawsay ("buen vivir" in Spanish, "good living" in English), or encapsulating a life in harmony with nature with humans as part of the ecosystem.[22][23][24] Among other provisions, Article 71 states that "Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes."[25] The Article adds enforcement language as well, stating that "Any person... may demand the observance of the rights of the natural environment before public bodies",[25] and echoing Christopher Stone, Article 72 adds that “Nature has the right to be completely restored... independent of the obligation... to compensate people”.[25][26][3]

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin

[edit]

In 2015 the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin passed a resolution amending their constitution to include the rights of nature.[27][28] By 2020 a working group was determining how to integrate the resolution into their constitution, laws, regulations, and processes.[29]

Judicial decisions

[edit]
Turag River, near Dhaka, Bangladesh

Bangladesh

[edit]

In 2019, the High Court of Bangladesh ruled on a case addressing pollution of and illegal development along the Turag River, an upper tributary of the Buriganga.

Among its findings, the high court recognized the river as a living entity with legal rights, and it further held that the same would apply to all rivers in Bangladesh. The court ordered the National River Protection Commission to serve as the guardian for the Turag and other rivers.[30][31][32]

Colombia

[edit]
Atrato River in Colombia - in a 2016 ruling by the Constitutional Court involving the river's pollution, the court stated that the river is a subject of rights, and that humans are "only one more event within a long evolutionary chain [and] in no way... owner of other species, biodiversity or natural resources, or the fate of the planet".[33][13][34]

Colombia has not adopted statutes or constitutional provisions addressing nature's rights (as of 2019). However, this has not prevented Colombian courts from finding nature's rights as inherent. In a 2016 case, the Colombia Constitutional Court ordered cleanup of the polluted Atrato River, stating that nature is a "true subject of rights that must be recognized by states and exercised... for example, by the communities that inhabit it or have a special relationship with it”.[34] The court added that humans are “only one more event within a long evolutionary chain [and] in no way... owner of other species, biodiversity or natural resources, or the fate of the planet".[33][13][34]

In 2018, the Colombia Supreme Court took up a climate change case by a group of children and young adults that also raised fundamental rights issues. In addition to making legal findings related to human rights, the court found that the Colombian Amazon is a "'subject of rights', entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration". It recognized the special role of Amazon deforestation in creating greenhouse gas emissions in Colombia, and as a remedy ordered the nation and its administrative agencies to ensure a halt to all deforestation by 2020. The court further allocated enforcement power to the plaintiffs and affected communities, requiring the agencies to report to the communities and empowering them to inform the court if the agencies were not meeting their deforestation targets.[35][36]

Ecuador

[edit]

A significant body of case law has been expanding in Ecuador to implement the nation's constitutional provisions regarding the rights of nature. Examples include lawsuits in the areas of biodigestor pollution, impaired flow in the Vilcabamba River, and hydropower.[37][38]

India

[edit]
Gangotri Glacier, a source of the Ganga river
The river Yamuna at Yamunotri Glacier

As in Colombia, as of 2019 no statutes or constitutional provisions in India specifically identified rights of nature. Nevertheless, the India Supreme Court in 2012 set the stage for cases to come before it on rights of nature, finding that "Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric... humans are part of nature and non-human has intrinsic value."[39][40][41]

The Uttarakhand High Court applied the principle of ecocentric law in 2017, recognizing the legal personhood of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers and ecosystems, and calling them "living human entities" and juridical and moral persons.[42][43][13] The court quickly followed with similar judgments for the glaciers associated with the rivers, including the Gangotri and Yamunotri, and other natural systems.[44][45] While the India Supreme Court stayed the Ganga and Yamuna judgment at the request of local authorities, those authorities supported the proposed legal status in concept, but were seeking "implementation guidance".[46]

National, sub-national, and local law

[edit]

Bolivia

[edit]

Following adoption of nature's rights language in its 2009 Constitution, in 2010 Bolivia's Legislature passed the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, Act No. 071. Bolivia followed this broad outline of nature's rights with the 2012 Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well, Act. No. 300, which provided some implementation details consistent with nature's rights. It states in part that the "violation of the rights of Mother Earth, as part of comprehensive development for Living Well, is a violation of public law and the collective and individual rights".[47] While a step forward, this enforcement piece has not yet risen to the level of a specific enforcement mechanism.[48]

Mexico

[edit]

State, regional, and local laws and local constitutional provisions have been arising in Mexico, including adoption in the constitutions of the Mexican states of Colima and Guerrero, and that of Mexico City.[49][12][50]

Ponca

[edit]

In 2017, the Ponca Nation enacted a rights of nature law which is a resolution that gives the Ponca Tribal Court the power to punish crimes against nature with prison and fines.[51][52]

Uganda

[edit]

Part 1, Section 4 of Uganda's 2019 National Environment Act addresses the Rights of Nature, stating in part that "Nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution."[53] Advocates who had sought inclusion of such language observed that "Ugandans' right to a healthy environment cannot be realised unless the health of Nature herself is protected," and that the language adoption reflected "recent gains for the growing African movement for Earth Jurisprudence".[53]

United States

[edit]

At the local level dozens of ordinances with rights of nature provisions have been passed as of 2019 throughout the United States, and in tribal lands located within the U.S. boundaries.[10][54][55] Most were passed in reaction to a specific threat to local well-being, such as threats posed by hydrofracking, groundwater extraction, gravel mining, and fossil fuel extraction. For example, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania passed an anti-fracking law that included the following provision to buttress protections: "Natural communities and ecosystems... possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish." The ordinance continues that "Residents... shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights."[56][57][58]

Santa Monica State Beach - in 2013 the city adopted a "Sustainability Rights Ordinance",[59] recognizing the "fundamental and inalienable rights"[59] of "natural communities and ecosystems"[59][60]

Residents in Santa Monica, California proactively sought to recognize nature's rights in local law after the U.S. Supreme Court's expansion of corporate rights in Citizens United v. FEC. In 2013 the Santa Monica City Council adopted a "Sustainability Rights Ordinance",[59] recognizing the "fundamental and inalienable rights"[59] of "natural communities and ecosystems"[59] in the city to "exist and flourish".[59] The ordinance emphasized that "[c]orporate entities... do not enjoy special privileges or powers under the law that subordinate the community's rights to their private interests".[59] It specifically defined "natural communities and ecosystems" to include "groundwater aquifers, atmospheric systems, marine waters, and native species".[59][60] Santa Monica updated its Sustainable City Plan in 2014 to reinforce its codified commitment to nature's rights. In 2018, the city council adopted a Sustainable Groundwater Management Ordinance that specifically referenced the inherent rights of the local aquifer to flourish.[60]

In November, 2020, voters in Orange County, Florida passed a charter amendment for the "right to clean water" by a margin of 89% that protects waterways in the county from pollution and enables citizens to bring lawsuits to defend against such pollution, becoming the largest community in the country to enact such a rights of nature initiative.[61][62][63] It has prompted the Florida Right To Clean Water direct initiative to incorporate the principle into the state constitution, which is gathering petition signatures to have an amendment put onto the 2024 ballot for consideration by all Florida voters.[64][65] In his January 2022 monthly newsletter, Jim Hightower identified the Florida initiative as, "the epicenter of today’s Rights of Nature political movement".[66]

Toledo, Ohio passed the “Lake Erie Bill of Rights” (LEBOR).[67] In 2019 it was struck down by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2020.[68] BP North America spent almost $300,000 fighting the bill through a front group.[69][67]

International bodies and soft law

[edit]

United Nations

[edit]

Advancements during the early twenty-firstst century in international "soft law" (quasi-legal instruments generally without legally binding force) have precipitated broader discussions about the potential for integrating nature's rights into legal systems. The United Nations has held nine "Harmony with Nature" General Assembly Dialogues as of 2019 on Earth-centered governance systems and philosophies, including discussions of rights of nature specifically.[70][71] The companion United Nations Harmony with Nature initiative compiles rights of nature laws globally and offers a U.N. "Knowledge Network" of Earth Jurisprudence practitioners across disciplines.[72] These U.N. Dialogues and the Harmony with Nature initiative may provide a foundation for development of a United Nations-adopted Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature which, like the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could form the foundation for rights-based laws worldwide.[73] A model could be the 2010 UDRME, an informal, but widely-supported nature's rights agreement based on the UDHR.[74]

International Union for Conservation of Nature

[edit]

In 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, the only international observer organization to the U.N. General Assembly with expertise in the environment) adopted a resolution specifically calling for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature.[75] The IUCN reaffirmed its commitment to nature's rights at its next meeting in 2016, where the body voted to build rights of nature implementation into the upcoming, four-year IUCN Workplan.[76] The IUCN's subgroup of legal experts, the World Commission on Environmental Law, later issued an "IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law" recognizing that "Nature has the inherent right to exist, thrive, and evolve".[77][78]

Notable documents

[edit]

Early legislation, treates, case law

[edit]

Other notable documents

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Cullinan, Cormac (2011). Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (2nd ed.). United States: Chelsea Green Publishing. ISBN 978-1603583770.
  2. ^ Berry, Thomas (1999). The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Bell Tower, Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0609804995.
  3. ^ a b Stone, Christopher D. (1996). Should Trees Have Standing? And Other Essays on Law, Morals, and the Environment (rev'd 2010 ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0379213812.
  4. ^ Nash, Roderick Frazier (1989). The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Wisconsin, U.S.: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0299118440.
  5. ^ a b Kauffman, Craig M. (April 2020). Mapping Transnational Rights of Nature Networks & Laws: New Global Governance Structures for More Sustainable Development (PDF) (Report). Harmony with Nature, United Nations.
  6. ^ Sheehan, Linda (April 22, 2020). "Earth Day's 50th Sees Explosion in Rights of Nature Movement Worldwide". Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. Archived from the original on May 27, 2020.
  7. ^ a b "Rights of Nature Law and Policy". harmonywithnatureun.org. United Nations, Harmony with Nature. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02.
  8. ^ Kauffman, Craig (2021). "Rights of Nature: Institutions, Law & Policy for Sustainable Development". In Sowers, Jeannie (ed.). Oxford Handbook on Comparative Environmental Politics. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  9. ^ Graham, Jack (February 24, 2021). "Canadian river wins legal rights in global push to protect nature". Thomson Reuters Foundation. Toronto.
  10. ^ a b c d Kauffman, Craig M.; Sheehan, Linda (June 2019). "The Rights of Nature: Guiding Our Responsibilities Through Standards". In Turner, Stephen J.; Shelton, Dinah L.; Razzaque, Jona; McIntyre, Owen; May, James R. (eds.). Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108612500. ISBN 9781108612500.
  11. ^ Houck, Oliver (Winter 2017). "Noah's Second Voyage: The Rights of Nature as Law" (PDF). Tulane Environmental Law Journal. 31 (1): 1–50. JSTOR 90018759.
  12. ^ a b c d e Boyd, David R. (2017). The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution that Could Save the World. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1770412392.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (Winter 2019). "How Courts Are Developing River Rights Jurisprudence: Comparing Guardianship in New Zealand, Colombia, and India" (PDF). Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. 20 (3).
  14. ^ a b c d Magallanes, Catherine Iorns; Sheehan, Linda (2017). "Reframing Rights and Responsibilities to Prioritize Nature". In Scanlon, Melissa (ed.). Law and Policy for a New Economy: Sustainable, Just, and Democratic. Northampton, MA, U.S.: Edward Elgar.
  15. ^ a b Cheng, Derek (December 21, 2017). "Mt Taranaki will be granted special legal status similar to Te Urewera and the Whanganui River". New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on November 8, 2019.
  16. ^ a b c Roy, Eleanor Ainge (December 22, 2017). "New Zealand gives Mount Taranaki same legal rights as a person". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 7, 2019.
  17. ^ Takacs, David (2020). "We Are The River". Univ. Of Illinois Law Review.
  18. ^ Whanganui Iwi and The Crown (August 30, 2012). "Tūtohu Whakatupua(treaty)" (PDF). New Zealand. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 16, 2020.
  19. ^ a b Iorns Magallanes, Catherine J. (2015). "Maori Cultural Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand: Protecting the Cosmology that Protects the Environment (Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 6/2016)". Widener Law Review. 21 (1): 273–327.
  20. ^ Iorns Magallanes, Catherine (May 2017). "Using human rights to recognize human responsibilities toward nature". New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism. UN Environment. Archived from the original on 2020-04-11. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  21. ^ Colwell, Chip (October 12, 2016). "What if nature, like corporations, had the rights of a person?". The Guardian. U.K. Archived from the original on September 2, 2019.
  22. ^ Martin, Pamela L. (2011). Oil in the Soil: The Politics of Paying to Preserve the Amazon. U.S.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1442211285.
  23. ^ Cruz Rodríguez, Edwin (2014). "Del derecho ambiental a los derechos de la naturaleza: sobre la necesidad del diálogo intercultural" [From environmental law to the rights of nature: on the need for intercultural dialogue] (PDF). Jurídicas (in Spanish). 11 (2). Manizales, Caldas, Colombia: University of Caldas: 95–116. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-04-11. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  24. ^ Pacari, Nina (2009). "Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indigenas" [Nature and territory from the perspective of indigenous peoples]. In Acosta, Alberto; Martinez, Esperanza (eds.). Derechos de la Naturaleza: El Futuro es Ahora [Rights of Nature: The Future is Now]. Quito, Ecuador: Ediciones Abya-Yala. ISBN 978-9978228067.
  25. ^ a b c Republic of Ecuador (2008). "Constitution, Chapter 7". Archived from the original on 2019-05-11. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  26. ^ a b Tanasescu, Mihnea (December 20, 2013). "The rights of nature in Ecuador: the making of an idea". Int'l Journal of Env'l Studies. 70 (6): 846–861. doi:10.1080/00207233.2013.845715. S2CID 95850405. Archived from the original on October 6, 2019. Retrieved April 20, 2020.
  27. ^ de la Terre, Juliee (September 26, 2015). "Ho-Chunk Nation adds "Rights of Nature" to their constitution". Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN). Retrieved June 2, 2022.
  28. ^ "Ho-Chunk Nation General Council Approves Rights of Nature Constitutional Amendment - First Tribal Nation to Advance the Rights of Nature". Center for World Indigenous Studies. September 20, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2022.
  29. ^ "Ho-Chunk Nation Annual Report" (PDF). Ho-Chunk Nation. 2020. A Rights of Nature Workgroup has been meeting to determine the best course moving forward with incorporating the rights of nature into the Ho-Chunk Nation's constitution, laws, regulations, and processes.
  30. ^ Bechtel, Sebastian (March 13, 2019). "Legal rights of rivers – an international trend?". Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  31. ^ Samuel, Sigal (August 18, 2019). "This country gave all its rivers their own legal rights". U.S.: Vox. Archived from the original on November 30, 2019.
  32. ^ Noolkar-Oak, Gauri (August 11, 2019). "Transboundary cooperation key to enforcing rivers' legal rights in Bangladesh". The Daily Star. Bangladesh.
  33. ^ a b c Herrera-Santoyo, Héctor (July 8, 2019). "The Rights of Nature (Rivers) and Constitutional Actions in Colombia". Archived from the original on December 15, 2019.
  34. ^ a b c Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia (2016). "Judgment in Case T-622 of 2016, Proceeding T-5.016.242" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-09-09. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  35. ^ a b Pinto-Bazurco, Jose Felix (March 20, 2018). "Colombian Youth Plaintiffs Sue for Recognition of the Rights of Future Generations". U.S.: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  36. ^ a b Rodríguez Garavito, César (May 7, 2018). "Here is how litigation for the planet won in Colombia". Dejusticia. Bogotá, Colombia. Archived from the original on October 28, 2019.
  37. ^ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (April 2017). "Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail". World Development. 92. Elsevier: 130–142. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017. Archived from the original on 2019-03-07. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  38. ^ Echeverría, Hugo (December 2017). "Rights of Nature: The Ecuadorian Case". Revista Esmat. doi:10.34060/reesmat.v9i13.192. Archived from the original on 2020-04-11.
  39. ^ a b Gordon, Gwendolyn J. (2018). "Environmental Personhood" (PDF). Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. 43 (1): 49. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-04-12. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  40. ^ a b "SC Favours Green Principle for Eco-justice". Deccan Herald. Bangalore, Karnataka, India. February 17, 2012. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  41. ^ Supreme Court of India (2012). "Judgment: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Others". Archived from the original on 2019-12-05. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  42. ^ "Uttarakhand HC Declares Air, Glaciers, Forests, Springs, Waterfalls Etc. As Legal Persons [Read Judgment]". LiveLaw News Network. India. April 1, 2017. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  43. ^ a b Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (April 4, 2018). When Rivers Have Rights: Case Comparisons of New Zealand, Colombia, and India (PDF) (Report). International Studies Association Annual Conference. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2020.
  44. ^ a b Iaconangelo, David (April 7, 2017). "An Indian court says glaciers and rivers are 'living entities.' Could the same approach work in the US?". The Christian Science Monitor. U.S. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  45. ^ a b O'Donnell, Erin L.; Talbot-Jones, Julia (2018). "Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India". Ecology and Society. 23 (1): 7. doi:10.5751/ES-09854-230107. Archived from the original on 2019-11-16. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  46. ^ a b "Supreme Court stays Uttarakhand high court's order declaring Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities'". Times of India. July 7, 2017. Archived from the original on February 9, 2018.
  47. ^ Plurinational State of Bolivia (October 2012). "Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well (Act. No. 300)". Archived from the original on 2017-12-31.
  48. ^ a b Nachmany, Michal; Fankhauser, Sam; Townshend, Terry; Collins, Murray; Landesman, Tucker; Matthews, Adam; Pavese, Carolina; Rietig, Katharina; Schleifer, Philip; Setzer, Joana (2014). The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change Legislation in 66 Countries (PDF) (Report) (4th ed.). GLOBE International and the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-02-08.
  49. ^ a b "State of Colima, Mexico Constitutional Rights of Nature". Devdiscourse News Desk. July 30, 2019. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  50. ^ a b Lim, Michelle (2019). Charting Environmental Law Futures in the Anthropocene. Springer Nature.
  51. ^ Kauffman, Craig M.; Martin, Pamela L. (2021). The Politics of Rights of Nature - Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 181. ISBN 9780262542920.
  52. ^ Brown, Alex (October 30, 2019). "Cities, Tribes Try a New Environmental Approach: Give Nature Rights". PEW Stateline. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
  53. ^ a b c Gaia Foundation (February 2019). "Rights of Nature Gain Ground in Uganda's Legal System". U.K.: Gaia Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-01-16.
  54. ^ Brown, Alex (October 30, 2019). Cities, Tribes Try a New Environmental Approach: Give Nature Rights (Report). U.S.: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020. Retrieved April 20, 2020.
  55. ^ Paz, Arturo (May 16, 2019). "Yurok Tribe establishes 'Rights of the Klamath River'". KRCR News. U.S. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  56. ^ a b Perkins, Madeleine (July 9, 2017). "How Pittsburgh embraced a radical environmental movement popping up in conservative towns across America". Business Insider. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  57. ^ a b Tanasescu, Mihnea (2016). Environment, Political Representation and the Challenge of Rights: Speaking for Nature. Springer. ISBN 978-1137538949.
  58. ^ Sheehan, Linda (June 2015). "Implementing Rights of Nature through Sustainability Bills of Rights" (PDF). New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law. 13 (1): 89–106.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g h i Santa Monica City Council (2013). "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Establishing Sustainability Rights, Santa Monica Municipal Code, Art. 12, Ch. 12.02, (adopted April 9, 2013; amended 6/25/19)". Archived from the original on December 3, 2019.
  60. ^ a b c d Sheehan, Linda (Winter 2019). "Implementing Nature's Rights through Regulatory Standards" (PDF). Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. 21 (4).
  61. ^ Recognizing the Right of Waterways to Be Free of Pollution (Orange County, Florida), Animal Legal Defense Fund, accessed July 1, 2021
  62. ^ Walton, Brett, 2020 Election Recap: Florida County Overwhelmingly Supports Granting Legal Rights to Rivers, Circle of Blue, November 4, 2020
  63. ^ Hudak, Stephen, Rights of Nature lawsuit pits 2 lakes, 2 creeks and marsh against developer in Lake Nona, Orlando Sentinel, May 3, 2021
  64. ^ "Sign Petition | Florida Right To Clean Water". FL RTCW. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  65. ^ Network, Florida Rights of Nature. "Recognizing the rights of nature and of communities". Florida Rights of Nature Network. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  66. ^ Hightower, Jim, Give nature a seat at the governing table, The Hightower Lowdown, January 5, 2022
  67. ^ a b "Damages: S1 Ep5 | The Backlash on Apple Podcasts". Apple Podcasts. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  68. ^ "Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights'". Animal Legal Defense Fund. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  69. ^ "Ohio Residents Fight to Give Lake Erie Legal Rights". HowStuffWorks. 2020-04-07. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  70. ^ a b United Nations General Assembly Harmony with Nature: Note by the Secretary General A/74/236 July 26, 2019.
  71. ^ The Role of Nature's Rights in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Interactive Dialogue of the United Nations General Assembly on Harmony with Nature) (PDF) (Report). April 21, 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2020.
  72. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 74/224. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2019 A/RES/74/224
  73. ^ a b United Nations General Assembly Harmony with Nature: Note by the Secretary General A/71/266 August 1, 2016.
  74. ^ Cullinan, Cormac (2010). "The Legal Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth" (PDF). therightsofnature.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-05.
  75. ^ International Union for Conservation of Nature (2012). Incorporation of the Rights of Nature as the organizational focal point in IUCN's decision making (Resolution WCC-2012-Res-100) (Report). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Archived from the original on 2020-04-11.
  76. ^ Gaworecki, Mike (October 13, 2016). "Nature's right to exist gets a boost from key organizations". Mongabay. U.S. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  77. ^ International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Commission on Environmental Law (2016). Environmental Rule of Law (Report). International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  78. ^ Sheehan, Linda (January 24, 2019). "No one is above nature's rule of law". Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation. Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  79. ^ Solón Romero, Pablo; Cullinan, Cormac (January 2, 2010). "For A Universal Declaration Of The Rights Of Mother Earth". Archived from the original on April 11, 2020.
  80. ^ Burdon, Peter (2011). "Earth Rights: The Theory" (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Academy of Environmental Law. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-06-30. Retrieved 2020-04-20.

Category:Rights of nature

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Al83tito/RON2&oldid=1135083777"