ABSTRACT
Mumta Ito and Massimiliano Montini argue that any right to Nature is meaningless if Nature itself does not have a right to its own existence. Rights to Nature and the rights of Nature therefore go hand in hand. There is a deep flaw in our structure of law. The solution to the environmental crisis comes through acknowledging and dealing with this flaw which treats living beings (ecosystems and other species) as property, whilst giving property (in the form of corporations) legal personality and rights. Despite hundreds of environmental laws Nature is still in decline. The current laws are failing to protect Nature, because they are based on the premise that Nature is property – an object or a resource – to be used and consumed. Laws carve out minimal protections against this consumption, but they are piecemeal, reactive and, for the most part, an observable failure. We face a choice as a society: either we further proceed into the commodification and financialization of Nature, price it up and sell it on the financial markets or we establish Nature as a defendable presence within our legal system. Recognizing nature’s own rights in law subverts the property paradigm. In such a case, nature is fully protected as a subject of the legal system capable of bearing rights. An acceptable level of human activity – economic and leisure – is then settled on. But this activity must not threaten the functional health and integrity of ecosystems that support and maintain all life. Nature’s rights establish a duty of care towards Nature and embeds the reality of our relationship with Nature in law. It brings in Nature as a stakeholder in its own right and is a powerful counter-balance to corporate rights.
