ABSTRACT

Sacred natural sites (SNS) require institutional support because their biocultural integrity is being undermined, but paradoxically the undermining includes some unintended consequences by conservation organisations. Juristic personhood’ appears to offer an alternative to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's more traditional approaches to the conservation of nature. Both anthropologists and lawyers recognise that there are major differences and tensions between Indigenous beliefs and modern jurisprudence and have suggested alternatives in various forms of ‘juristic personhood’. The concept of juristic personhood resonates with the beliefs underpinning most sacred natural sites. SNS are typically enspirited by a unique geospecific spirit with a unique personhood capable of spiritual governance. This is predicated on a pluriversal Animistic tradition which does not resonate well with ecocentrism, panentheism or pantheism. Ecocentrism is monistic, and the concept of rights is a construction from outside an Indigenous Animistic context.