Dr Michelle Maloney is a leading Australian lawyer focused on creating systemic change to move industrial societies towards an earth-centred culture and governance system. She studied law at the Australian National University and Griffith University, is the co-founder and national coordinator of the Australian Earth Laws Alliance (AELA) and a senior fellow at the Centre for the Future of Law at Griffith University. She has over twenty-five years of experience in developing and managing social justice, community development and environmental justice programs, including working with Indigenous people in Queensland on social justice and cultural heritage projects.
Inspired by Cormac Cullinan, she was introduced to Earth law in 2009 and has been working in Australia since 2011 to promote the understanding and practice of Earth-centred governance through her work with AELA. She argues that when making decisions, we must first consider the Earth and what the Earth needs to survive, and then decide how our actions and plans fit within those boundaries. As part of her work for AELA, she advocates for the rights of the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, Australia. With the very existence of the Great Barrier Reef under threat, Michele Maloney and AELA began to advocate for new laws and petitions that would recognise the rights of nature, including the Great Barrier Reef, to live and flourish, and enable communities to defend the rights of the reef against Australia’s unhealthy obsession with coal mining.
Malony also created Australia's first university course on wildlife law. Wild Law: Theory & Practice of Earth Jurisprudence (Wild Law: The Theory and Practice of Earth Jurisprudence), which she teaches as a one-week intensive course at Griffith Law School in Queensland. The course enables students to analyse and critique the current legal system and to propose new approaches to law and governance in the 21st century. Another of Dr Maloney's pioneering projects was the project Wild Law Judgment (Wild Law Court). This initiative, developed in partnership with Southern Cross University, invited academics, practitioners, judges and students to rewrite key common law decisions from a wild law perspective, creating a body of land-focused case law. The project examined Australian judicial decision-making and challenged the hegemony of anthropocentrism in common law, culminating in the publication of a book in 2017. Law as if Earth Really Mattered (Right, as if the Earth really mattered), written by Michelle Malony with Nicole Rogers. In collaboration with Peter Burdon, she published the book in 2014 Wild Law – in Practice (Wild law – in practice), which shows how to develop law and public administration in a way that recognizes our relationship to the wider Earth community. This author's essay was published under the title "Rights Of Nature, Earth Democracy And The Future Of Environmental Governance" in the publication Rebalancing Rights: Communities, corporations and nature (The Green Institute, March 2019, pp. 11-24).
Translation: Jiří Zemánek.
People around the world are working hard to protect their local communities and ecosystems from the devastating effects of over-industrialization. One strategy that is receiving increasing attention today is to change the legal status of nature from human property, or at best a protected “object,” to recognizing it as a living entity with its own legal rights—that is, as a subject of law. But can this approach make any difference to the legal protection of nature? In this essay, I will outline the critiques of traditional environmental law that have been used to argue for a paradigm shift in Western industrial legal systems, and trace the origins of the nature rights movement and its current development around the world, which has now moved nature rights from a “fringe” legal topic to one that has captured the attention of courts, lawyers, and communities around the world. While this concept is potentially open to many of the same problems faced by “traditional” environmental law, it represents an exciting and optimistic development in legal theory and practice that is being embraced by a range of communities and may offer an effective way to advance Earth democracy.
Mount Taranaki in New Zealand was declared a legal entity and a member of their extended family (whanau) in December 2017, following an agreement between eight Maori tribes and the Crown.
Criticism of traditional environmental law
Despite the significant achievements of modern environmental law, its current system is criticized by both “traditional” environmental lawyers and commentators and those who call themselves “Earth lawyers.” Thomas Linzey, founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, states that: “environmental laws simply ‘permit’ environmental pollution” and that the only thing environmental law “governs” is environmentalists, as governments and corporations collude to control the use of the environment and public resources in order to maintain benefits for their vested interests [1]. Lawyers such as Joseph Guth have issued extensive critiques of environmental law, arguing that it fails to calculate or “manage” the cumulative impacts of human activities and the reality of ecological limits [2].
From the perspective of Earth jurisprudence, the shortcomings of modern environmental law go much deeper than the legal instruments and frameworks commonly used. These problems stem primarily from the prevailing cultural worldviews that shape the legal system. Despite the scientifically based observable regularities of the evolutionary process that has shaped a complex and interconnected universe, the dominant Western worldview in most academic, economic, legal, and religious institutions is still based on themes of alienation, separation, and mechanization, stemming from the Renaissance writings of René Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton in the 17th century [3]. This linear dualistic worldview places humanity outside the natural functioning of the earthly community and often teaches an anthropocentrism that ignores the intrinsic value of other beings. Humanity is perceived as somehow “outside” nature and not responsive to its laws and functions. Although humanity’s well-being is entirely dependent on the healthy functioning of Earth’s fundamental systems, such as a clean atmosphere and dynamic soil microbes, mainstream Western institutions rarely recognize these Earth dynamics as the primary source and sustainer of life forces. Legal structures and governance are equally deficient in recognizing that the Earth itself is the primary lawgiver [4].
Situating the Rights of Nature within the Earth Jurisprudence Movement
Earth Rights
Deep-sea ecologist, "geologist" and Earth expert Thomas Berry [5] (1914-2009) proposed in his 1999 book The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future (Czech: Great work: our journey into the future, Malvern 2021)that the challenge for humanity today is to understand the root systemic causes of the ecological crisis and transform our relationship with nature from destructive to mutually beneficial.[6] Berry argues that ethical action and living within the natural capabilities of the Earth require us to focus on a new jurisprudence, a new way of governing ourselves for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, so as to protect the integrity of Earth’s systems.[7]
Berry argues that the root cause of the ecological crisis is anthropocentrism—the belief of people in the industrial world that we are somehow separate from the rest of nature and that we are more important than it. [8] He argues that this anthropocentric worldview underlies all the governing structures of contemporary industrial society—economics, education, religion, law—and that it promotes the perception of the natural world as merely a collection of objects for human use. [9] He elaborates that “the great task before us, the task of transferring modern industrial civilization from its current destructive impact on the Earth to a more benign mode of being” [10], requires that current governing structures and laws recognize the cosmological origin of the human species and its interdependent, interconnected place within the one complex community of the Earth. [11] “Insufficient respect for the health of the Earth interrupts vital evolutionary processes in which the Earth community is actively engaged” [12]. Berry noted that despite extensive scientific knowledge, industrial societies continue to live in a false dualism that teaches us that humanity is separate and distant from the rest of the natural world [13]. This dualism has allowed the creation of environmental laws that do not adequately protect nature or prohibit the commission of significant ecological damage.
Berry laid the foundation for Earth jurisprudence at a 2001 conference in Arlie, Virginia, attended by deep ecologists, lawyers, and Earth advocates. Berry declared that “Earth needs a new jurisdiction,” and the term “Earth jurisprudence” was coined. [14] He also delivered his seminal paper, “The Origin, Differentiation, and Role of Laws,” [15] which drew on Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, [16] the deep ecological work of George Sessions and Arne Naess, [17] and the pioneering legal work of Christopher Stone, who in 1975 posed the provocative question, “Should trees have (legal) standing?” [18]
He stated that “Every member of the Earth community has three rights: the right to exist, the right to the environment, and the right to fulfill one’s role in the ever-renewing processes of the Earth community.”[19] He stated that these rights “originate where existence arises. That which determines existence determines rights.”[20] The existence and laws of the emerging universe and the functioning of the Earth are therefore the highest laws, and laws created by humans must be in accordance with them. Not only governance, but all human institutions must function in accordance with the laws and relationships that are already embedded in the natural world.
Berry wrote "The Great Work" after having already laid an important foundational building block for the field of Earth rights. In 1992, he published a book with mathematical cosmologist Brian Swimme The Universe Story (The story of the universe) [21]. In this book, Swimme and Berry present a new, scientifically informed cosmology that uses current scientific knowledge about the origin and functioning of the universe and planet Earth to remind humanity of the larger, interconnected system of life on Earth and our humble place within it. They propose that the Story of the Universe should be a source of inspiration and guidance for humanity in the 21st century and beyond. Earth Law is thus an emerging theory of law and governance that requires a radical rethinking of humanity’s place in the world—acknowledging the history and origins of the universe as a guide for humanity and an understanding of our place as one of many interconnected members of the Earth community [22]. By the term “Earth community,” Thomas Berry means all human and “non-human” life forms and components of the planet—animals, plants, rivers, mountains, rocks, atmosphere—our entire Earth [23]. Berry and the broader Earth jurisprudence movement also acknowledge the inspiration and guidance that indigenous cultures and their wisdom can provide to industrial societies and the development of Earth jurisprudence [24].
As noted, Berry builds on the work of many great writers and thinkers. Many of the key elements of Earth rights and ecocentrism have long been debated in environmental philosophy and human ecology; ecocentrism has been addressed in the legal context by many authors, including Christopher Stone, [25] Roderick Nash, [26] and Klaus Bosselmann. [27] However, in the 21st century, Berry's work – and that of many who have been inspired by it, including Cormac Cullinan, Peter Burdon and numerous others – has been translated into concrete action through legal reform and community-based campaigns for Earth democracy.
The rights of nature as one of the elements of the jurisprudence of the Earth
The jurisprudence of the Earth offers a rich literature, but for the purposes of this essay, for the sake of brevity, we can describe it as having four key elements:
Firstly, Earth jurisprudence recognizes that the universe is the primary lawgiver. In contrast to the contemporary Western legal system, which considers human laws to be the ultimate authority for human society (and by implication for all other life forms and ecological systems), Earth jurisprudence considers the fundamental parameters of earthly society, including human societies,[28] to be the laws of the universe, the “Big Jurisprudence” or “Big Law.” That is, Earth jurisprudence is understood as an explicit advocacy of the idea of human societies living within the “rules” or limits of the natural world.
Secondly, Earth law sees the Earth as an interconnected community and advocates an existence based on relationships between humanity and the rest of the Earth community. This contrasts with contemporary Western legal thought, which frames interpersonal and human-corporate relationships through constructs such as property law, and commodifies and exploits all other aspects of the natural world [29]. By conceptualizing the natural world as a community, Earth law places greater constraints on human action than our current legal system. By arguing that “the primary concern of the human community must be the preservation of the larger Earth community,” Berry advocated for a human world that seeks to ensure that all members of the Earth community can thrive and continue on their evolutionary path [30].
Thirdly, many proponents of Earth law argue that the Earth community and all beings that make it up have “rights,” including the right to exist, to the environment or place where they may be, and to participate in the development of the Earth community. [31] Berry argues that “the rights of nature should be central to any … discussion of the legal context of our society.”[32] This view contrasts with the current Western legal system, which grants rights only to humans and select human creations such as corporations. Granting rights to nature represents a radical reassessment of the role of our anthropocentric legal system, and yet, as discussed below, this idea seems to be gaining traction in many jurisdictions.
Berry distinguishes these rights of nature from other legal rights by saying that they are “analogous”[1]: that is, these rights already exist; they are not created by human law, but rather are created by the very act of the universe creating its evolutionary processes. These natural rights come from the same source as human rights: the universe itself [1]. Therefore, the task of Earth jurisprudence is to develop and promote cultural, legal – and even spiritual – changes that recognize these already existing “rights” and to ensure that these rights are legally recognized and protected.
This concept of rights arising from existence is followed by fourth and a fundamental element of Earth jurisprudence: the idea of terrestrial democracy. Many proponents of natural rights frame these rights as “Earth democracy.” Earth democracy is defined as an attempt to connect ecocentric ethics with deeper forms of human democracy and public participation [33]. It promotes the idea that all human and non-human life forms are born from the Earth and that we all, as evolutionary co-travelers, have the right to exist, thrive, and develop. In terms of human relations, Earth democracy is a concept that examines power, privilege, and inequality and rejects them in favor of the idea that all people have the right to their own self-determination, especially in terms of stewardship of the Earth within their local communities. It is important to recognize that within an Earth jurisprudence approach, human rights are an interdependent and interrelated subset of Earth rights; humanity cannot be healthy, and our human rights cannot be secured, if the Earth is heading toward depletion and over-extraction.
But how can we change the current system and move to a terrestrial jurisdiction of governance? Fortunately, there are many individuals, community organizations, and indigenous leaders who are doing their Great Work and leading by example. The Earth rights and democracy movement is one of the most powerful of these, and this multicultural and multidisciplinary response to Earth jurisprudence is one of its greatest strengths. We need people from all walks of life to engage in the creation of new laws and governance systems that are Earth-centered. And as Cormac Cullinan suggests, especially for lawyers, to address the challenges we face, “we must engage with our whole selves,” going beyond our rational legal faculties and embracing and focusing on the compassion, passion, and love for the Earth that resides within us all [34].
Laws of natural rights in the world
The implementation of laws on the rights of nature came to international attention in 2008, when Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognize the legal rights of nature in its national constitution. In 2010, Bolivia adopted a national law, the Law on the Rights of Mother Earth, which defines Mother Earth as a “collective subject of public interest” and as the bearer of natural rights set out in the law. The legislation also provided for the establishment of a special office of Ombudsman for the Rights of Mother Earth, similar to that which exists for human rights [35].
The Ecuadorian and Bolivian approaches have two important elements: they grant nature positive rights – including the right to exist, to renew and to regenerate. They also grant broad legal personality that allows anyone to speak on behalf of nature and defend its rights. For example, in Ecuador, all individuals, communities, nations and nationalities can demand that Ecuadorian authorities promote and enforce the rights of nature.
While in Bolivia, laws on the rights of nature have not proven very successful, in Ecuador several dozen disputes have been fought based on the constitutional provisions on the rights of nature, and approximately half of them have been successful.
When it comes to laws of the rights of nature, it is usually less well known that two years before the Ecuadorian constitutional provisions appeared, local communities in the US adopted the first natural rights ordinances in the world, and today there are more than thirty local ordinances that recognize the legal rights of nature and local communities. All of these ordinances affirm the positive rights of nature to exist, to flourish, and to develop, and proclaim the rights of local communities to defend and defend these rights within their respective jurisdictions.
This innovative approach of using local municipal legislation to enact environmental and community rights laws was pioneered by the aforementioned Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a public benefit law firm founded by Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil. Their local community rights ordinances have created networks of advocates in a number of states, and today there are national networks that defend community and environmental rights on a national scale [36].
Thus, CELDF can today be characterized as a “legal movement” because its pioneering work in redefining community rights and the rights of nature directly influenced laws created in Ecuador and Bolivia as well as emerging citizen campaigns around the world, including Australia.
Unlike the laws on the rights of nature in Ecuador, Bolivia and the USA, legal developments in New Zealand, India, Colombia and Bangladesh represent a different approach to changing the legal status of nature.
Legal developments in New Zealand captured the world’s attention in 2017, as the Whanganui River, Te Urewera Forest and later that year Mount Taranaki were granted “legal personality.” Although these developments are referred to as rights of nature laws, these laws have very different origins and potentially different outcomes than rights of nature laws in other jurisdictions, as they arose from New Zealand’s specific colonial legal structures.
Each of these three corporate laws emerged from settlement agreements under the Treaty of Waitangi, which involved years – and in the case of the Whanganui River, decades – of negotiations between the New Zealand government and the relevant Maori tribes. In all cases where an agreement was reached, the settlement agreement was documented in a Memorandum of Understanding and legislation was enacted to set out the new legal status of each individual ecosystem and how it would be managed.
Unlike the broad standing afforded by the rights of nature laws in Ecuador, Bolivia and the US, the New Zealand legislation is narrower, with each ecosystem with “legal personality” having explicitly defined guardians who can speak and act on its behalf. Each of these new laws also recognises the cultural connection and responsibility that Maori tribes have to these ecosystems.
Although these laws arose from New Zealand's unique cultural context, it is notable that in countries such as India, Colombia and Bangladesh, which have no legislation to recognise the rights of nature, courts have issued decisions that draw on New Zealand approaches and legally confirm that certain ecosystems must be recognised as "living beings" and have their own legal rights.
In March 2017, the Supreme Court of the state of Uttarakhand, which is located on the northern border of India and includes the headwaters of the Ganges River as well as part of the Himalayas, declared that “the rivers Ganga and Yamuna and all their tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing permanently or intermittently through these rivers, are hereby declared to be legal persons, recognized by law, living entities, having the status of a legal person with all the corresponding rights, duties and obligations of a living person for the purpose of protecting and preserving the rivers Ganga and Yamuna.”
This court decision was quite controversial in India and was challenged on several grounds in an attempt to clarify the implications of the decision, including its reference to the “obligations” of ecosystems. Nature rights laws in other jurisdictions have not suggested that nature has “obligations”, a problematic issue that has now prompted research and analysis by natural rights academics [37].
In 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court declared the Atrato River, along with its basin and tributaries, an “entity sujeto de derechos,” a legal entity. Interestingly, local communities and the river were granted rights. The rights of the river (as distinct from the rights of the communities) consist of its protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration by the state and local communities. The court issued a series of orders to implement its decision, including that the rights of the river be represented by a custodian—one representative of the government and one representative of the plaintiff community—and explicitly referred to the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River) model from New Zealand. Earlier this year, legal rights were also recognized for the entire Amazon region in Colombia [38].
Although the Atrato River case draws on the Whanganui River legal model, it is more of a “blend” of the New Zealand approach and the natural rights approaches developed in Ecuador and Bolivia. The Atrato River’s “biocultural rights” include protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration of the river, which is language similar to natural rights laws; and they require local people to be empowered to properly manage their river, which represents a significant strengthening of the role that rights can play in supporting Earth democracy [39].
International initiatives and declarations In addition to country-specific initiatives, more than eighty organizations from around the world now work together as part of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (hereinafter referred to as the “Global Alliance”) to advance legal rights for the Earth community. [40] This growing network of Earth lawyers and advocates is made up of groups and organizations from around the world that use Earth-centered concepts such as the rights of nature and ecocide to oppose the destruction of the Earth community through mining, fracking, logging, unsustainable water extraction, industrial agriculture, and pollution.
At the international level, this movement has created two important initiatives that challenge the anthropocentrism of existing international law and governance. The first is Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDRME) [41], which is a declaration that promotes the rights of all members of the Earth community to existence, prosperity and development. This declaration is not currently recognized in the legal system created by nation states, but it represents values that thousands of members of civil society have agreed upon. It is estimated that more than thirty-five thousand people from one hundred countries attended the People's Congress at which the declaration was created. The second initiative of the Global Alliance is the creation of International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature. The Tribunal aims to hear cases of alleged violations of the rights of nature and to make recommendations on appropriate remedial measures and restoration. The Tribunal was established in response to concerns among Global Alliance members that state-approved laws were enabling atrocities against nature. The Tribunal has held hearings that have highlighted violations of the rights of nature around the world.
Nature's Rights and Earth Democracy - Recent Developments in Australia and the Pacific
In November 2018, a group of scientists, lawyers and regional environmental and indigenous groups from the Pacific convened at the University of Auckland to discuss the creation of a Regional Convention on the Rights of the Pacific Ocean. A “Statement of Principles” [42] was developed as a way to articulate the cultural and legal thinking that the project is developing and to invite potential stakeholders to join the movement. The project represents a convergence of several different approaches to recognizing the rights of nature. It advocates for the recognition of the Pacific Ocean as a living entity with the right to exist, thrive and develop, and also acknowledges the cultural traditions of Pacific peoples who have deep cultural and spiritual ties to the Pacific Ocean. It emphasizes the implementation of the rights of nature at all levels of law and governance, including local communities, further reflecting how Earth democracy is interwoven with campaigns for the rights of nature.
In Australia, the Australian Earth Laws Alliance (AELA) is engaged in a number of projects and conversations that explore the potential of nature rights in Australia. AELA argues that changing the legal status of nature in Western law – whether by asserting positive nature rights in a given jurisdiction or by using a “legal subjectivity” approach for specific ecosystems – can bring legal and strategic benefits to strengthening environmental protection and can help change the Western approach to the living world. However, a key priority is to work in partnership with Indigenous colleagues to explore how a “nature rights” approach could be adapted in Australia to support – and not undermine – the existing ancient laws of Indigenous peoples on the continent.
A number of Indigenous Peoples’ initiatives, declarations and documents already include reference to the rights of nature. In 2016, Indigenous Peoples in the area now known as the Kimberley produced a historic declaration – the Fitzroy River Declaration – which sets out their intention to protect and manage the river and also recognises that “the river is an ancestral living being and has a right to life” [43].
In 2017, sixteen Indigenous peoples from the northern Murray-Darling Basin signed a treaty to cooperate and speak with one voice on issues of importance to them [44]. Known as the Northern Murray-Darling Basin Sovereign First Nations Alliance, the treaty also commits to the “rights of Mother Earth”, stating: “The rights of Mother Earth are upheld by all peoples… And we commit to ensuring ‘respect’ and protection of her inalienable rights and of all nature. We recognise that these guarantees are absolute inherent rights of the human condition” [45].
In 2017, the Victorian government also passed the Yarra River Conservation Act (Wilip-gin Birrarung Murron), which identifies the Yarra River and the hundreds of public lands it flows through as a single living, integrated natural entity that needs to be protected and enhanced. While this legislation does not change the legal status of the river or explicitly refer to the rights of nature, the recognition of the river as a living entity in Australian law is significant and marks the first time in Australia that Aboriginal language and responsibility for the care of this important waterway has been recognised [46].
The concept of natural rights is also receiving increasing attention from non-Indigenous communities in Australia. Following several years of workshops and discussions that AELA has led with local communities across Australia, a number of community initiatives have emerged in early 2018 that consider how natural rights can capture people’s imaginations in ways that traditional environmental law has not, and how natural rights structures and strategies might be embraced by people seeking to promote Earth democracy.
In March 2018, more than a hundred local people rallied in support of the Margaret River in Western Australia. Their signs, banners and strategies focused on giving the river its own voice and its own legal rights. One local river rights advocate said that people “got the idea of recognising the river as a living entity because we all know that it is more than just a resource, that it is alive and has a right to exist.”[48]
In the Blue Mountains, community members concerned about the threat to this World Heritage area have worked with AELA to develop a local council statement that they hope will gain support and advocate for the recognition of local nature rights in the Blue Mountains Local Council area.
AELA has also initiated a new debate on how to increase the protection and care of the world’s largest coral reef community, the Great Barrier Reef. AELA has prepared draft legislation for all three tiers of Australian government – a model law for local councils in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area, a state law recognising reef rights, and a draft amendment to the federal constitution. These model laws are intended to show what is possible in Australia and how laws on the rights of nature could be designed to include land democracy and recognition of the rights and responsibilities of indigenous peoples in the care of the land and sea [49].
Conclusions
The “rights of nature” approach essentially states that, in the words of Thomas Berry, “where there is life, there are rights.” This can be an effective way to challenge a legal system that views the living world as human property only, and that favors government control and corporate rights.
We must transform our environmental governance to care for the natural world, not destroy it, or we will perish along with much of our precious terrestrial community. Earth law and the law of nature can make a significant contribution to this transformation. The practical application of Earth law creates a radically different approach to environmental governance than traditional environmental law. Rather than treating the health of the Earth as just one of many variables that humans must “consider” in their anthropocentric decision-making processes, this new law advocates that the Earth come first. Earth law requires humans to view the nonhuman world as sacred, non-negotiable, and irreplaceable. This approach poses a fundamental challenge to the prevailing growth-oriented human culture and is critical if we are to save what is left of our precious terrestrial community and restore and heal our world for future generations.
Comment
[1] Thomas Linzey, www.celdf.org or his article for the Schumacher Society, 2004.
[2] Joseph H. Guth, “Law For The Ecological Age” (2008) 9; In: Vermont Journal Of Environmental Law 431.
[3] Cormac Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto For Earth Justice. Chelsea Green, 2011, p. 44-46.
[4] Thomas Berry, Evening Thoughts: Reflecting On Earth As Sacred Community. University of California Press, 2006, p. 110.
[5] Berry often referred to himself as a "geologist" because he studied the Earth rather than theology. See: Cormac Cullinan, See Note 3, p. 21.
[6] Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way Into The Future. Harmony/Bell Tower, 1999, p. 7 (Czech edition: The Great Work: Our Journey into the Future. Malvern 2021).
[7] Ibid., p. 161.
[8] Ibid., p. 182.
[9] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Berry, see note 6, p. 7.
[11] Ibid., p. 163; pp. 4-5.
[12] Ibid., p. 5.
[13] Ibid., p. 137.
[14] Cullinan, see note 3, p. 11.
[15] Cullinan, see note 3, p. 103.
[16] Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, 1949, p. 201.
[17] Arne Naess And George Sessions, Foundation For Deep Ecology, http://www.deepecology.org/.
[18] Christopher Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, And The Environment. Oxford University Press, 2010 (3rd edition).
[19] Cullinan, see note 3, p. 103.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Brian Swimme–Thomas Berry, The Universe Story: From The Primordial Flaring Forth To The Ecozoic Era - A Celebration Of The Unfolding Cosmos. HarperOne, 1992.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Berry, see note 6, p. 125
[24] Ibid.
[25] Christopher Stone, see note 18.
[26] Roderick Frazier Nash, The Rights Of Nature: A History Of Environmental Ethics. University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
[27] Klaus Bosselmann, "Governing The Global Commons: The Ecocentric Approach To International Environmental Law"; In: Droit De L'Environment Et Développement Durable. Limoges, 1994.
[28] Peter Burdon, "The Great Jurisprudence"; In: P. Burdon (Edit.), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy Of Earth Jurisprudence. Wakefield Press, 2011.
[29] Nicole Graham, 'Lawscape: Property, Environment And Law' (2011) 23(1); In: Journal of Environmental Law 160; Cullinan, see note 3.
[30] Berry, see note 6, p. 580.
[31] Thomas Berry, "Rights Of The Earth: We Need A New Legal Framework Which Recognizes The Rights Of All Living Beings" (2002) (214) In: Resurgence note 24.
[32] Berry, see note 6, p. 80.
[33] Peter Burdon, "Wild Law And The Project Of Earth Democracy"; In: M. Maloney–P. Burdon (Eds), Wild Law In Practice / Law, Justice And Ecology. Routledge Press, 2014.
[34] Cullinan, see note 3.
[35] Law Of The Rights Of Mother Earth, Bolivia 2010 Http://Www.Worldfuturefund.Org/Projects/Indicators/Motherearthbolivia.Html
[36] See, for example, Oregon Community Rights Network – http://orcrn.org/
[37] Discussion by Chief Justice Preston and others at the recent AELA symposium (25-26 October 2018).
[38] Nicholas Bryner, Colombian Court Recognizes Rights Of The Amazon River Ecosystem, https://www.iucn.org/News/World-Commission-Environmental-Law/201804/Colombian-Supreme-Court-Recognizes-Rights-Amazon-River-Ecosystem
[39] Colombian River Gains Legal Rights https://www.Internationalrivers.org/Blogs/433/Colombian-River-Gains-Legal-Rights
[40] For more information about the Global Alliance, please visit their website – http://Therightsofnature.org/ and for more details about the work of individual members of the Alliance, see Michelle Maloney And Patricia Siemen, 'Responding To The Great Work: The Role Of Earth Jurisprudence And Wild Law In The 21wed Century', Environmental And Earth Laws Journal, 2014, Volume 5, Issue 1.
For more information about the Global Alliance, visit its website – http://Therightsofnature.org/ and for more information about the work of individual Alliance members, see: Michelle Maloney and Patricia Siemen, “Responding To The Great Work: The Role Of Earth Jurisprudence And Wild Law In The 21wed Century". In: Environmental And Earth Laws Journal, 2014, Volume 5, Issue 1.
[41] Universal Declaration Of The Rights Of Mother Earth (2010), Https://Pwccc.Wordpress.Com/Programa/
[42] The Statement of Principles can be found here: https://rightsofnature.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Statement-on-the-Rights-of-the-Pacific-Ocean.pdf. See the media release here: https://rightsofnature.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Rights-of-the-Pacific-Ocean-Press-release-Dec-29-2018.pdf
[43] See: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/environskimberley/pages/303/attachments/original/1512653115/fitzroy-river-declaration.pdf?1512653115
[44] See: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/murray-darling-aboriginal-nations-sign-treaty/8518228
[45] See: http://nban.org.au/treaty/ For the relevant paragraph of the Treaty, see: http://nban.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/page-4.pdf
[46] Katie O'Bryan, “New law finally gives voice to the Yarra River's traditional owners”. In: The Conversation, 25, September 2017.
[47] Jacqueline Lynch, “Calls to give legal rights to nature flow to WA's South West”. In: ABC Online, March 23, 2018.
[48] Personal interview, March 24, 2018.