The concept of granting legal personhood to
the environment has evolved from a radical academic theory into a significant
global legal movement. This shift challenges the traditional view of nature as
a mere "object" for human use, proposing instead that ecosystems
should be recognized as "subjects" with inherent rights.
The
Foundational Theory: Christopher D. Stone
In 1972, the Southern California Law Review
published Christopher D. Stone’s
Landmark Article, “Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for
Natural Objects”. Stone challenged the fact that trees (and all of nature) are
viewed as objects by the law. He argued
that forests and rivers should have rights of nature (RoN) in the eyes of the
law.
Stone defended the rights of nature (RoN) by analogy. He
observed ancient Roman Law that childreen were less person than objects under the
absolute authority of fathers. The same rules were also applied to women and minority
groups. “Until the rightless thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as
anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’ — those who are holding rights at the
time,” Stone wrote.
Moreover, Stone highlighted thelegal
history of the extension of right to some new entities such as corporations and
nation-sates gained legal protection. Just as humans, like children, acquired
rights over time, also history of successive extension of rights to new
entities, Stone quite seriously proposed that legal rights could be given to
forests, oceans, rivers, and other so-called ‘natural
objects’ in the environment.
Baca Juga: Investor Reliance on Information in the Cryptocurrency Market in Thailand
Parts of the environment could gain legal representation using
common methods. As an example, if a man becomes senile and seems unable to
manage his affairs, concerned parties intervene and seek the appointment of a
guardian. Professor Stone suggested that groups like the Sierra Club could
apply to serve as court-appointed guardians for mountains or streams that they
perceive as endangered. Guardians would gain the power to sue on the
environment’s behalf.
Stone wrote his article to influence the SIERRA
CLUB v MORTON court case. The Sierra Club was
suing Rogers C.B. Morton, as the US Forest Service, for having granted Walt
Disney Company the right to develop a massive ski resort in the Mineral King
Valley of the Sierra Nevada mountains. The Sierra Club alleged that the
development would do irreparable harm to the public interest.
According to the lower court ruling that the Sierra Club hadn’t
shown his own interests would be harmed, which is what would be required for
the Sierra Club to bring the suit. In a
landmark legal paper written as the case came before the Supreme Court, Stone
described that natural entities like the Mineral King Valley have legal
standing in their own right- that is, the Mineral King Valley should itself be
allowed to press a suit and claim injury.
Dissenting Opinion Justice William O. Douglas
Then the Supreme Court of the
United States heard the case of Sierra Club v.
Morton. In a 4-3 decision in April 1972, the justices concurred with an appeals
court ruling that the Sierra Club did not have standing to sue. But Justice William O. Douglas was the one Supreme
Court Justice who ruled in favor of the Sierra Club. In his famous dissenting
opinion, he asserted that natural entities ought to have standing to sue for
their own protection, citing the “Should Trees Have Standing” article.
Justice Douglas argued that the standing
doctrine should allow environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club to
sue on behalf of inanimate objects such as land. There is precedent for
inanimate objects to have legal personality for the purpose of lawsuits, and those
who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured,
polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.
Besides,
Douglas proposed that lawsuits concerning environmental damage should be filed
in the name of the "inanimate object" itself, rather than solely on
behalf of human users. The case should have been titled Mineral King v. Morton, treating
the valley itself as the plaintiff.
Global
Implementation and Milestones
The Stone’s paper is commonly seen as laying
a foundation for legal recognition of natural entities, and his work galvanized a global movement to grant nature
the legal status of personhood. Since 1972, Courts,
legislatures, and various bodies of government in countries around the world have
been influenced by this idea that they have sought and won ecosystem protection
through nature rights.
In 2008,
Ecuador became the first country in the world to formally recognize and implement
the Rights of Nature, which Ecuadorians refer to as the Rights of Pachamama
(Mother Earth). The constitutional provisions regarding the Rights of Pachamama
state: “Nature, or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the
right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and
regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary
processes. All persons, communities, peoples, and nations can call upon public
authorities to enforce the Rights of Nature.” In 2024–2025, it
continued to act as a model for using these laws, such as protecting the Los
Cedros forest from mining
In 2011,
the first lawsuit using the Rights of Nature provision was filed by the Global
Alliance for Rights of Nature (GARN) and others against a
construction company for building a road across Ecuador’s Vilcabamba River and
dumping rubble into the river. The first case, heard by the
Provincial Court of Justice of Loja, featured the Vilcabamba River as
the plaintiff. Thus, the river itself was able to defend its own rights to
‘exist’ and ‘maintain itself’ – as it sought to stop a government highway
construction project that was interfering with the natural flow and health of
the river. The court ruled that the project be stopped.
In 2017,
four rivers sought and in some instances won legal rights: the Whanganui River
in New Zealand, the Rio Altrato in Colombia, and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in
India. The New Zealand case is fundamentally unique because the Parliament
finalized The Te Awa
Tupua Act, appointing two guardians of the river:
one representative of the Maori Indigenous people and one representative of the
government. In addition to that, The New
Zealand parliament granted the Whanganui River legal
status as an ecosystem.
In the
United States, several cities have asked for an ecosystem to bear legal rights.
In 2010, the City Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania unanimously
passed an ordinance recognizing the Rights of Nature as part of a ban on shale
gas drilling and fracking. Then in 2019, the city of Toledo adopted the Lake
Erie Bill of Rights, a municipal law that gave the lake rights of its own. But
in 2020, a federal judge ruled that the Lake Erie Bill of Right was invalid based on the premise
that the law itself was “unconstitutionally vague” and exceeded municipal
powers.
In
February 2021, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and the Minganie Regional County
Municipality recognized the Canadian Magpie River’s legal rights of personhood
through the adoption of twin resolutions — one resolution by
the Innu and another resolution by
the municipality. The river bears nine rights and can be legally represented by
guardians responsible for ensuring that these rights are respected.
Most
recently, on April 30, 2026, the Maidstone Borough Council became
the first council in the United
Kingdom to formally adopt a Rights of Nature
framework, embedding the principle that Nature has an intrinsic right to exist,
thrive, and evolve into governance, planning, and service delivery. The
framework integrates Nature’s protection directly into the Council’s
Biodiversity Action Plan and Climate Change Action Plan, ensuring that rivers,
trees, wildlife and ecosystems are considered alongside social, economic, and
financial factors in public decision-making.
Indonesian Context: Adat Law
Indonesia currently does not have legislation that explicitly recognizes
nature objects have the right of Nature. But the 1945 Constitution acknowledges
Adat (indigenous or customary) law, which regards nature as sacred and
inherently endowed with rights. The same thing was also conveyed by the 1960
Basic Agrarian Law and the 2009 Environmental Protection Law, which also embed
principles of environmental stewardship and indigenous rights.
According
to Dancer that Adat law is inherently eco-centric, where ecosystems are not
objects of exploitation but subjects that deserve respect and protection. This
is reflected in the East Manggarai – Ngada case, where land is not viewed
merely as an economic resource, but as “Nusa” or “mother”, a living entity that
provides life. This case parallels RoN principles that they are not objects but
integral parts of community existence.
This
concept of ‘Nusa’ or ‘mother’ also applies to the examples of existing Adat
communities and law in the country, such as those of Punan Batu Benau, Baineo,
and Lembak tribes. Their community practices are closely aligned with the
principles of RoN, where nature is a legal subject possessing inherent rights
equal to those of humans.
Therefore,
when applied consistently, Adat law not only safeguards community welfare, but
also recognizes ecological integrity as a shared responsibility. In this way,
Adat law bridges the gap between national law and the international trend
toward RoN recognition.
References:
www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/us/christopher-stone-dead.html
Linda Yanti Sulistiawati,
“Chapter (X): Halfway There: Indonesia’s Adat Law towards Right of Nature Frameworks, Case-Based Reflections
from Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia”, NUS Asia Pacific Centre for
Environmental Law Working Paper
news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-of-nature-lawsuits/
www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-34
communityrightslanecounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Rights-of-Nature-History.pdf
Baca Juga: Political Obligation: Rousseau and Hobbes perspective
Untuk Mendapatkan Berita Terbaru Dandapala Follow Channel WhatsApp : Info Badilum MA RI
