Demystifying Legal Personhood for Non-Human Entities: A Kelsenian Approach

Buocz, Thomas; Eisenberger, Iris

doi:10.1093/ojls/gqac024

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, the duties could 'be understood as preserving the ecological heritage and would thus be borne towards the whole of humankind or all sentient beings' (Kurki 2019, p. 152). Finally, one 7 See also Buocz and Eisenberger (2022) for a discussion. 8 It could be objected that the two examples discussed here do not represent the general claims of RoN advocates.…”

Section: Custodians Of Natural Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I believe, however, that they are two exemplary and successful cases of RoN being accepted in legislation (see also Boyd [2017] and Kauffman and Martin [2021]). 9 For a further discussion on legal personhood as bundles of norms, applied to non-human entities, see Buocz and Eisenberger (2022). It is there suggested that a statement such as 'Te Urewera owns or governs the Urewera lands' is a more efficient and concise variation of 'X human beings appointed by the Crown and Y human beings appointed by the Tūhoe iwi exercise governance of the Urewera lands ' (2022, p. 20).…”

Section: Custodians Of Natural Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Rights of Nature Manifesto Rights (And is That a Problem)?

Baard

2023

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

That nature, including insentient entities such as trees, rivers, or ecosystems, should be recognized as right-holders is an enticing thought that would have substantial practical repercussions. But the position finds little support from moral conceptions of rights and moral distinctions that have judicial relevance in the sense of providing normative reasons for legislation and assessing existing laws. An alternative to viewing rights of nature as proper rights resting on valid moral claims that ought to be legally recognized is to regard them as ‘manifesto’ rights. Such rights are based on political demands and hold even if there is no one with a corresponding duty to fulfill them. I investigate whether rights of nature can be considered manifesto rights. Some objections to regarding rights of nature as manifesto rights will be considered, such as difficulties of delimiting the borders of an environmental entity and making successful analogies with existing (human) rights based on interests and needs. It will be suggested that while some of those challenges can be mitigated by custodianship, it is not clear what needs of insentient entities in nature would justify such claims. It is found that rights of nature depend substantially on legitimate custodians both for delineation of the entity in question and for establishing interest-like characteristics. But rights of nature are not manifesto rights when there is a legitimate custodian having the possibility of evoking duties in others. However, the need for a legitimate custodian in delimitation and establishing normatively relevant characteristics of specific environmental entities defeats universal appeals to rights of nature.

show abstract

Section: Custodians Of Natural Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Custodians Of Natural Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Rights of Nature Manifesto Rights (And is That a Problem)?

Baard

2023

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Citizen Observations as Legal Obligations: (Dis)Associations and Representation at the Swedish Land and Environment Court of Appeal

Kasperowski,

Peterson,

Hagen

2024

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing international trend in environmental activism to use legal institutions and infrastructures for citizen science (CS) to affect policy and regulation. However, knowledge about observations produced in activist CS and their functions at courts is scarce. To address this, we analyze how citizen observations (COs) reported to an established infrastructure for CS assist in producing legal obligations. Sweden provides an exemplary case due to the integration between CS biodiversity infrastructures, environmental regulation, and the increasing number of legal environmental conflicts. Data was gathered from documentation of legal cases argued in front of the Land and Environment Court of Appeal (LECA) from 2012 to 2020, and interviews with civil servants at Swedish environmental public authorities. Through a qualitative analysis, we find several ways that COs get associated to legal obligations, including through civil servants’ decisions, species spatial-temporality, comparisons between different CS reporting systems, the negotiation of species status on red lists, and interpretations of species behavior. We relate our findings to a broader discussion on what forms of representation matter in environmental regulation and who and what can speak for species and entities making up the world.

show abstract

Demystifying Legal Personhood for Non-Human Entities: A Kelsenian Approach

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Are Rights of Nature Manifesto Rights (And is That a Problem)?

Are Rights of Nature Manifesto Rights (And is That a Problem)?

Citizen Observations as Legal Obligations: (Dis)Associations and Representation at the Swedish Land and Environment Court of Appeal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About