OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022)

135

RIGHTS OF NATURE AS A POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE

TRANSFORMATION OF MODERN POLITICAL COMMUNITIES

CARLOTA HOUART

carlotahouart@gmail.com

Bachelor’s degree in International Relations and a master’s degree in IR – Peace, Security and

Development Studies from the Faculty of Economics of the University of Coimbra. She was a

junior researcher at the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and is currently a

PhD researcher at Wageningen University (Netherlands) as part of the ERC-funded research

project “RIVERHOOD – Living Rivers and New Water Justice Movements”. Her current research

interests include Critical Political Ecology; Rights of Nature and Multispecies Justice; Critical IR

Theory and Post-Anthropocentrism; and Indigenous Ontologies and Knowledge Systems.

Abstract

This article focuses on the present context of the climate and environmental crises and how

these fundamentally challenge the inherently anthropocentric norms, conceptions and

practices of international politics and IR. I argue that, in order to confront the hegemonic,

anthropocentric mode of relationship with non-human nature that has led to these crises,

alternative frameworks need to be developed that might lead to a gradual transformation of

modern political communities. Departing from Critical IR Theory, I suggest that Andrew

Linklater’s and Robyn Eckersley’s critiques of Westphalia and proposals for its transformation

might be useful to understand how the emergent Rights of Nature movement may promote

such transformation. I look at two paradigmatic cases from the Rights of Nature movement –

the Whanganui River case in Aotearoa New Zealand, on a local level; and Ecuador’s 2008

Constitution, on a national level – to briefly reflect on the alternative understandings of

concepts such as community, subjecthood, agency, voice, rights, participation and

representation that they encourage. By expanding these concepts as to include the more-

than-human world, these RoN frameworks invite a transformation of modern systems of

thought and practice, and – to a certain extent – constitute a potential for the transformation

of modern political communities in ways that might enable a better response to the global

climate and environmental crises.

Keywords

International Relations; Political Community; Rights of Nature; Non-Human Beings; Climate

Crisis.

How to cite this article

Houart, Carlota (2022). Rights of Nature as a potential framework for the transformation of

modern political communities. In Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Vol13, Nº. 1,

May-October 2022. Consulted [online] on the date of the last visit,

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.13.1.9

Article received on June 15, 2021 and accepted for publication on March 5, 2022

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

136

RIGHTS OF NATURE AS A POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE

TRANSFORMATION OF MODERN POLITICAL COMMUNITIES

CARLOTA HOUART

Introduction

The climate and environmental crises pose significant challenges to international politics

and International Relations (IR). Global-warming, sea-level rise, extreme weather

events, ecosystem destruction and the sixth mass extinction phenomenon all render the

inseparability and interdependence of human societies and non-human life undeniably

clear. These processes of rapid global change directly challenge the Cartesian dualism

that arose in Europe during the Enlightenment period (Merchant, 1980) and that views

humanity as separate from and in control of nature – a belief which has been central to

IR and its study of world politics ever since the development of the modern-states system

and of the capitalist world economy (Kavalski and Zolkos, 2016; Tickner, 1993). The lack

of timely, concerted and robust responses to these interweaving crises and all of their

ecological, social, economic and political impacts is not indissociable from the pervasive

anthropocentrism that perceives human beings as the central point of reference in world

processes; and of the dominant economic system associated with it which conceives of

non-human nature as a passive object for endless human exploitation and consumption

(Pereira and Saramago, 2020). The present context therefore calls for post-

anthropocentric proposals for the transformation of this hegemonic mode of relationship

with non-human nature, which has arisen primarily in the industrialised nations of the

Global North.

It is important to note that the transformation of this mode of relationship may inevitably

promote a gradual transformation of modern political communities – or the Westphalian

system of nation-states – which have, from the start, been fundamentally informed by

anthropocentric conceptions of the world and its agentic beings. In fact, the defining

norms of Westphalia – e.g., sovereignty, territoriality, citizenship, nationality – are all

inherently anthropocentric given that they establish the ontological, moral, legal and

political boundaries of community almost exclusively around human beings (Pereira,

2017). Calls for some form of interspecies relations (Youatt, 2014); for a new

understanding of planet politics instead of international politics (Burke et al., 2016); for

inclusive, intersectional and cosmopolitical frameworks for multispecies justice

(Celermajer et al, 2021); for new kinds of political community (e.g., zoopolis) which

embrace non-human animals as co-citizens, denizens or sovereigns (Donaldson and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

137

Kymlicka, 2014) – among others – have been appearing over the last two decades in

response to the exclusive character of world politics and IR, and their inability to

adequately respond to the climate and environmental emergencies. In fact, as Joana

Castro Pereira argues, “IR should abandon the traditional grounds upon which it is based

because the current ‘international’ notion demands not only a holistic conception but also

new ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies” (Pereira, 2017: 5). Part of this

process would necessarily include the recognition of the world’s multiple agentic beings,

which – I would add – would also involve recovering and/or learning from old ontologies,

epistemologies and methodologies, such as those held and shared by Indigenous

peoples.

Another proposal with the potential to affect and perhaps reshape modern political

communities is that of the emergent Rights of Nature (RoN) movement, generally

understood to have been first advanced in the 1970s through Christopher Stone’s article,

“Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (Stone, 1972).

Since then, and mainly during the last twenty years, the RoN movement has been

evolving within different frameworks, cultures and geographies, arguing for the

recognition of non-human nature’s inherent rights, either to nature as a whole or to

particular ecosystems and species. Although many small, localised legal and political

transformations have started being enacted under the RoN umbrella over the past few

years, some of its most paradigmatic achievements include Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution

(the first in the world to recognise RoN); the draft for a Universal Declaration of Rights

of Mother Earth written during the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the

Rights of Mother Earth in 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia; or Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te

Awa Tupua Act of 2017 (the first in the world to attribute legal personhood status to a

river).

Despite the fact that it most directly pertains to the universe of law, the RoN movement

holds profound and potentially radical implications for human societies on multiple levels,

including politically. As Cormac Cullinan states: “While the regulatory function of law is

easy to see, we often overlook the fact that law plays an equally important role in

constituting and forming society itself” (Cullinan, 2011: 55). Indeed, law shapes and

informs society by defining what should be the multiple relationships between individuals,

groups, and society as a whole, as well as between different societies (Cullinan, 2011).

These legally defined relationships determine, for instance, how a society is ordered and

how power is exercised within it (Cullinan, 2011). As such, “law is used by a society as a

means of creating and defining itself in accordance with its worldview” (Cullinan, 2011:

57). By advancing the idea that non-human nature has inherent rights to live and thrive,

the RoN movement rejects the foundational Eurocentric paradigm created by Cartesian

dualism: it views humanity as deeply embedded in and interdependent with the more-

than-human world; and challenges dominant conceptions of political community,

subjecthood, agency, voice, rights, participation and representation. It should also be

understood as attempting to bring together some of the tools of the contemporary

international system (e.g., modern or international law) with ecocentric or nature-

centred worldviews that are closer to Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems

(Stewart-Harawira, 2012). Indeed, it may be argued that the idea of nature’s rights is

not new at all, having been shared among native cultures for thousands of years through

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

138

their own relationships with the land and non-human beings (Lake, 2017); which is the

reason why I argued that the evolution of IR’s understanding of the world and its agentic

beings requires both new and old ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. To

clarify, then, when I refer to the emergent RoN movement, I refer to these new

initiatives, campaigns, and evolutions in law that seek to recognise rights and/or legal

personality status to non-human beings and ecosystems.

Critical IR Theory is useful to understand the RoN movement’s potential to gradually push

modern political communities in a post-anthropocentric direction. Therefore, in the

second section of this article, I will briefly look at Andrew Linklater’s and Robyn

Eckersley’s critiques of Westphalia and proposals for its transformation. In the third

section, I will reflect on how they might apply to two cases from the RoN movement that

were mentioned above: the Whanganui River case in Aotearoa New Zealand

(representing RoN on a local level); and Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution (representing RoN

on a national level). Through critical discourse analysis, I will look at the official

documents from each case (the Te Awa Tupua Act of 2017; and Ecuador’s Constitution)

and see how their language and narrative potential encourage an alternative reading of

concepts like community; subjecthood; agency; voice; rights; participation; and

representation. In the last section I present some concluding remarks, namely that – by

significantly broadening these concepts as to include the more-than-human world – the

emergent RoN movement indeed encourages different frameworks for the potential

transformation of modern political communities beyond anthropocentric Westphalia.

Beyond Westphalia

Linklater’s call for the transformation of modern political communities is associated with

his criticism of the Westphalian states-system as one premised on the inclusion of those

deemed as “insiders” or “citizens” and the exclusion of those deemed as “outsiders” or

“aliens” – a premise derived from the process of state-formation and that is part of the

nation-state’s “totalising project” (Linklater, 1998: 6). The success of modern states over

other forms of political organisation promoted the development of a powerful discourse

combining the concepts of sovereignty, territoriality, citizenship and nationality, based

on the belief that “ideally, all citizens should subscribe to one national identity conveyed

by a common language and culture” (Linklater, 1998: 29). From the beginning, then, the

Westphalian states-system was one which tried to erase difference within and beyond its

national boundaries; and for Linklater, the essential problem of modern political

communities is precisely their exclusion of difference and otherness – both between

“citizens” and “aliens”, and between “citizens” and subaltern groups within the state

(Linklater, 1998).

Nevertheless, the Westphalian state and its totalising project do not go unchallenged.

According to Linklater, sovereign political communities are challenged on two fronts by,

on the one hand, “morally universalistic claims that call for amplifying the role of

authorities above the nation-state”; and, on the other hand, by the “politics of

recognition” of Indigenous groups and minority nations, which call for “reducing the

influence which sovereign states exert over local communities and subordinate cultures”

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

139

(Linklater, 1998: 26-27). The tendencies of globalisation and fragmentation that have

evolved in opposition to and in response to each other in latest decades, along with the

social and economic changes they produced, have been having serious impacts on the

modern state’s capacity to perpetuate its totalising project (Linklater, 1998). Indeed, by

promoting the homogenisation of international society, globalisation actually fuels the

politics of identity and community: where there is no convergence between cultural and

political boundaries (e.g., in the case of Indigenous peoples living in colonial settler

states), there have been increasing pressures to transform “traditional conceptions of

community and citizenship which are hostile to the creation of group-specific rights”

(Kymlicka, 1989 apud Linklater, 1998: 32). Minority nations, migrant communities and

Indigenous peoples therefore promote the “politics of recognition”, relying also on

“transnational political activity” that is made possible by globalisation, and thus seeking

“global support for their project of reconstructing national communities” (Linklater, 1998:

32). The growing prominence of the politics of recognition is, in Linklater’s view, a central

indicator of movement beyond the Westphalian era (Linklater, 1998).

Linklater’s proposal for overcoming the social deficits brought about by the Westphalian

nation-state’s totalising project involves the widening of the moral boundaries of political

community in order to include previously excluded “others”. This expansion of boundaries

is part of Linklater’s envisioned triple transformation of political community, one that

seeks to “secure greater respect for cultural differences, stronger commitments to the

reduction of material inequalities and significant advances in universality” (Linklater,

1998: 3). According to him, such transformation may be achieved through the

establishment of dialogic relations, or the construction of some form of universal

communication community, that engage both “citizens” (all citizens) and “aliens” in

dialogue about matters of vital interest to all. Indeed, the dialogic ideal “envisages post-

nationalist communities which are sensitive to the needs of the systematically excluded

within and outside traditional borders”, making it “one of the principal ethical foundations

of the post-Westphalian era” (Linklater, 1998: 51). In Linklater’s view, making dialogue

central to social life would essentially mean being “troubled by the ways in which society

discriminates against outsiders unfairly by harming their interests while denying them

representation and voice” (Linklater, 1998: 7). In these communities, then, new social

bonds may develop which can “unite citizens around the common aim of eradicating

unjustifiable exclusion and promoting deep diversity” (Linklater, 1998: 83).

Still, as appealing as it may be for the inclusion of those subjects whose voices, needs

and concerns are traditionally excluded from political decision-making, Linklater’s

proposal seems unable to extend to non-human nature. This is partly because his

understanding of normative validity, which is inspired by Habermas’ conception of

discourse ethics, rests on the notion of communicative competence; or the fact that

norms should be considered valid insofar as all those potentially affected by them

participate in rational discourse and can (or not) give their consent to those norms

(Linklater, 1998; Eckersley, 2004). Such a provision that apparently instantly excludes

non-human beings is the result of an anthropocentric system of theory and practice that

does not even consider non-human nature as part of the picture. After all, “outsiders”,

“aliens” and subordinate/subaltern groups within the Westphalian states-system refer to

human groups such as the global poor, refugees, minority nations or Indigenous peoples

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

140

(Linklater, 1998). Insofar as non-human nature is rendered invisible in the dominant

world-picture (Burke et al., 2016), no significant transformation of modern political

communities to embrace the more-than-human world may be achieved within

Westphalia, or as long as they adhere to its hegemonic norms and conceptions.

In such context, one might ask: what are the implications of thinking about these “aliens”

or “others” beyond the species boundary of the human? In a planet that is currently

experiencing a global climate emergency, with unprecedented levels of ecosystem

destruction, species extinction and catastrophes affecting both human and non-human

beings, are we not indeed harming everybody’s interests by denying the latter

representation and voice in the course of decision-making? What would happen if people

were troubled by the ways in which modern human societies tend to continuously dismiss

the needs and interests of non-human nature – something which may be said to lie at

the centre of the climate and environmental crises? Viewing non-human nature as part

of the group of systematically excluded and devising frameworks for engaging in dialogue

with its multiple beings may be a crucial first step in order to overturn the current

situation.

Eckersley does this through her proposal for an ecological democracy, or some form of

post-Westphalian green state, which builds on Linklater’s work but goes importantly

further. Her politically challenging proposal for the transformation of modern states

establishes that: “All those potentially affected by a risk should have some meaningful

opportunity to participate or otherwise be represented in the making of the policies or

decisions that generate the risk” (Eckersley, 2004: 111). This formulation is closely

aligned with Linklater’s claim that dialogue promotes moral progress, especially when

one understands it as an expansion of the circle of subjects who have rights to participate

in dialogue, and the commitment that only those norms can be regarded as universally

valid that have (or could have) the consent of all those potentially affected (Linklater,

1998). However, Eckersley’s formulation steps outside the anthropocentric cage by

suggesting that the opportunity for participation or representation should be extended to

all those potentially affected, including all of nature, non-human beings, and future

generations (Eckersley, 2004).

To engage with non-human beings in the dialogic relations that may enable the

development of more inclusive, fair, and ecological societies, Eckersley transforms

Habermas’ conception of normative validity – the one which claims that norms should be

considered valid insofar as all those potentially affected participate in rational discourse

(Eckersley, 2004). By replacing the word “insofar” with “as if”, Eckersley suggests that

although many non-human beings may not be able to consent to proposed norms, acting

as if they were may help to ensure that their needs, interests and well-being are

respected, regardless of how useful they are to human beings (Eckersley, 2004). This

alternative perspective gives much more importance to the role of representation in the

democratic process. In fact, Eckersley claims that “representative claim making on behalf

of nature” is “ultimately an exercise in persuasion, concerned with exposing practices of

exclusion and defending practices of inclusion”; and it can therefore be seen “as an effort

to extend or radicalize democracy rather than curtail it” (Eckersley, 2011: 241).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

141

In Eckersley’s formulation of an ecological democracy, the demos is “no longer fixed in

terms of people and territory”, providing “a challenge to traditional conceptions of

democracy that have presupposed some form of fixed enclosure, in terms of territory

and/or people” (Eckersley, 2004: 113). Here one can see how her proposal may directly

challenge Westphalia’s central (anthropocentric) norms of territoriality, sovereignty,

citizenship or nationality, since the “relevant moral community” that should be

considered when making risk-generating decisions is neither ontologically, geographically

nor temporally bounded (Eckersley, 2004: 113). Instead, it should be understood as that

which is “tied together not by common passports, nationality, blood line, ethnicity, or

religion but by the potential to be harmed by the particular proposal” (Eckersley, 2004:

113). The boundaries of the political community would thus “rarely be determinate or

fixed but instead have more of the character of spatial-temporal zones with nebulous

and/or fading edges” (Eckersley, 2004: 113). This proposal might be better suited to

respond to planetary, borderless phenomena, such as climate change, instead of a

dominant world-picture of separate, autonomous states that can respond to the crisis

each at their own pace and will.

Of course, such a proposal carries many significant and complex challenges (in theory

and in practice). Although this is not the place to reflect on them, suffice it to note how

challenging Eckersley’s formulation is to the Westphalian states-system’s main norms

and principles, notably because “it does not regard the boundaries of the nation-state as

necessarily coterminous with the community of morally considerable beings” (Eckersley,

2004: 114). Regarding the question of how to include non-human beings (and future

generations) in the dialogic processes of decision-making, Eckersley proposes the

concept of political trusteeship, whereby persons and groups are chosen to represent the

needs and interests of those who may not be able to speak for themselves. This closely

resembles Christopher Stone’s suggestion for the designation of guardians (or a system

of guardianship) who can speak on behalf of ecosystems in order to uphold their legal

rights (Stone, 1972). The representatives taking on this trusteeship role should include

those with firsthand knowledge or experience of non-human nature, including Indigenous

peoples, environmental organisations, scientific experts, etc. (Eckersley, 2004).

Naturally, cases of uncertainty, complexity or conflict may arise which can render the

decision-making process more difficult. In these cases, Eckersley claims that the green

democratic state must not be neutral. Environmental justice in an ecological democracy

necessarily requires “rights and decision rules that positively favour the disadvantaged

(…) over well-resourced and strategically oriented economic actors” (Eckersley, 2004:

135). One way to achieve this would be through the creation of green democratic

constitutions that might recognise, protect, and reward “ecologically responsible social,

economic and political interactions among individuals, firms and communities” (Eckersley

2004: 140). In effect, such democracy would encourage states to assume a form of

“ecologically responsible statehood” (Eckersley, 2004: 2). The development of a diverse

and wide-ranging green public sphere that can inspire practices of transboundary

democracy, working towards common goals of ecological, climate and social justice on a

global level, is another important aspect (Eckersley, 2004).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

142

Linklater’s and Eckersley’s proposals for the transformation of modern political

communities beyond their traditional modes of exclusion may therefore pave the way for

the inclusion, representation and participation of non-human nature, namely through the

development of some form of post-Westphalian green states. I will now turn to the RoN

movement and analyse how it may suggest a potential transformation of certain

communities in this direction.

The Rights of Nature movement

The RoN movement was born from a common perception that existing governance

systems are by themselves incapable of responding to the current trends of ecosystem

destruction, biodiversity loss and climate change, given competing interests from

different actors (e.g., industries; corporations; states) and the fundamental rules of the

contemporary economic and political system (Barcan, 2019). As such, “environmental

law has become a fertile site for creative experiments”, one of which includes the

recognition of non-human nature’s subjecthood, agency and voice, and fundamental

rights (Barcan, 2019: 5). As Youatt claims, the particular feature of RoN seems to be

that “they name new, collective, legal and political subjects that are mostly nonhuman”

(Youatt, 2017: 2). This can constitute “the latest round of an outward expansion of rights

to the previously marginalized, building on the recognition of rights along the axes of

race, class, gender, and species” – reminding us of Linklater’s proposal (Youatt, 2017:

2). In such scenario, through initiatives and movements like RoN, non-human nature can

increasingly acquire actorness or political subjecthood in global life.

Furthermore, the RoN movement has often (although not exclusively) been spearheaded

by Indigenous peoples and communities, which is corroborated by the fact that some of

its best-known successes (e.g., Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution; Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te

Urewera and Te Awa Tupua Acts) have been taking place in countries with Indigenous

populations and active grassroots mobilisation for the recognition of Indigenous voices,

claims, and rights. This is tied to the fact that non-Western, Indigenous modes of

relationship with non-human nature have historically been radically different from the

capitalist, anthropocentric mode of relationship prevalent in the Western world. Actually,

despite their diversity in cultures, ontologies and epistemologies, Indigenous peoples

around the world tend to share a core set of principles of relationality, interdependence,

intercommunication, respect and harmony with the Earth and all beings (e.g. Heinämäki,

2009; Stewart-Harawira, 2012; Inoue, 2018). One significant difference between

Western, hegemonic and Indigenous, counter-hegemonic understandings of nature is

that between looking at ecosystems (e.g., forests, mountains, rivers) as landscapes,

natural resources or carbon sinks – or as “worlds in and of themselves” (Inoue, 2018:

28). This latter understanding underlies Indigenous ontologies that view humans as

caretakers of the Earth, explaining why – in spite of comprising less than 5% of the world

human population – Indigenous peoples protect and preserve around 80% of the planet’s

remaining biodiversity (IUCN, 2019). Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems have

therefore tended to reject anthropocentric notions of community, subjecthood, agency,

voice, and rights long before the modern RoN movement was born. We will now see how

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

143

these alternative understandings of such concepts have been advanced through this

movement on two different scales.

1. The Whanganui River case

In 2017, the Te Awa Tupua Act became the world’s first piece of legislation to declare a

river to be a legal person (Collins and Esterling, 2019). It resulted from a long effort by

the Maori people, since 1873, to have their right to ownership of the Whanganui River

restored – a right which was taken from the Whanganui tribes by the Treaty of Waitangi,

through which the British Crown annexed the territory of Aotearoa (New Zealand) in 1840

(Rodgers, 2017; Collins and Esterling, 2019). The attribution of legal personality to the

Whanganui represents the latest legal tool being used for the protection and management

of rivers; but it also represents a political settlement acknowledging Maori tikanga

(customary law) and viewing the river and its tributaries in a broad, holistic perspective

(O’Donnell and Macpherson, 2019).

As demonstrated in pages 14 and 15 of the Act

, Te Awa Tupua is defined as “an

indivisible and living whole, comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the

sea, incorporating all its physical and metaphysical elements” (Te Awa Tupua Act, 2017:

14). Tupua Te Kawa refers to all the intrinsic values that represent the essence of Te Awa

Tupua, including “Ko au te Awa, ko te Awa ko au: I am the River and the River is me”,

which in turn means that “the Iwi and the hapü of the Whanganui River have an

inalienable connection with, and responsibility to, Te Awa Tupua and its health and well-

being” (Te Awa Tupua Act, 2017: 14-15). The Act reflects a Maori ontology by identifying

Te Awa Tupua (the whole of the river) as including both the river and the people, the

Whanganui tribes, “as a single unit, not just as a matter of recognition but also as a

matter of governance” (Youatt, 2017: 11). This conception of community consequently

views humans as inseparable from and interconnected with the more-than-human world

(the river and all other beings inhabiting it). It also represents an attempt to dismantle

systems of governance built by Western colonial powers that use language, discourse

and law to govern human and non-human nature according to their objectives and

worldviews (Youatt, 2017).

This Indigenous view of the Whanganui River as a broad community is in line with

Eckersley’s proposal for an ecological democracy in which the boundaries of the demos

are redrawn to include a larger moral constituency; one that challenges the Westphalian

nation-state’s traditional norm of territorial sovereignty as a fundamentally nationalist

and anthropocentric one (Eckersley, 2004). In this case, the Whanganui River – although

being geographically located within the borders of the state of Aotearoa New Zealand –

belongs not to the state but to itself, which includes the Maori tribes and the non-human

beings living in interdependence with the river. Ownership would in this case be better

understood as guardianship. As noted by Rodgers, “traditional Maori concepts of

stewardship reflect a different relationship (…) to that in most Western legal systems”

(Rodgers, 2017: 270). The difference lies in the Maori concept of kaitiakitanga, whose

The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 can be consulted here:

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

144

main premise is “the understanding that people live in a symbiotic relationship with the

earth and all living organisms and have a responsibility to enhance and protect its

ecosystems” (Rodgers, 2017: 270). An example of this is clearly illustrated by the phrase

“I am the River and the River is me” (Te Awa Tupua Act, 2017: 15).

The next pages of the Act show what it establishes in terms of the recognition of legal

personality to Te Awa Tupua and the defined system of guardianship. The Whanganui

River is thereby declared to be a “legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties, and

liabilities of a legal person” (Te Awa Tupua Act, 2017: 15). Te Pou Tupua are its appointed

guardians, in accordance with Eckersley’s concept of trusteeship, to ensure that the

interests and needs of non-human nature are represented and upheld. The appointed

guardians are to be the “human face of Te Awa Tupua and act in the name of Te Awa

Tupua” (Te Awa Tupua Act, 2017: 17). This system of guardianship consists of naming

one member of the Whanganui tribes and one member of the Crown to act as trustees

or spokespersons, and to uphold the intrinsic values (Tupua te Kawa) that represent the

essence of the whole of the river. By electing both one Indigenous and one non-

Indigenous New Zealander as representatives, the Act may be understood to try to

promote a convergence of cultural and political boundaries, thereby encouraging what

Linklater advocates as a transformation of political community that seeks to secure

greater respect for cultural differences and a greater universality (Linklater, 1998).

It also effectively broadens the scope of representation in the political community that is

the state of Aotearoa New Zealand, regarding this local ecosystem, by including both: 1)

traditionally marginalised human communities (the Maori); and 2) non-human nature

(Te Awa Tupua). Ultimately, the conception of humanity’s relationship with non-human

nature that underlies this Act is radically different from the one that permeates dominant

narratives in the modern states-system. It: a) recognises legal and political subjecthood

to a river; b) claims that the physical and spiritual community formed by Te Awa Tupua

is made of both human and non-human beings, thereby crossing the territorial and

ontological boundaries of the river; c) establishes that Te Awa Tupua is its own sovereign;

d) and attempts to ensure that the river’s voice is heard, even if through its appointed

human guardians. Hence, regardless of potential challenges to its practical

implementation (which are likely to exist, since it marks such new ground in Western law

and politics), it clearly promotes counter-hegemonic conceptions of community,

subjecthood, agency, voice, rights, participation and representation that are non-

anthropocentric and better suited to respond to the current context of environmental

destruction exacerbating the climate crisis. The transformative potential of the Act is also

that, even if on a local level, the inscription of this piece of legislation into the institutions

of the state indeed creates a precedent for a new system of governance and pushes it

toward a form of ecologically responsible statehood (Eckersley, 2004).

2. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution

We now turn to that which is perhaps the world’s most famous example of the RoN

movement on a national level. In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to

officially enshrine RoN into its Constitution, recognising nature in its whole as a rights-

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

145

bearing entity. In fact, it may be argued that this is the “hitherto most radical constitution

of the world” in what concerns RoN (Lalander, 2016: 624). Chapter 7, through Articles

71 to 74, describes the concept and its legal and political implications for the state

The Constitution claims that “Nature, or Pacha Mama, 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”

(Constitution of Ecuador, 2008). Here, then, nature is defined as a whole, recognising no

separation between human and non-human worlds and highlighting the interdependence

of human and non-human beings. Through these words, one can see recognition of

nature’s legal and political subjecthood as a living universal entity with inherent rights

and inherent agency. The 2008 Constitution can thus be seen as an example of

Eckersley’s “green democratic constitutions” (Eckersley, 2004: 140).

The inscription of RoN into the Constitution might also be seen as an example of

Linklater’s claim that transitioning to a system where new forms of political community

arise does not necessarily imply the disappearance of conventional state structures, but

rather the fact that “states should assume a number of responsibilities which have usually

been avoided in the past” (Linklater, 1998: 4). One of these, laid out in Article 72, is that

the state must ensure nature’s right to restoration (from severe or permanent

environmental harm) and establish proper mechanisms to “eliminate or mitigate harmful

environmental consequences” (Constitution of Ecuador, 2008). Furthermore, Article 73

explicitly holds the state accountable for applying “preventive and restrictive measures

on activities that might lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems

and the permanent alteration of natural cycles” (Constitution of Ecuador 2008). By

making it clear that the state is responsible for enforcing RoN, the Constitution seeks to

cast it in the new role of “ecological steward” (Eckersley, 2004: 2).

Obviously, whether or not the state acts accordingly is another matter, but the language

and narrative potential underlying Chapter 7 describe this new framework for state

practice in a way that invites a critical reflection on the concepts of community,

subjecthood, agency, voice, and rights in a non-anthropocentric perspective. The

Constitution indeed defines an enlargement of Ecuador’s moral, legal and political

boundaries to include non-human actors who have become repositories of rights that

must be ensured by the state – and thus represents a potential post-Westphalian (post-

anthropocentric) transformation of this particular political community.

Concerning the selected system of trusteeship, Article 71 establishes that “all persons,

communities, peoples and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights

of nature” (Constitution of Ecuador, 2008). This means that, in a sense, anybody can act

as a guardian or trustee and speak on behalf of non-human nature to make its needs

and interests heard. Such provision also broadens the potential scope of representation

of non-human nature by naming not only individual but also collective actors

(communities and nations) that are part of a rather indeterminate overall community.

Besides, the Constitution not only has this more representative dimension regarding non-

The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador can be consulted here:

https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

146

human nature but also regarding Indigenous peoples, who are part of the traditionally

excluded subaltern groups or “aliens” referred to by Linklater.

This is evident in the preamble and corroborated by Youatt’s remark that “the rise of

indigenous political forces in Ecuador (…) clearly shaped the particular language in these

articles, especially the use of Pachamama and sumak kawsay” (Youatt, 2017: 10). The

preamble refers to Pacha Mama, the Kichwa word generally translated as Mother Earth,

and to the sovereign people of Ecuador’s commitment to “building a new form of public

coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living,

the sumak kawsay” (Constitution of Ecuador, 2008). The inclusion of an Indigenous

paradigm such as sumak kawsay or buen vivir – which represents an alternative to the

Western concept of (economic) development – may thus represent an attempt to bring

political and cultural boundaries into convergence, in line with Linklater’s proposal. The

use of concepts such as Pacha Mama and sumak kawsay (which would deserve a far

longer article focused solely on their meanings and implications) in the Constitution

consequently infuses it with an Indigenous worldview based on notions of

interdependence, interrelationship, harmony and respect between humans and non-

human beings. According to Eduardo Gudynas, the 2008 Constitution promotes a

biocentric posture, where both human and non-human lives have value in themselves

(Gudynas, 2011); and it therefore rejects a mechanical, reductionist, instrumentalist

view of nature, which has been central to the processes of development of the state and

the market and hence inherent to modern political communities (Tickner, 1993).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the Constitution emerged out of a very

particular political and social context. It was approved “in the aftermath of a period of

profound political turmoil”, at a time when leftist president Rafael Correa had just been

elected with promises of fundamental changes for the country, including a greater

representativeness of Indigenous rights and attention to environmental concerns

(Espinosa 2019: 608). An analysis of the implementation of RoN in the country shows

that, despite being a radically new step taken by a state, upholding Rights of Nature in

Ecuador has not become common practice since 2008 (Lalander, 2016; Laastad, 2019).

There are contradictions within the Constitution itself, namely on what concerns the

state’s responsibility for the country’s economy (highly dependent on extractivism and

on the exploitation of non-renewable resources); and its duty to uphold RoN (Lalander,

2016). These find a parallel in the state’s practice, which continues to rely heavily on

resource extraction despite calls for the protection of nature (Lalander, 2016).

Considering that Ecuador is one of the poorest countries in South America, the state

seems to be trapped between the need to rely on extractivist industries for social welfare;

and the need to protect its ecosystems and beings. This apparent dilemma means that

“in practice, strategic economic and political interests of the State clash with indigenous

and environmental rights” (Lalander, 2016: 625).

It might be tempting to argue that this difficulty in upholding RoN in Ecuador casts doubt

on the potential success of the entire movement. However, what is particularly

interesting here is how the language used – and its underlying understandings of the

political community, of nature’s subjecthood and rights – point at least to the possibility

of transforming Ecuador’s boundaries and system of governance in a post-

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

147

anthropocentric direction. There are, after all, signs that including RoN in the national

Constitution has indeed promoted a growing ecological conscience within civil society

(Laastad, 2019). Perhaps it is also connected to some recent achievements in Indigenous

and environmental rights’ movements, such as the decision by the Constitutional Court

of Ecuador in late 2021 to refuse mining concessions in the protected forest of Los Cedros

– a decision based on the understanding that such activity would violate the rights of

nature of this particular ecosystem (Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, 2021). As

stated in the documentary The Rights of Nature: a Global Movement, “the rights of nature

are thus represented as less of a legislative tool than an instrument to change how people

think and act” (Goeckeritz, Crimmell, and Berros, 2020). A change in consciousness can

thus represent the first step towards transforming state practice.

Secondly, the fact that it seems impossible to uphold RoN in the current economic and

political system highlights how this system is not built in a way that genuinely allows for

the protection of non-human nature, as it is necessarily premised on the continuous

exploitation of ecosystems, peoples and beings. As long as modern political communities

are built on hegemonic conceptions of the world and its agentic beings, and rely on an

economic system that demands the exploitation and destruction of a nature viewed as

passive object, it may not be possible for these communities to become ecologically

balanced and to effectively respond to the climate and environmental crises. Given that

these crises are rapidly worsening, and that they hold such devastating potential to

transform global society, looking at the dilemmas that countries such as Ecuador seem

to face while trying to uphold RoN and still play by the rules of the current system may

propel a call to action towards the transformation of political community beyond its

capitalist and anthropocentric structures.

Concluding Remarks

Having analysed these two paradigmatic RoN cases, I would argue that the movement is

aligned with Linklater’s and (especially) Eckersley’s proposals for the transformation of

modern political communities beyond their traditional exclusionary character. Both the

Te Awa Tupua Act of 2017 and Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution seem to be good examples

of the politics of recognition that seek to achieve a greater convergence between cultural

and political boundaries; that encourage members of the two political communities to be

sensitive to the needs and interests of the systematically excluded (in this case, with a

particular focus on non-human beings and ecosystems); and that promote deep diversity

by extending the moral boundaries of the community to very different “others” – all in

line with Linklater’s proposal (Linklater, 1998). They also hold important representative

dimensions that attempt to create spaces (either through a new legislative Act, or

through the national Constitution) for non-human nature’s voice to be heard, even if

through appointed human guardians or trustees; and encourage practices of ecologically

responsible statehood, either locally or through the development of what might be

considered a green constitution – in line with Eckersley’s proposal (Eckersley, 2004).

Still, two important observations should be made. While these two cases focus on a local

and on a national level, I believe that thinking of the RoN movement on a potentially

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

148

global scale indicates that the discussion surrounding nature’s rights probably becomes

more abstract, complex, and harder to implement in practice as one moves from a local

to a national to a global level. Suffice it to think of how challenging it would certainly be

to try to turn the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth that was written in 2010

in Cochabamba, Bolivia, into an “international normative framework” similar to the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 – as was the intention of its proponents

when they presented it to the UN General-Assembly (Espinosa, 2014: 393). The fact that

the Declaration was not yet accepted as an official framework speaks for itself.

Attempting to establish RoN on a global scale poses far greater challenges, as they would

have to be accepted by a much larger and more diverse set of actors (with different

economic circumstances, political regimes, cultures, needs and interests); and they

would directly challenge some of the foundational structures, norms and rules of the

contemporary international system, including the capitalist world economy. On the other

hand, although questions, challenges and tensions exist in both the Whanganui River

case and regarding the Ecuadorian Constitution, and perhaps more evidently in the latter,

RoN frameworks were officially adopted in both instances and they are to some extent

already having an impact. What this suggests is that the RoN movement might potentially

achieve greater success by first focusing on smaller, localised changes and gradually,

potentially encourage a growing network of RoN frameworks. Working on paradigmatic

change or consciousness raising on smaller levels might contribute to spreading counter-

hegemonic conceptions and systems of practice through a grassroots, bottom-up

approach.

Secondly, it is important to note how the contexts in which the RoN movement has had

more success until now are in the Global South, and specifically in regions with

Indigenous peoples and active Indigenous mobilisation (or struggle) for the recognition

of their cultural, political, and legal rights. Some of the cases where the RoN frameworks

seem to have been more boldly introduced so far, in Ecuador and in Aotearoa New

Zealand, involved very particular circumstances through which Indigenous peoples made

their voices and their claims (and therefore their cultures, ontologies, and language)

heard and incorporated into official legislation. What this seems to suggest is that, in

those spaces where the moral boundaries of political community are widened to the

extent that they allow for a greater inclusion, participation and representation of

traditionally marginalised human communities (particularly Indigenous peoples), one can

expect to more easily see a corresponding expansion of those boundaries to include

systematically excluded non-human nature. This makes sense, in fact, if one thinks of

Indigenous peoples’ traditional relationships to the more-than-human world; and it also

suggests that the development of more inclusive political communities can be a good

scenario for both human and non-human beings. If it enables a more timely, concerted,

and robust response to the climate and environmental crises, it certainly will.

Finally, regardless of potential challenges to its practical implementation, I would argue

that the RoN movement does indeed hold the potential for (at least) a gradual

transformation of political community in a post-anthropocentric, post-Westphalian

direction. Through their language and narrative potential, RoN frameworks invite a critical

reflection on concepts of community, subjecthood, agency, voice, rights, participation

and representation that have almost exclusively centred around humans; and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

149

consequently push for an enlargement of the moral, legal and political boundaries of

community as to include the more-than-human world. By inviting a transformation of a

prevailing, exploitative, anthropocentric mode of relationship with non-human nature,

the RoN movement also enables a potentially robust, more representative, inclusive, fair,

and ecological response to the climate and environmental crises.

References

Barcan, Ruth (2019). “The campaign for legal personhood for the Great Barrier Reef:

Finding political and pedagogical value in a spectacular failure of care”. Environment and

Planning E: Nature and Space, 0(0), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619886975

Burke, Anthony, Stefanie Fishel, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, Daniel J. Levine (2016).

“Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR”. Millennium: Journal of International

Studies, 44(3), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816636674

Celermajer, Danielle, David Schlosberg, Lauren Rickards, Makere Stewart-Harawira,

Mathias Thaler, Petra Tschakert, Blanche Verlie, Christine Winter (2021). “Multispecies

justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics”.

Environmental Politics, 30: 1-2, 119-140,

https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1827608

Collins, Toni, Esterling, Shea (2017). “Fluid Personality: Indigenous Rights and the Te

Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 in Aotearoa New Zealand”.

Melbourne Journal of International Law, 20(August), 1–24.

Cullinan, Cormac (2010). “The Legal Case for the Universal Declaration of the Rights of

Mother Earth”, 1–6. Available at: https://therightsofnature.org/wp-

content/uploads/pdfs/Legal-Case-for-Universal-Declaration-Cormac-Cullinan.pdf.

Cullinan, Cormac (2011). Wild Law – A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Cambridge: Green

Books.

Donaldson, Sue, Kymlicka, Will (2014). Zoopolis – A Political Theory of Animal Rights.

Oxford University Press.

Eckersley, Robyn (2011). “Representing nature”. In S. Alonso, J. Keane, & W. Merkel

(Eds.), The Future of Representative Democracy (pp. 236-257). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770883.011.

Eckersley, Robyn (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty.

London: The MIT Press.

Espinosa, Cristina (2014). “The Advocacy of the Previously Inconceivable: A Discourse

Analysis of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth at Rio+20”. Journal of

Environment and Development, 23(4), 391–416.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496514536049.

Gudynas, Eduardo (2011). “Debates sobre cooperación y modelos de desarollo.

Perspectivas desde la sociedad civil en el Ecuador”. Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD y

Observatorio de la Cooperación al Desarollo, Quito, 83-102.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

150

Heinämäki, Leena (2009). “Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Promoting the

Sustainability of the Global Environment?”. International Community Law Review, 11, 3–

68. https://doi.org/10.1163/187197309X401406.

Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki (2018). “Worlding the Study of Global Environmental Politics

in the Anthropocene: Indigenous Voices from the Amazon”. Global Environmental Politics,

18:4. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00479.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2019). IUCN Director General’s

Statement on International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples 2019. Available at:

https://www.iucn.org/news/secretariat/201908/iucn-director-generals-statement-

international-day-worlds-indigenous-peoples-2019.

Kavalski, Emilian, Zolkos, Magdalena (2016). “The Recognition of Nature in International

Relations”. Recognition and Global Politics, 139–156.

https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9781784993337.003.0008.

Laastad, Synneva Geithus (2019). “Nature as a Subject of Rights? National Discourses

on Ecuador’s Constitutional Rights of Nature”. Forum for Development Studies, 0(0), 1–

25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2019.1654544.

Lake, Osprey Orielle (2017). “Recognizing the Rights of Nature and the Living Forest”. In

Movement Rights, Indigenous Environmental Network and Women Environment and

Climate Action Network, Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: Rights-Based Law For Systemic

Change, 20-23.

Lalander, Rickard (2016). “The Ecuadorian Resource Dilemma: Sumak Kawsay or

Development?” Critical Sociology, 42(4–5), 623–642.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514557959.

Linklater, Andrew (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical

Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. Cambridge: Polity Press

Merchant, Carolyn (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific

Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.

O’Donnell, Erin, Macpherson, Elizabeth (2019). “Voice, power and legitimacy: the role of

the legal person in river management in New Zealand, Chile and Australia”. Australian

Journal of Water Resources, 23(1), 35–44.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2018.1552545.

Pereira, Joana Castro, Saramago, André (2020). Non-Human Nature in World Politics –

Theory and Practice. Switzerland: Springer.

Pereira, Joana Castro (2017). “The limitations of IR theory regarding the environment:

lessons from the Anthropocene”. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 60(1): e018,

2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-73292017001019.

Rodgers, Christopher (2017). “A new approach to protecting ecosystems”. Environmental

Law Review, 19(4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452917744909.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 135-151

Rights of nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Carlota Houart

151

Stewart-Harawira, Makere (2012). “Returning the Sacred: Indigenous Ontologies in

Perilous Times”, in L. Williams, R. Roberts & A. McIntosh (Eds.), Radical Human Ecology:

Intercultural and Indigenous Approaches. UK: Ashgate, pp. 73-88.

Stone, Christopher (1972). “Should Trees Have Standing ? - Towards Legal Rights for

Natural Objects”. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.

Tickner, J. Ann (1993). “States and Markets: An Ecofeminist Perspective on International

Political Economy”. International Political Science Review, 14(1), 59–69.

https://doi.org/10.1177/019251219301400104.

Youatt, Rafi (2014). “Interspecies Relations, International Relations: Rethinking

Anthropocentric Politics”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(1), 207–223.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814536946.

Youatt, Rafi (2017). “Personhood and the rights of nature: The new subjects of

contemporary earth politics”. International Political Sociology, 11(1), 39–54.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olw032.

Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (2021).

“Ecuador’s Constitutional Court enforced Rights of Nature to Safeguard Los Cedros Prot

ected Forest”. Available here: https://www.garn.org/los-cedros-rights-of-nature/