On September 28, the people of Ecuador go to vote on a proposed constitution that "includes an article that grants nature the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution” and will grant legal standing to any person to defend those rights in court." (Ecuador constitution would grant inalienable rights to nature). Here is the text of the section in question:

Quote: Chapter: Rights for Nature Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama [Mother Earth], where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution. Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depend on the natural systems. In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences. Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem. Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles. The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited. Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing. The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the State.

According to an editorial in the Los Angeles Times (Putting nature in Ecuador's constitution), "the movement to give nature legal rights" didn't start in Ecuador but in Pennsylvania, where the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund has helped "a dozen municipalities ... fight off coal mines, incinerators and factory farms." Now it's Ecuador's turn, where polls show the new constitution leading 56% to 23% (Ecuador's Correa has majority before key vote: poll). So what do you think about assigning rights to nature? Can it work? Will it work? What questions do you have about this effort?

Good idea. It's quite unique to recognize nature as an independent legal entity in court through the constitution. As all laws, it surely is prone to abuse, but I guess most cases can be regulated by precedents (does Ecuador have common law ?) and/or amendments.

It would certainly be very interesting to see how this works out in practice. Could be a good thing for some other countries to adopt too...

Just words... one more official to bribe.

Sweet, does this mean before long I will be performing an illegal act by mowing my lawn? Sweet!

I think the idea is sound but there is a LOT of potential trouble with it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I don't think it would work in the constitution...at least at the federal level.

Obviously, just weeding a garden has the potential to infringe upon some of those acts.

But an even bigger minefield of trouble is that some of those acts could be interpreted as infringeing upon the US constitutions bill of rights (if it were enacted here). Specificly as it relates to religion. With the way our suprime court is now, and with the right lawyer. Its possible to argue that such a nature rights amendment could constitute to some degree the federal establishment of Hindu, Wiccan, or potentialy even the Gaian religions.



[Edited by - MSW on September 5, 2008 9:46:22 PM]

Uh, this is in Ecuador. It has zero impact on me in America...unless the Equadorian government starts trying to extradite people who commit crimes against their constitution (but that's just ridiculous, right?). Though, this is a brave attempt at respecting the dignity of life and will be a good way to iron out the legal problems before other nations consider adopting something similiar.

However, the articles are too vague leaving it too open to interpretation. It could be interpreted as forced vegetarianism or veganism at worst - By articles 1 and 3, any citizen could bring another to court for eating an animal. I can see the argument now: "An animal is a part of the ecosystem and it's disrespectful to kill the animal and eat it. It has a right to exist, persist, reproduce and maintain itself!"

Someone could take it to the extreme: "Ants are a member of the Animilia kingdom and should not be killed! They have a right to exist, persist, reproduce and maintain their colonies!"

On the beneficial side though, it could be used in this way: "The rainforests in the northeastern province are being slashed and burned to make room for unsustainable agriculture. This is in violation of article 2."

The dignity of life should be respected, but ambiguous articles in a constitution will probably cause a lot of apprehension. I think they need more clarification...but hey, I'm not Ecuadorian and they'll eventually figure out how to iron out the wrinkles and make it work.

A bit more extreme is the new swiss law that got passed: All Swiss animals are equal - but some more so than others (lol, "Animal Farm" reference there)

Quote:GENEVA (AFP) - Want to get rid of your goldfish? Swiss owners who have been flushing them down the toilet -- still alive -- must now find other methods since strict, new animal protection laws went into effect Monday.

Instead, a fish must be first knocked out and then killed before its body can be disposed of, the law stipulates.

The new legislation spells out in exhaustive detail how all domestic animals are to be treated, whether they be pets, farm animals or destined for scientific experiments.

Ridiculous on so many levels. How are they even going to enforce this??