Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


Nature as Persons: The Legal Battle for Indigenous Interpretations of Rights of Nature

11/2/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nathan Liu
​
Nathan Liu is a freshman studying political science in the College of Arts and Sciences.


“In Mojave thinking, body and land are the same. The words are separated only by the letters ‘ii and ‘a: ‘iimat for body, ‘amat for land. In conversation, we often use a shortened form for each: mat-. Unless you know the context of a conversation, you might not know if we are speaking about our body or our land. You might not know which has been injured, which is remembering, which is alive, which was dreamed, which needs care. You might not know we mean both” - Natalie Diaz.[1]


​Indigenous beliefs about the intertwined and connected relationship humans have to nature have existed for centuries and inform Native engagement with nature.[2] Of course, beliefs vary between Indigenous nations, and it is impossible to characterize Indigenous tribes monolithically, but they generally differ from Western notions of nature. For many indigenous people, the environment is not a separate entity but rather an intrinsic part of themselves – an interconnected system that humans are not above.[3] The anthropocentrism that characterizes Western thinking creates a human/environment distinction and regards nature as a resource to be used by humans, casting land as property.[4] It has justified the continued exploitation of the environment at an existential rate, resulting in existential consequences.

These consequences have spurred a legal battle to protect the environment. Common law regarding the injured in environmental suits set by Sierra Club v Morton established that a human person must be the injured to be granted standing.[5] Prior to 2007, injuries suffered in environmental suits were required to be economic losses. However, the Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA held that plaintiffs could suffer injury-in-fact, where noneconomic interests (such as recreational or conservational) can represent a loss.[6] Despite the broadened definition of “injuries” that aided environmental safety efforts, the Court did not overrule Sierra Club v Morton. Thus, the environment itself is never a relevant agent that can sue, have interests, nor collect damages.

Here, Indigenous understandings of nature have found a place in legal scholarship regarding the environment.[7] A radical theory of environmental personhood in law invokes Indigenous understandings of nature as an entity in legal principle. Environmental personhood has been utilized in tribal law, with the Navajo Nation banning uranium mining based on Navajo Natural Law that establishes “The animals, plants, insects, subsurface biota, and living in the water have their own laws and have the right to live.”[8] Founding scholarly works regarding environmental personhood cite Indigenous worldviews, which recognize that humans are not the only value-bearing agents in the world and challenge the assumption that people are limited to their bodies, instead accepting that nature is a part of humanity and vice versa.[9]

Environmental personhood is fundamentally different from current common law, as the category of personhood would vest a set of rights to nature, entailing three core tenants: first, the environment itself could bring suit instead of requiring injury to a human for legal action to occur; second, courts could account for the inherent interests of the environment; third, the environment could collect damages in the form of restorative initiatives from the defendant. [10]

This doctrine is much stronger internationally than in the US. In 2008, Ecuador ratified articles 71-74 as constitutional amendments that granted the environment “the inalienable right to exist, persist, and be respected.”[11] A 2016 decision by the Colombian Constitutional Court held that the Rio Atrato possessed rights to “protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration.”[12] A year later, New Zealand granted the Whanganui River legal personhood.[13]

Within the United States, local municipalities have been making progress. The first Rights of Nature law passed when Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, banned the dumping of toxic sewage.[14] Other communities in the US have also recognized the rights of the environment and specific natural areas, including Mora County (New Mexico), Lincoln County (Oregon), Broadview Heights (Ohio), and others. However, there has been little to no state and federal adoption.[15] Notably, in Sierra Club v. Morton, the case that established that environmental suits must prove injury to a person, Justice William O. Douglas filed a dissent arguing that the environment as an entity should have standing and can suffer injury.[16]

Fundamentally, US common law regarding environmental personhood has not changed. Despite these domestic laws declaring the rights of nature, none have been upheld in court.[17] Due to a dearth of common law precedent and a severe lack of public support, the fight for the rights of nature has been arduous.

Despite this, an area that has shown promise is invoking environmental personhood through historic American treaty obligations to Native nations.[18] Unlike general rights of nature laws, there exists a strong precedent in respecting treaties as agreements between sovereign nations. From 1778 to 1868, the United States entered into about 374 treaties with various Native Nations that ceded land to the US and, in exchange, granted Indigenous Nations certain protections.[19] Many treaties included usufructuary clauses, which gave Native Nations the right to use and benefit from the land they ceded to the government.[20] The Court established four cannons for interpreting these treaties in Worcester v. Georgia to repair for these agreements, which were often convoluted and one-sided: first, courts must construe treaties to liberally favor the tribes; second, ambiguities in treaties must be interpreted in favor of tribes; third, judges must interpret the treaties as Indigenous people would have understood them at the time of signing; fourth, treaty rights persist unless explicitly nullified by Congress.[21] 

The third cannon is particularly useful in attempting to establish environmental personhood. United States v. Washington reaffirmed its strength by forcing Washington state to remove off-reservation culverts that were killing hundreds of thousands of salmon by invoking treaties that provided tribes with usufructuary rights to fishing on ceded land. The Court interpreted the state’s obligation by returning to how the tribe would have understood the treaty at the time, finding that the tribe’s goal in signing was for fishing to feed the tribe. Simply giving the tribe land access to fish fulfilled the treaty in text. However, the significant destruction of salmon populations, despite being outside of tribal jurisdiction, violated the tribe’s goal of feeding their people. The Court reasoned that this obligated the state to protect fish writ large and forced the state to cease operation of the off-reservation culverts.[22]

This third cannon can be used to invoke environmental personhood. Using indigenous concepts of the inherent value of nature as a part of themselves, tribes can use the third canon and their interpretation of treaties at the time of signing to cite the environmental personhood of nature delineated in the treaties.[23]

The first case to test this is Manoomin et al. v. Minnesota in 2019, in which the White Earth Band of Ojibwe sued the state of Minnesota on behalf of Manoomin, a wild rice. In 1855, the tribe signed a treaty with the state of Minnesota guaranteeing the usufructuary rights both to harvest Manoomin and to Manoomin itself. The tribe filed suit when the state approved Line 3, an off-reservation oil pipeline that would have diverted significant amounts of water away from Manoomin lands.[24] They argued that the water belonged to Manoomin and that current and previous Ojibwe understood Manoomin as more than a mere resource, but rather as an entity with rights that existed as part of their community.[25]

This case established rights for Manoomin in tribal courts but has yet to make its way to federal courts. Still, Manoomin serves as a blueprint for a robust, precedent-based argument for environmental personhood through treaty rights. With ever more litigation coming, including pending cases like Cypress Wilde Branch, where Florida is suing on the grounds of rights of nature, we may see a shift towards nature as legal persons, inspired and fore-fronted by Indigenous worldviews.[26]

[1] Diaz, Natalie. Postcolonial Love Poem. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Graywolf Press, 2020.

[2] NMAI Magazine. “Defending the Indigenous Rights of Nature.” Accessed October 21, 2023. https://www.americanindianmagazine.org/story/indigenous-rights-of-nature.

[3] Booth, Annie L. “We Are the Land: Native American Views of Nature.” In Nature Across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures, edited by Helaine Selin, 329–49. Science Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Science. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0149-5_17.

[4] Yang, K. Wayne. A Third University Is Possible. Forerunners: Ideas First from the University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017.

[5] Scott Stern, object. “Standing for Everyone: Sierra Club v. Morton, Supreme Court Deliberations, and a Solution to the Problem of Environmental Standing.” Fordham Environmental Law Review 30, no. 2 (2018). https://core.ac.uk/reader/216959200.

[6] Marisa Martin and James Landman. “Standing: Who Can Sue to Protect the Environment?” American Bar Association, October 9, 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol--19---issue-1/standing--who-can-sue-to-protect-the-environment-/.

[7] Christopher Stone. “Should Trees Have Standing - Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” Southern California Law Review 45 (1972): 450–501.

[8] Rock, Tommy, and Jani C. Ingram. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge Policy Considerations for Abandoned Uranium Mines on Navajo Nation.” Human Biology 92, no. 1 (November 17, 2020): 19–26. https://doi.org/10.13110/humanbiology.92.1.01.

[9] Cullinan, Cormac. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Totnes, Devon: Green Books in assoc. with the Gaia Foundation, 2003.

[10] Christopher Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing - Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.”

[11] Whittenmore, Mary. “The Problem of Enforcing Nature’s Rights under Ecuador’s Constitution: Why the 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite.” Washington International Law Journal 20, no. 3 (June 1, 2011): 659.

[12] CELDF. “Rights of Nature: Timeline - CELDF - Protecting Nature and Communities.” Accessed October 22, 2023. https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/timeline/.

[13] Tanasescu, Mihnea. “When a River Is a Person: From Ecuador to New Zealand, Nature Gets Its Day in Court.” Open Rivers Journal (blog), October 26, 2017. https://openrivers.lib.umn.edu/article/when-a-river-is-a-person-from-ecuador-to-new-zealand-nature-gets-its-day-in-court/.

[14] “Rights of Nature.”

[15] “Rights of Nature.”

[16] Scott Stern, “Standing for Everyone.”

[17] “Defending the Indigenous Rights of Nature.”

[18] “Defending the Indigenous Rights of Nature.”

[19] “Nation to Nation | Treaties Between the United States and American Indian Nations.” Accessed October 30, 2023. https://americanindian.si.edu/nationtonation/.

[20] “Indian Treaty Rights | Milwaukee Public Museum.” Accessed October 22, 2023. https://www.mpm.edu/content/wirp/ICW-09.

[21] hlr. “Indigenous Interpretations: Invoking the Third Indian Canon to Combat Climate Change.” Harvard Law Review, April 11, 2022. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/indigenous-interpretations/.

[22] hlr. “Indigenous Interpretations.”

[23] “Indian Treaty Rights | Milwaukee Public Museum.”

[24] “Defending the Indigenous Rights of Nature.”

[25] hlr, “Indigenous Interpretations.”

[26] Elizabeth Warner. “Laboratories of the Future: Tribes and Rights of Nature.” California Law Review, April 2023. https://www.californialawreview.org/print/laboratories-of-the-future-tribes-and-rights-of-nature.

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.


0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.