•  
  •  
 

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol50.no1.2483

Abstract

This paper discusses three legal precedents regarding the legal personhood of nature in three countries; Ecuador, New Zealand, and India. Each country has recognized some natural areas as legal persons through different means. In Ecuador, the rights of nature, which resemble legal personhood of the nature, are recognized in the 2008 Amendment of Ecuador Constitution. Meanwhile, New Zealand has recognized the legal personhood of Whanganui River through legislated settlement treaty between the government and Maori peoples. Whereas in India, the rivers of Ganges and Yamuna have been recognized its legal personhood through the Uttarakhand High Court’s decisions. These three legal precedents are a very important breakthrough in legal studies regarding “who”, “whom” and now “what”, are recognized as a legal person. This article contains descriptions of the three precedents aforementioned which will be explored further in terms of possible advantages and also weaknesses that came with by recognizing nature as legal person.

Bahasa Abstract

Tulisan ini membahas mengenai tiga preseden hukum di Ekuador, Selandia Baru, dan India dalam hal penyematan subyek hukum kepada alam. Ekuador memberikan hak- hak tertentu untuk alam yang dicantumkan dalam amandemen konstitusi tahun 2008, Sungai Whanganui di Selandia Baru menjadi subyek hukum melalui proses legislasi, dan dua putusan di HC Uttarakhand India yang memutuskan Sungai Gangga, Sungai Yamuna, beserta seluruh atributnya dari hulu hingga hilir sebagai subyek hukum. Tiga perkembangan alam sebagai subyek hukum tersebut bisa dibilang merupakan perkembangan penting dalam studi mengenai “legal person” setelah perempuan dan korporasi yang terjadi beberapa dekade belakangan. Tulisan ini berisikan deskripsi atas preseden yang terjadi di tiga negara diatas beserta dengan eksplorasi atas kelemahan-kelemahan yang mungkin timbul dengan menyematkan alam sebagai subyek hukum.

References

Ahmad, Omair. “Uttarakhand’s case points to the challenges of giving a river the rights of a human”. Scroll.in. 5 Juli 2017. Dapat diakses di https://scroll.in/article/842565/uttarakhands-case-points-to-the-challenges-of- giving-a-river-the-rights-of-a-human, diakses pada 18/12/2017

Charpleix, Liz. “The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: Place-Based Law in a Legally Pluralistic Society,” The Geographical Journal, 2017. DOI: 10.1111/geoj.12238

Dyschkant, Alexis. “Legal Personhood: How We Are Getting it Wrong”. University of Illinois Law Review. Vol. 2015, No. 5. Hlm. 2075-2110

Ekuador, Konstitusi Republik Ekuador Tahun 2008

Fish, L. “Homogenizing Community, Homogenizing nature: An analysis of conflicting rights i the rights of nature debate”. Stanford Undergaduate Research Journal. Vol. 12, Spring. 2013.

Gopalan, Radha. “Why the court ruling to humanise the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers Rings Hollow”. The Wire India. 27 Maret 2017. Dapat dilihat di https://thewire.in/119099/ganga-yamuna-whanganui-human/, diakses pada 18/12/2017

Hsiao, Elaine C. “Whanganui River Agreement: Indigenous Rights and Rights of Nature,” Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2012, hlm. 371-376

India, Reserved Judgment Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 5th December 2016, Paragraf 4.

_________. Mohd Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, Writ Petition (PIL) No, 126 of 2014, 20 March 2017

_________. The State of Uttarakhand & Others v. Mohd. Salim & Others, Item No. 19 Court No.1 Section X Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 016879/2017, 2017

_________. Union India & others v. Lalit Miglani & others, Item No.20 Court No.3 Section X Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 34250/2017, 2017

_________. Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2015. tanggal 2 Desember 2016.

_________. Nainital Write Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2015, Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand & others, High Court of Uttarakhand, 30 Maret 2017

Kundu, Gagandeep. “Can Rivers Be Legal Entities?- A Critical Analysis”. The World Journal on Juristic Polity, August, 2017

Magallanes, Catherine J. Iorns. "Nature as an Ancestor: Two Examples of Legal Personality for Nature in New Zealand," VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [Online], Hors-série 22 | septembre 2015, tersedia sejak 10 September 2015, diakses pada 19 Desember 2017. Dapat diakses di http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16199; DOI: 10.4000/vertigo.16199

Moon, P. dan Fenton S. “Bound into a Fateful Union: Henry Williams’ Translation of the Treaty of Waitangi into Maori in February 1840,” The Journal of Polynesian Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002, hlm. 51-63

O’Bryan, Katie. Indigenous Rights and Water Resource Management: Not Just Another Stakeholder, London, Routledge, 2018, hlm. 85

_______. “Giving a Voice to the River and the Role of Indigenous People: The Whanganui River Settlement and River Management in Victoria,” Australian Indigenous Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017, hlm. 48-57

Orange, C.The Treaty of Waitangi, Bridget Williams Book, Wellington, 1987

Pietari, Kyle. “Ecuador’s Constitutional Rights of Nature: Implementation, Impacts and Lessons Learned”. Willamette Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 5, Fall 2016

Selandia Baru, Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, Public Act No. 7/2017, 2017

Singh, Kautilya dan Sheo S. Jaiswal. “Uttarakhand to approach SC against high court order granting living status to Ganga”. Times of India. 20 Mei 2017. Dapat dilihat di https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/ukhand-to-approach- sc-against-high-court-order-granting-living-status-to- ganga/articleshow/58755178.cms, diakses pada 18/12/2017

Singh, Soibam Rocky, “Uttarakhand govt moves SC against Ganga’s living entity status”. Hindustan Times. 25 Juni 2017. Dapat dilihat di http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/uttarakhand-govt-moves-sc-against- ganga-s-living-entity-status/story-9QXgAu5nACW1IKpEEN5XxO.html, diakses pada 18/12/2017

Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects”. Southern California Law Review, Vol. 45, 1972

__________. Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment. Oxford University Press, 2010

Tanasescu, Mihnea. “The Rights of Nature in Ecuador: The Making of an Idea”. International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 70. , No. 6, 2013

Vaidyanathan, A. dan Aloke Tikku (ed.). “Mistake to call Ganga, Yamuna living entity to protect society’s faith, Uttarakhand tells top court”. NDTV. 22 Juni 2017. Dapat dilihat di https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/was-a-mistake-to-call- ganga-yamuna-living-entity-to-protect-societys-faith-uttarakhand-government- te-1715828. diakses pada 18/12/2017

Waitangi Tribunal. Wai 167: Interim Report and Recommendation (Concerning the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and a Claim in Respoect of the Whanganui River), Wellington. 1993

Waitangi Tribunal. “Past, Preset & Future of the Waitangi Tribunal”. https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/about-waitangi-tribunal/past-present- future-of-waitangi-tribunal/ diakses pada 19/12/2017

Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, Timeline, available at http://www. wrmtb.co.nz/assets/rivertime.html, 2010, diakses pada 19/12/2017

Whittemore, Marry Elizabeth. “The Problem of Enforcing Nature’s Rights Under Ecuador’s Constitution: Why The 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite”. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association, Vol. 20. No. 3, 2011. Hlm. 661-666.

Download

Share

COinS