Personification Of “Nature” In Legal Thought Process: Myth And Reality

K. M. Firoz, Advocate, High Court of Kerala, Kochi, India

ABSTRACT

Nature or environment is recognised as legal person in varying ways and degrees by a few countries and jurisdictions.1 It is postulated that nature is endowed with rights of a living person. The conferring of such a status is thought necessary to preserve and conserve nature and to provide her effective protection of the law. Viewed in this perspective, conferment of legal personality on environment enhances environmental outcome.2 Nevertheless, nature by itself cannot initiate any legal action for protecting her rights.3 The view that status of personhood is implied in such circumstances is disputable. On the other hand, legal representation of nature in legal forums or proceedings is prudent and acceptable. Therefore it is argued that there should be precise mechanism in legal forums to protect the nature.

The legal personhood of nature in the abovementioned background is now widely accepted. Accordingly, injury and harm caused to nature shall be treated as harm or injury towards human beings. However, some critics say that, such technical adoption of personhood does not have any impact or influence in the eye of the law. They would say that what is usually misunderstood as “rights of nature” are in fact “legal duties” of human beings owned by them to themselves. It is apprehended that, such conferment of personhood on nature may result in unforeseen or far-reaching consequences. It may be even argued that flow of a river, which is declared a legal person, cannot be restrained by constructing a dam for avoiding floods or for generating electricity and its resources could not be used in any manner since river as a legal person has own rights for restraining any onslaughts. The attempt in the following paragraphs is to examine Nature’s legal personality in the context.