A River in New Zealand Gets a Legal Voice
By Sandra Postel / postcarbon.org
Sep 6, 2012

It speaks the language of riffles and babbles, not legal rights and codes, but the Whanganui River, New Zealand’s third largest, has received something no other river in the country – and possibly the world – yet has: a legal voice.

In a framework agreement signed last week between the Crown and the Whanganui River iwi (the local Maori people), the river will be recognized as a person when it comes to the law, much the way a company is.
 
In one of New Zealand’s longest running court cases, the iwi won for the river the status of an integrated, living whole, Te Awa Tupua, with rights and interests.  Two guardians, one appointed by the iwi and the other by the Crown, will protect those interests.
 
Coming four years after Ecuador’s new constitution granted legal rights to rivers, forests and other natural entities, the New Zealand agreement may give further impetus to the idea that nature has rights that should be legally protected, just as people do.
 
In most legal systems today rivers have no rights at all.  In legal parlance, they lack “standing” – the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.
 
In 1972 legal scholar Christopher D. Stone argued in his famous essay, “Should Trees Have Standing?”, that rivers and trees and other “objects” of nature do have rights, and these should be protected by granting legal standing to guardians of these voiceless entities of nature, much as the rights of children are protected by legal guardians designated for this purpose.
 
Stone’s argument struck a chord with U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.  That same year, Justice Douglas wrote a dissent in the case of Sierra Club v. Morton, in which he argued for the conferral of standing upon natural entities so that legitimate legal claims could be made for their preservation.
 
The river, Douglas wrote, “is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—the fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.”
 
As river after river runs dry and as more and more species lose their habitats and homes, the ethical implications of our water decisions beseech us to engage in this conversation.
 
A legal voice for rivers might sound extreme.  But, really, what is more extreme than a river deprived of water?
 
Note: Christopher Stone‘s essay was originally published as a law review article in 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).

Originally published at National Geographics Newswatch
Image credit: The Whanganui River in New Zealand. Credit: James Shook, Wikimedia Commons
 

Get The End of Growth http://www.postcarbon.org/eog | Watch the animation Who Killed Economic Growth? http://bit.ly/whokilledgrowth

4.0 ·
1
Trending Today
This Stunning Animation Beautifully Illustrates the Secret Life of Flowers
4 min3,295 views today ·
Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (The Real Reason For The Forty-Hour Workweek)
David Cain2,923 views today ·
Kate Tempest's Powerful Intro to Glastonbury 2017
2 min2,258 views today ·
The Problem With Hating Our Enemies
Charles Eisenstein2,150 views today ·
Organizing in 'Small Town USA'
Liberation Staff2,106 views today ·
This Facebook Comment About the UK Election Is Going Viral
Chris Renwick1,745 views today ·
Colin Kaepernick Is Being Blackballed by Billionaire NFL Owners. Here's Why.
Colin Jenkins1,596 views today ·
Be the Change in the Messed up World - ​Rob ​Greenfield at Tedx
18 min1,466 views today ·
Hillsborough: Anatomy of a Disaster
12 min1,290 views today ·
Load More
What's Next
Free The Network (2012)
32 min
Perma Kultcha (2010)
30 min
A River of Waste: The Hazardous Truth About Factory Farms (2009)
92 min
Like us on Facebook?
A River in New Zealand Gets a Legal Voice