Posthuman international law and the rights of nature

Abstract

Both posthuman theory and the rights of nature (RoN) movement have the potential to challenge the anthropocentrism of international environmental law (IEL). Scholars have begun to document the transformative shifts that could occur through the application of posthuman legal theory to IEL, but these theories have yet to be applied to law in practice. On the other hand, RoN have been applied in domestic law but hardly in international law, while the question of what RoN includes and excludes remains contested. This article brings posthuman theory and RoN together, reflecting on how posthuman legal theory can contribute to the framing of RoN, with a focus on challenging the anthropocentrism of IEL. The article argues, first, that the next step for posthuman legal theory will be its application to existing law. Noting convergences between posthuman legal theory and the rights of nature (RoN), the article contends that those seeking to apply posthuman legal theory might find some interesting alliances by turning to RoN. Second, it is argued that using posthuman theory to frame RoN could help to ensure that RoN live up to their transformative potential.

A Critical Feminist Evaluation of Climate Adaptation Law and Policy: The Case of Aotearoa New Zealand

“…A relational understanding of the ethics of care is informed by thoughtleadership from Indigenous peoples and scholars on the need to take a relational approach to human-environment relationships more broadly.90 Such an approach challenges the Western, modernist worldview that positions humans as objective, autonomous, independent, and rational actors situated hierarchically above a nature which is to be managed and dominated for the purpose of maximizing short-term profits.91 A critical feminist approach to climate adaptation appreciates complex entanglements between people and the place in which they are embedded,92 and directly challenges the prioritization of the human project in isolation from the wellbeing of surrounding lands, waters, and ecosystems. 93 We argue for an extended conceptualization and application of the ethics of care, in which we do not conceive of care in a colonial, patronizing, or humanist sense, but in a relational sense -informed by Indigenous and other diverse knowledges and centered around connections between people and place.…”

Theologically Shoring Up the Law of the Sea

“…28 In an especially provocative article, British environmental lawyer Emily Jones joins the rights of nature movement to posthuman theory to challenge more generally the anthropocentric construal of subjects of international law. 29 She stresses that renouncing this anthropocentrism in international law would require a genuine paradigm shift, 30 or what theologians and others might call a "conversion." Second, even if whales, or jellyfish, or plankton, or nature more generally, are not formally counted as subjects, do they not remain agents or actors whose behavior affects the ocean and ocean governance, or the lack thereof?…”

Rights of Rivers in a Changing Climate

“…For example, recognition of a particular river's rights rather than a broader recognition of nature potentially risks further fragmentation (of regimes and relevant actors in water-related decision-making) and may undermine the interconnectedness aspired to in rights-for-nature norms. 48 Place-based or domestic implementation of transnational water norms also risks overlooking the complexity of the climate-water nexus (or the water-food-energy-climate nexus). Water relates to many social and economic issues,49 and there is a need for integrated policies across sectors.50 It is unclear, for instance, how transnational water norms might impact on energy production,51 including with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from the use, storage, distribution, and treatment of water and wastewater.52 Emissionreduction measures, such as hydroelectricity generation, require a balancing of climate mitigation and water priorities53 that may sit in tension with 'local realities'54 and the institutional form that rights for rivers might take.…”