People For Earth

Professor Park Tae-hyeon of Kangwon National University School of Law delivered the third session of the 2022 Earth Jurisprudence Lecture, titled "Earth Jurisprudence for Practitioners," with the theme "Using Earth Jurisprudence in Practice." Professor Park stated that although Earth Jurisprudence is a philosophy, it is challenging to directly apply it to litigation practices. However, the Earth Jrisprudence principles and values can provide perspectives for interpreting current laws in practice, so they can be used.

Prior to the discussion, the three cases were mentioned: migratory birds were not taken into account when contemplating the life and property of humans in relation to transmission towers passing through migratory bird habitats; While promoting the development of public housing in the habitat of the narrow-mouthed toad, a decision was made without balancing the interests of humans and animals, and the suitability of alternative habitats was not assessed; Gariwangsan Mountain, which was supposed to be restored after the 2018 Winter Olympic in PyeongChang, has not been restored, but the local and central governments have ignored it, and no one is qualified to file a lawsuit. He questioned whether the issue could have been resolved if Gariwangsan had its own privileges.

Professor Park noted that it is difficult to reconcile the gap between the interpretation of current laws and the perspective of earth Jurisprudence, which is the traditional approach to environmental law, in the process of weighing profits. The ideological origins of Earth Jurisprudence and the Rights of Nature were then discussed with Thomas Berry's theory as the focal point. In addition, the Ecuadorian Constitution and the Bolivian Mother Earth Law were cited as laws that reflected these concepts, and the case of the Vilcabamba River in Ecuador served as an illustration. We discussed the practical advantages of three aspects.

Last but not least, the ideology or principle of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy was described as an illustration of the desire to realize human law that recognizes the Rights of Nature. He stated that the ecological factual relationship could be brought to the forefront in the course of the argument, and that the principle of giving priority to environmental conservation and prevention could be deduced from the principle of natural benefit in the event of uncertainty. It was considered the responsibility of environmental attorneys to contend that case law and sentences should be interpreted so as to recognize the Rights of Nature.