People For Earth

On July 8, People for Earth participated in the 31st World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy(IVR 2024) and conducted a special workshop.

This academic conference, the first to be held in Korea, was hosted by the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy(IVR: Internationale Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie), established in Berlin in 1909. It is a historic academic event where experts from around the world gather every two years to share and discuss research results. This year, it was held at Soongsil University in Seoul with the main theme of “The Rule of Law, Justice, and the Future of Democracy.”

People for Earth held a special workshop with the theme of “Earth Law: Natural Rights and Political Participation,” featuring presentations and discussions.

Special Workshop 62 

Earth Jurisprudence: Rights and Political Participation of Nature

by People for Earth

Our philosophical and legal discourse has predominantly centered around human existence, history, and society. Yet, a profound shift is underway, bringing forth new ontological perspectives that encompass not only humans but also artifacts, animals, plants, and diverse non-living beings. As we confront with the alarming reality of humanity wreaking havoc on Earth through unprecedented scientific advancements and a dominance over nature, there's an urgent need for ontological contemplation beyond ‘the human’. While sociologists like Ulrich Beck have labeled modern society a 'Risk Society,' the contemporary risks particularly from global warming and ecosystem destruction, pose a threat not just to human life but to the entire web of living beings. A fundamental shift in perception and practice is imperative.

In response to this imminent call of our times, Earth Jurisprudence movement is gaining momentum globally, advocating for the endowment of moral and, in some cases, legal rights not only to humans but also to nature itself. Earth Jurisprudence embodies a philosophy and methodology that grant rights to nature as an integral member of the Earth community, actively engaging nature in collective decision-making. In contrast to the conventional human-centered paradigm, this emerging philosophy envisions an Earth-centered legal and governance system, where every being on Earth possesses inherent rights. The aspiration is to confer not just moral but also legal rights to all living and non-living beings.

As the discourse and advocacy for Earth Jurisprudence grow globally, some nations are incorporating its principles within their constitutional frameworks, legal provisions, and regulations. Examples of the leading nations are some countries in South America and New Zealand. Some environmental activists in the United States are pursuing legal recognition of the rights of animals and plants through various court cases. While the Earth Law movement is growing in a number of European countries, it is also extending in other countries of different region as South Korea.

Despite the global efforts and advocacy for Earth Jurisprudence, it faces numerous challenges, including shifts in humans’ predominant perception about non-human beings, conflicts with existing environmental laws, and limitations in practical implications of Earth Jurisprudence. For instance, while some foundations, corporations, and ships have already obtained legal personality, with rights and obligations exercised through human representatives or agents, the idea of granting legal personality to nature remains novel.

Can we genuinely extend legal rights to beings beyond humans? Do trees, animals, forests, and rivers have the potential for legal personality? What are the basis for such rights, and how can they be defined and granted? Who acts on behalf of nature in exercising its rights? How can a political forum for nature's representatives be envisioned? Is a new political system and governance inclusive of animals, plants, or nature feasible?

If these questions resonate with you, we would like to extend our warm invitation for you to join this engaging and thought-provoking workshop with us. During this workshop, our presenters will engage you to actively take part and contemplate about these questions.

[Abstract]

This workshop explores a paradigm shift in philosophical and legal discourse, extending beyond human-centric perspectives to include artifacts, animals, plants, and non-living beings. As humanity's impact on Earth intensifies, the Earth Jurisprudence advocates for moral and legal rights of nature, envisioning a new Earth-centered legal and governance system. The workshop addresses challenges, such as shifting human perceptions towards: nature, conflicts about environmental laws, and the novel concept of granting legal personality to nature. The workshop poses essential questions about extending and defining legal rights to beings beyond human beings.

[Convenor]

- Wangbae Kim (People for Earth / Yonsei University Department of Sociology, South Korea)

[Presentation]

1. A legal innovation for multispecies justice: the expansion of legal personality
 

- Taehyun Park (People for Earth / Earth Jurisprudence Society / Kangwon University School of Law)
 

1. The meanings and its importance of multispecies justice

What is multispecies justice?
It is a theory of justice that includes not only the interests of all humans but of the nonhuman, such as other animals, plants, forests, rivers and ecological systems. Taking their interests seriously as ‘justice claims’ means that there is a moral and political obligation for the basic institutions of society, including our political and legal systems, to take those interests into account when making decisions(Danielle Celermajer, 2022)

Why does this matter?
The scope and intensity of environmental destruction, and violence against other animals and the earth is bringing human civilisations, ecosystems and other species to the brink of collapse. We can focus in on specific causes, such as dependence on fossil fuels or capitalist economies that encourage the exploitation of nature to maximise profits. Underpinning these systems, however, is the more fundamental belief that all beings other than humans are there for human use. Multispecies justice invites humans to reposition ourselves not as over and above the earth and its beings, but as embedded in relationships that nourish and sustain us and that we must also nourish and sustain.(Danielle Celermajer, 2022)
 

2. how to implement multispecies justice(MSJ) in a legal and political system

The interests of the nonhuman
There is no longer any serious doubt that many (if not most) non-human animals are sentient beings, with feelings, desires, and preferences, all of which can contribute to a better (or worse) experience of life (Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, 2021). As such, we can recognise that many or most animals have interest. What about non-animal beings or entities? If we think of trees, flowers, and fungi as their own kinds of ecosystems, then we can also apply the logic of ecosystem health to gauge their interests – interests that are clearly intertwined with the interests of the larger ecosystems of which they are a part. (Serrin Rutledge-Prior and Edmund Handby, 2024)

The expansion of legal personhood
Natural entities’s interests have largely been recognised instrumentally, that is to say, only important as they contribute to human interests. the multispecies justice theory is calling to reimagine our concepts of justice to include other-than-human beings and entities.(Serrin Rutledge-Prior and Edmund Handby, 2024)

One of the ways to take the interests of nonhuman into account in the legal system is to recognize that they have the right to exist, thrive and evolve as a legal subject, and that they are entitled to be protected against violations of their rights. The most powerful and explicit expression of this recognition is to declare their legal personality.

To be a person means to have moral standing and to be a moral agent. In law and politics, persons are those who are recognised as having certain active capacities, for example the capacity to sue and be sued or to enter into contracts. Advocates are seeking to expand the boundaries of personhood to include beings other than humans. They are doing this partly because it would change how people understand or think about nature and other beings, and partly because doing so would afford them higher levels of legal protection.(Danielle Celermajer, 2022). In the current legal system, a "legal personhood" is almost given to a person's organization or collection of property. But legal personality can be given to non-human entities for specific purposes (Park, Tae-Hyun, 2023).

3. The dual challenges of multispecies justice

We still need to recognize and respect the very different ways of being, and the very different interests. Over the last several centuries, social movements have fought to have women, people of colour, Indigenous people, people with disabilities and others included as legal persons, as opposed to being ‘things’ that are subject to others' wills and decisions. The multispecies justice theory is challenging the normative underpinnings of current notions of justice by committing to redefining the bounds of justice beyond the human, to encompass non-human entities as subjects of justice in their own right as well as rejecting the notion that humans are uniquely deserving of moral and political consideration and uniquely capable of consciousness and agency(Serrin Rutledge-Prior and Edmund Handby, 2024)

2. Spatiotemporal Properties Between Earth Jurisprudence and Legal Science ―From the perspective of a person living on the Korean Peninsula

- Dongsuk Oh (People for Earth / Earth Jurisprudence Society / Ajou University School of Law)

Since the modern period in the West, jurisprudence has its origins in natural science and has been established as ‘legal science’ in line with social science. Legal science, combined with the methodologies of other disciplines, is differentiated into philosophy of law, sociology of law, and psychology of law, etc.. The center of legal science is positivist jurisprudence. Positivist jurisprudence is a study that interprets the text of laws currently in effect, such as executive branch orders, focusing on laws enacted by Congress. The subject of laws and regulations is the actions of citizens or the organization or authority of state institutions.
The task of earth jurisprudence is not to approach the non-human beings of the Earth, the planet Earth, and the historical formation of the Earth from a positive jurisprudence perspective, but to establish jurisprudence based on the non-human beings of the Earth, the planet Earth, and its historical formation. It must not only be an expansion of the object or subjectification of nature and time and space, but must also be followed by a change in method. Then, in the process of transitioning from positive jurisprudence to earth jurisprudence, it is necessary to identify and connect spatiotemporal distances, continuity, and differences between object and subject. Although this work requires imagination about the perspective of planet Earth, the starting point can only be the perspective of time, space, and context in which the researcher is located.
I approach earth jurisprudence from the perspective of the right of non-human beings to resist humans. The right to resistance is a right that is within traditional legal discourse and at the same time outside of legal norms. Earth jurisprudence is a law that deals with issues at the level of the normative system of human thought, behavior, and organization, as well as the normative dimension in relationships with non-human beings.
The earth jurisprudence that I pursue does not incorporate nature into legal science or positivist jurisprudence, but seeks to discover spatiotemporal multidimensionality that captures the autonomy and commons of both. The socio-natural contract of earth jurisprudence is a process of continuous transitional justice pledge that presupposes the suprahuman right of resistance of non-human beings and establishes humanity's responsibility and obligation toward non-human beings.
Perhaps it is a more appropriate understanding that all beings resist breaking the earth's ecosystem and peace state. Firstly, we need to know what kind of behavior humans have brought about resistance from nature. Secondly, we have to make them understand how the resistance of nature is taking place. Thirdly, it is necessary to communicate with nature by mobilizing all the abilities that humans have developed by resonating with nature so far. It will be a task for all human disciplines to think about together. Fourthly, we need to deal with how humans will reconcile and harmonize with nature again at the earth level. Finally, it will nevertheless be a process of humbly realizing that the earth ecosystem has limitations in human abilities that cannot be completely resolved by human will.

3. The Fourth Branch of Government: The Politics of Longtermism

- Byongjin Ahn(People for Earth / Biocracy Society / Global Academy for Future Civilizations at Kyung Hee University)

The liberal political order built by the American Founding Fathers in the images of ancient Greece and Rome is one of the most impressive works of architecture in modern history. However, their conceptualization of the separation of powers has limitations.  Their concept, for example, is premised upon “presentism,” in which future generations, both human and non-human, are excluded from policy considerations of the present. Alexis de Tocqueville, who admired the American model of democracy, said, “as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity” I think Tocqueville’s insights are still valid in the year 2024. The fact that we are experiencing chaos on a global scale and wandering in obscurity suggests that we remain trapped in the assumptions and imaginations of the past. We must experiment with diverse reform measures and also start imagining bold stories to bring back a dynamic balance to the relationship between the legislative and executive branches. In this presentation, I propose one that transcends presentism and anthropocentrism. I call it a “fourth branch of government.” This future oriented branch would identify mid- to long-term challenges with serious implications for the future (such as climate disaster), encourage open discussions, and draft bills.