Comments on: Ecuador Grants Rights to Nature: A Breakthrough? http://www.planetd.org/2008/11/17/ecuador-grants-nature-rights/ Critiquing the Politics, Policy & Practice of Development Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:08:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kai http://www.planetd.org/2008/11/17/ecuador-grants-nature-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-116548 Kai Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:21:04 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=640#comment-116548 Austin, do you think that creating another bureaucratic entity will really help solve Ecuador's environmental problems? Moreover, if the idea of this constitutional provision is to allow citizens to sue on behalf of nature, why then let the government decide who is entitled to sue and who is not? The government is already responsible for protecting the environment, so in the end nothing new will happen, except that more bureaucracy will be created. Again, this constitutional reform does not really bring anything new to the table. Austin, do you think that creating another bureaucratic entity will really help solve Ecuador’s environmental problems? Moreover, if the idea of this constitutional provision is to allow citizens to sue on behalf of nature, why then let the government decide who is entitled to sue and who is not? The government is already responsible for protecting the environment, so in the end nothing new will happen, except that more bureaucracy will be created. Again, this constitutional reform does not really bring anything new to the table.

]]> By: Kai http://www.planetd.org/2008/11/17/ecuador-grants-nature-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-116547 Kai Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:42:55 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=640#comment-116547 Elias, is it really worth it to try something different, when this implies new problems instead of practical solutions? Please don't misunderstand me: I am fully aware of the environmental challenges that Ecuador faces. However, I think that the member of the Constitutional Assembly should have focused their efforts designing an applicable framework to protect the environment, instead of only satisfying their ideological appetite with simple declaration of principles. Elias, is it really worth it to try something different, when this implies new problems instead of practical solutions? Please don’t misunderstand me: I am fully aware of the environmental challenges that Ecuador faces. However, I think that the member of the Constitutional Assembly should have focused their efforts designing an applicable framework to protect the environment, instead of only satisfying their ideological appetite with simple declaration of principles.

]]> By: Austin http://www.planetd.org/2008/11/17/ecuador-grants-nature-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-116311 Austin Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:50:02 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=640#comment-116311 I take a great deal of exception to the entire comment by Flores. I am an estate planning and elder law attorney, and a big part of my practice is guardianships of incapacitated persons. What duties can we expect from a severely mentally retarded 18-year-old, or an elderly person with advanced Alzheimer's? None. Yet there is entire field of law dedicated to protecting their rights. The notion of correlate duties is completely misplaced in this discussion. Moving on, corporations' rights are not an extension of the rights of shareholders or officers. They are completely distinct rights; that is the whole point of a corporation: distinct rights for distinct liability. That being said, the practical problems raised later in this piece are also non-starters. It's probably the case that there should be some special legal standing needed to sue on behalf of the ecosystem, just like not just anyone can sue on behalf of the People of the United States to enforce the our Constitution. A government body, perhaps. The granting of rights to nature presents no novel legal problems. I take a great deal of exception to the entire comment by Flores. I am an estate planning and elder law attorney, and a big part of my practice is guardianships of incapacitated persons. What duties can we expect from a severely mentally retarded 18-year-old, or an elderly person with advanced Alzheimer’s? None. Yet there is entire field of law dedicated to protecting their rights. The notion of correlate duties is completely misplaced in this discussion.

Moving on, corporations’ rights are not an extension of the rights of shareholders or officers. They are completely distinct rights; that is the whole point of a corporation: distinct rights for distinct liability.

That being said, the practical problems raised later in this piece are also non-starters. It’s probably the case that there should be some special legal standing needed to sue on behalf of the ecosystem, just like not just anyone can sue on behalf of the People of the United States to enforce the our Constitution. A government body, perhaps.

The granting of rights to nature presents no novel legal problems.

]]> By: Elias http://www.planetd.org/2008/11/17/ecuador-grants-nature-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-116307 Elias Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:43:03 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=640#comment-116307 You make an excellent point, but I think that one could consider the services provided by ecosystems to correspond to the obligations expected of right-bearing entities. And as to the question of representation, most nations wrestle with the same conundrums regarding animal rights. Would you deny that a non-human organism has at least some rights (for the moment without considering what they might be)? The question of representation is simply a problem to be solved, not a reason to sack the whole idea. Consider that an ecosystem is made up of a multitude of organisms, not the least of which are human beings. I think the analogy to a legal person such as a corporation is indeed valid, as the right of an ecosystem, for example, to exist and function properly is merely an extension of the rights of all those who enjoy the benefits and services provided by said ecosystem. That being said, even if there ARE legal issues involved, at least the Ecuadoreans are trying something different. I commend Raphael Correa and the citizens of Ecuador for their commitment to the protection of their unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. You make an excellent point, but I think that one could consider the services provided by ecosystems to correspond to the obligations expected of right-bearing entities. And as to the question of representation, most nations wrestle with the same conundrums regarding animal rights. Would you deny that a non-human organism has at least some rights (for the moment without considering what they might be)? The question of representation is simply a problem to be solved, not a reason to sack the whole idea.
Consider that an ecosystem is made up of a multitude of organisms, not the least of which are human beings. I think the analogy to a legal person such as a corporation is indeed valid, as the right of an ecosystem, for example, to exist and function properly is merely an extension of the rights of all those who enjoy the benefits and services provided by said ecosystem. That being said, even if there ARE legal issues involved, at least the Ecuadoreans are trying something different. I commend Raphael Correa and the citizens of Ecuador for their commitment to the protection of their unique and irreplaceable natural heritage.

]]>