Dear Reader,
From the World Economic Forum, huddled presently at Davos, I learn the following:
The courts of Switzerland have granted nature “personhood.”
Here I cite the source — female to all outward appearances — yet whom I am unable to identify:
- [Switzerland] is a place that has granted nature legal personhood, so that ecosystems’ right to exist, to thrive, to regenerate, is codified and recognized in Swiss law. And that context has allowed for different people, different communities, to bring lawsuits on behalf of rivers, forests, other ecosystems upon which we are intrinsically reliant and connected.
Is it true? Does Swiss legal code grant nature legal personhood?
Far from convinced it does, I consulted the infallible oracle of ChatGPT.
Artificial intelligence authentically informed me that:
- Yes, Swiss courts have granted legal personhood to nature in some cases, including the Aletsch Glacier and non-human primates. This concept is known as environmental personhood.
Environmental personhood? The concept was alien to me.
Is the Environment a Person?
In search of light, I resorted to Wikipedia. Thus I learned that:
- Environmental personhood or juridic personhood is a legal concept which designates certain environmental entities the status of a legal person. This assigns to these entities, the rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and legal liability of a legal personality.
I traffic in words. I therefore place great store by wordly precision.
Thus I demanded a formal definition of personhood, and Wikipedia obliged me:
- Personhood is the status of being a person… According to law, only a legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Does nature enjoy the status of being a person?
Is nature possessed of rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability of a legal personality?
My legal counsel is otherwise occupied. And so I tackle the case on my lonesome own.
Responsible Stewardship
I concede the possibility that mankind may grant nature protections — even privileges.
I myself cling to a belief in responsible environmental custodianship. Thus I am heart and soul for preserving the whale, the rhinoceros and the spotted owl.
Here I stand upon the Rock of the Bible. The Book of Numbers instruct us that:
- You shall not pollute the land in which you live…You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.
Set aside biblical injunctions for the moment.
Mankind’s extension of natural protections and privileges may prove extremely self-serving.
Who wants to drink from a polluted reservoir? Who wants to choke on smog?
And how can you delight in Alaskan king crab if overharvesting has extinguished the species?
Does Nature Have Rights?
Yet I am far from convinced that nature enjoys rights. I incline heavily towards the theory that only human persons enjoy rights.
Let us return briefly to Wikipedia:
- According to law, only a legal person (either a natural or a juridical person) has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
I have addressed protections and privileges.
Perhaps nature may assume personhood on these two grounds.
Yet to satisfy the requirements of personhood… nature must shoulder responsibilities and confront legal liability.
I — a natural person — must rise to the responsibilities of life.
Should I fail to meet my monthly rent, my landlord will call for the police and heave me out the window.
Should I fail to satisfy my tax bill, the United States government will jug me.
Should I fail to purchase health insurance, a medical crisis will break me.
Examples run and run. Now consider nature.
No Responsibilities, No Legal Liability
If nature fails to satisfy its responsibilities — such as they are — what sanctions does it confront?
Who will mete out its punishment? And what form would punishment take?
The law books are silent on these questions.
Yet is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
Nature must take consequences for its irresponsibilities… else it fails to meet the legal status of personhood.
Nature does not confront consequences for its irresponsibilities.
On that high legal ground I deny nature personhood.
What about nature’s legal liability?
Tell It to the Judge
I sail my boat upon the Pacific Ocean. The same Pacific Ocean blows a tempest that inflicts severe damage upon my boat.
I file a tort demanding the Pacific Ocean compensate me for damages. What happens next?
The Pacific Ocean puts out its tongue at me… and tells me I can just tell it to the judge.
Yet what judge will hear my case? Where is my justice?
Or consider: I am navigating a forest. A felonious oak tree tips over on me and cracks my skull.
I lack health insurance. Will the forest pay my ruinous hospital bill?
Or an earthquake reduces my house to a flapjack. May I sue Earth for damages?
Perhaps even haul Earth into the dock for its attempted murder of me?
The answer is no.
In each instance I am denied all legal recourse against nature.
I must go scratching. Meantime, nature walks away… legally unliable.
Yet legal liability is a bedrock prerequisite of personhood.
And so, again, I deny nature personhood on strictly legalistic grounds.
All Rights, No Responsibility
In summary: Nature demands all the rights, protections and privileges of personhood.
Yet nature shrinks from all the responsibilities and legal liabilities of personhood.
Nature cannot have it in both directions. The one must go with the other.
Thus I dismiss nature’s case for personhood — and with prejudice.
Nature is wrathful, I am aware. And nature may well murder me for my ruling.
For example, through the focused application of lightning.
Let us assume nature does murder me.
Murder is a legal liability.
My estate will seek justice in the nation of Switzerland.
Under Swiss law, after all, nature is a person.
And if Switzerland is willing to grant nature the rights, protections and privileges of personhood…
It must bind nature to the responsibilities and legal liabilities of personhood.
Justice — true justice — demands it.
Regards,
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
