Compare And Contrast The Arguments For And Against Legal Personhood Of Rivers
For most of human history the majority of the population lived at a subsistence level with a minimal environmental footprint. After the advent of industrialization, however, mankind’s impact on the environment dramatically increased over three centuries. Consequently, India and New Zealand gave legal personhood to three rivers, intending to protect the rivers from human pollution. This paper will argue that legal personhood for rivers can be harmful to people and is not the most effective way to protect the environment. In support of this analysis, this paper will also examine arguments for and against legal personhood for rivers, compare the different viewpoints of four authors, and present a recommended course of action.
The first popular …show more content…
To ensure the most effective protection, Burdon suggests that each natural feature is protected separately so that “rivers have river rights; trees have tree rights; birds have bird rights and humans have human rights” (79). He continues by emphasizing that any “desire” of a natural feature must be understood as a human construct, since an inanimate object cannot think, feel, or express itself. Vegter is concerned that, since a river must be represented by people, the legal custodians of the river could easily abuse their power. For example, if a lawyer could find any instance of harm against the river, he could be paid for representing the river in a lawsuit, regardless of the importance of the issue. After entertaining both sides of the argument, the next step is to compare the authors’ …show more content…
Also, corporations are under the rule of law, so a corporation can be taxed, brought to court, and face criminal charges. Since, a river cannot be held accountable for natural disasters, and since it does not represent a group of people, Vegter argues that granting legal personhood to a river is drastically different to giving rights to a corporation.
In summary, all the authors agree that the environment is a valuable part of human and animal life and should be protected, the only disagreement is on the best course of action for accomplishing this goal. After considering several viewpoints and the connections between them, the next logical step will be to find the most effective course of action to avoid river
The first popular …show more content…
To ensure the most effective protection, Burdon suggests that each natural feature is protected separately so that “rivers have river rights; trees have tree rights; birds have bird rights and humans have human rights” (79). He continues by emphasizing that any “desire” of a natural feature must be understood as a human construct, since an inanimate object cannot think, feel, or express itself. Vegter is concerned that, since a river must be represented by people, the legal custodians of the river could easily abuse their power. For example, if a lawyer could find any instance of harm against the river, he could be paid for representing the river in a lawsuit, regardless of the importance of the issue. After entertaining both sides of the argument, the next step is to compare the authors’ …show more content…
Also, corporations are under the rule of law, so a corporation can be taxed, brought to court, and face criminal charges. Since, a river cannot be held accountable for natural disasters, and since it does not represent a group of people, Vegter argues that granting legal personhood to a river is drastically different to giving rights to a corporation.
In summary, all the authors agree that the environment is a valuable part of human and animal life and should be protected, the only disagreement is on the best course of action for accomplishing this goal. After considering several viewpoints and the connections between them, the next logical step will be to find the most effective course of action to avoid river