ABSTRACT
In 1972, Christopher Stone published his ground-breaking article 'Should Trees have a standing?" in which he systematically and dispassionately makes a case for granting the baseline legal rights to trees, oceans, rivers, and other objects in the natural environment. He stretches the legal imagination of personhood to natural objects, comparing them to corporations and trusts. At the normative base of his approach is the guardianship model that permits environmental groups to initiate actions to protect the environment. Stone's article is an important democratic advancement in light of the historical expansion of the right holders in law, and it led to a number of landmark judgments in North America recognizing the intrinsic value of the environment. In this essay, the author critically examines Stone's contribution to earth jurisprudence and the influence it had on environmental litigation in the United States and beyond.
Introduction
Christopher Stone wrote his famous "Should Trees have a Standing?" in 1972 with the aim to influence the decision in Sierra Club v. Morton[i]. In the Sierra Club case, a petition was filed by the Sierra club against the proposed development of Mineral King Valley by Walt Disney. One of the major apprehensions prevailing around the time was whether the Sierra Club would be granted legal standing in the court of law on behalf of Mineral King Valley or not. It was with the aim to influence public opinion and the court's decision in this case that Christopher Stone, a labour law professor, decided to write a paper advocating that environmental entities have legal recognition in the court of law. The article written by Stone received cult status and is immortalized in earth jurisprudence.
In this article, Stone makes a claim for extension of legal recognition to natural objects and advocates the guardianship model that allows environmental groups and conservationists to sue on behalf of forests, trees and creeks.[ii] Though it is still not mainstream, this view can no longer be considered absurd and is being recognized in countries across the world. This article analyses Christopher Stone's proposal for granting legal standing and the impact it had on environmental litigation.
Historical Expansion of Natural Rights
Christopher Stone begins the article by drawing an analogy to the historical evolution of the extension of legal standing. He points out that granting legal standing to inanimate objects is not entirely new or absurd in law. He supports his claim by drawing a parallel with the expansion of legal rights to women, children, prisoners, blacks and aliens over time and argues similar rights have to be attributed to the environment. For instance, In re Gault[iii] case, the court gave 15-year-old delinquents certain rights in juvenile proceedings. Similarly, in India, the right of a woman to be a member of the Hindu Undivided Family after her marriage was recognized through the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act in 2005.[iv] Stone's proposition is an important democratic advancement in light of the historical expansion of the holders of legal rights. What was earlier utterly unthinkable and laughable can become a part of the legal system.
Towards Legal Standing for Environmental Objects
Stone's proposition addressed one of the major challenges plaguing environmental litigation under the common law system, which is legal standing. Stone, in his article, underlines the rightlessness of nature in the common law. When damage occurs to the environment, common law seeks to protect the human beings affected by the environmental damage rather than the environment itself. The concept of recognition was a major hurdle in litigation. Unless an economic injury is suffered to man, the environmental damage goes unabated. Remedies, even if available, were subject to numerous exceptions under language conveniently phrased as "reasonable use" and "public interest."[v] The environment was merely a beneficiary to a favourable judgment and not a holder of rights. Stone's article challenged this notion. He stated that the environment as a whole should have legal standing on its own for its benefit, akin to corporations and trusts.
Stone rightly dismisses the idea that the inability of the environment to speak bars it from having any rights. Merely because trees and other objects cannot speak, their rights cannot be discarded. Stone advocates that the traditional guardianship model for environmental litigation would be a compelling voice for the environment. The potential "friends" of the environment such as the Sierra Club, Environmental Défense Fund, Friends of the Earth would be capable of representing the environment in the courts.
Stone makes a reference to the earlier American cases where the legal standing has been extended. He cites the Scenic Hudson case [vi], where it was held that concern should be given for the natural beauty of the environment. He also cited the Volpe case [vii] and the Bass Angler Sportsman society case [viii] and argued that these cases had played a significant role in extending the standing to sue on behalf of the environment to prevent any aesthetic injury suffered by it under the Administrative Powers Act[ix]. However, he goes beyond the above-mentioned judgments and says that the environment should be made a beneficiary in its own right even if it did not offer any aesthetic value to human beings, and its interest must be taken into account for its own sake.
Impact of Stone's Article
Christopher Stone's article was one of the earliest recognitions of the legal rights of nature in the United States. Although standing was relaxed in the Scenic Hudson case in favour of conservationists, the rationale behind the decision was still restricted to an anthropocentric view which centered around the recreational benefits of nature to man. Christopher Stone's seminal work propelled a wave of new discussions around the topic. What is truly remarkable about the article is that it made a case for granting legal recognition of trees in their own right and not for the benefit of man – recreational or otherwise.
In the Sierra Club case, Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion, makes an explicit reference to "Should Trees Have a Standing?" and opined that as these inanimate aspects of the ecological group cannot articulate themselves, those who have intimate relationships with environmental objects are its legitimate spokespersons. He even went on to say that the case has to be renamed as "Mineral King v. Morton".[x] Thus, it can be seen that Stone managed to influence at least one judge in the Sierra Club case. In several cases that followed in the US and Canada, such as the Loggerhead Turtle case[xi]and Finlay v. Canada[xii], the concept of standing was greatly relaxed to protect natural objects and endangered species.
The jurisprudence also gathered momentum across the globe. In India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors.[xiii] (Jallikattu case), recognized that animals too could not be arbitrarily deprived of their right to life and honour. In 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court in Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India[xiv] recognized that all the species of the animal kingdom are legal persons with rights and liabilities. Acknowledging that the concept of legal personhood evolves with scientific discovery and changes in morality, the court passed a slew of directions to ensure the welfare and protection of horse carts that were used for movement between India and Nepal. Later in 2019, this view was accepted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana,[xv] where the court ruled that all animals are legal entities and people in Haryana are in loco parentis (in place of a parent) and can act as guardians for their protection.
These developments in India and abroad indicate a growing trend towards the ecocentric model of rights of the environment proposed by Christopher Stone as opposed to the anthropocentric idea of the right to the environment.
Advantages and Limitations of Stone's Approach
The time in which the article was published perfectly coincided with an era of the growing realization of environmental issues and environmental litigation. Rather than restricting himself to legal problems, Stone articulates that legal rights of nature have positive psychic and socio-psychic effects. Stone recognizes that human beings are only a part of the ecosystem. Stone's article received a cult status because of its extension of human imagination. It is undoubtedly an attempt to think the erstwhile unthinkable. Stone argues that a radical conception of man's relationship with nature would not only be a positive step towards resolving the planetary problem but also for making us better human beings. Stone was also aware of the limitations of his approach. He acknowledges that only humans can speak for the environment, and even the highest court is "but a frail and feeble-a distinctly human-institution." It involves summoning up from the human spirit the kindest ideas and giving them shape.
The radical vision to extend human imagination within the existing legal system and an attempt to shift the environmental consciousness of human beings at the time of growing environmental issues are the reasons why Stone's article received cult status and is celebrated today. However, it is pertinent to note that Stone's argument for the legal rights of nature is not entirely new to humanity as several communities have historically recognized them.[xvi] Deeming it as the ultimate goal of the environmental movement leads to juridical control of environmental decision-making and severely limits the possibility of developing a harmonious land community where nature's rights are realized even without 'judicial' intervention. It is also essential to consider the philosophical and practical riddles posed by the idea of conferring standing upon environmental objects. Questions like "Should all elements of nature be treated equally?" and "Where does protection begin and end?" constantly arise while granting legal rights to natural objects. Despite these limitations and concerns, Stone's proposal is a step in the right direction towards maintaining ecological equilibrium.
Conclusion
Today, landslides, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, smog and other human-induced climate disasters continue to ravish lives unabated. If environmental laws had taken off as they were intended, this would not have been the result. In light of these climate disasters, the author is of the opinion that Stone's proposition is now more important to realize than ever. Legal recognition of the inherent rights of the environment would help us to overcome the problem of giving preference to competing human interests over unrecognized environmental interests. The author suggests that the concept of rights of nature to survive and flourish that is proposed by Stone should be incorporated into constitutions and domestic legislations. The concept of rights under most Constitutions of the world does not address the rights of non-living and non-human entities. Recognizing the rights of these entities strengthens their voices in courts and enables suits to be initiated and maintained in the name of the affected natural entity instead of human beings. It would be a first towards acknowledging that the earth is home not just to human beings and the ecosystem as a whole is important for the long-term sustenance of the planet.
This article has been written by Mr. Dhiyaaneswar D T, 4th year BA LLB (Hons) student at School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bengaluru.
[i] Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
[ii] Christopher D. Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?–Towards Legal. Rights for Natural Objects, Southern California Law Review 45 (1972).
[iii] 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
[iv] The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 39, Acts of the Parliament, 2005 (India).
[v] Christopher Stone, & Garret Hardin, Should trees have standing?: Toward legal rights for natural objects (1974).
[vi] Scenic Hudson Preservation v. Fed. Power354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965)
[vii] Citizens Comm. for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe, 425 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1970).
[viii] Bass Anglers Sportsman Soc'y of America, Inc. v. Koppers Co., 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971).
[ix] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 706.
[x] Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
[xi] Loggerhead Turtle v. Volusia County Council, 896 F. Supp. 1170 (1995)
[xii] Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607.
[xiii] Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[xiv] Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs Union of India, (2018) 3 RCR (Civil) 544.
[xv] Karnail Singh and Others v. State of Haryana 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1581.
[xvi] Ashra Taylor, Who Speaks for the Tree, The Baffler, 32 (2016).
Comments