The need to protect populations from environmental harm or contamination is not new. Whenever human welfare was imperiled, those in power within most ancient civilizations passed laws to address these issues.
History is replete with examples of this. For instance, there is evidence of the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3000–1300 BCE) adapting to climate change, and early imperial China enacting protective laws, showing they were not “indifferent to environmental concerns.” In 2550 BCE, Mesopotamia achieved the world’s first water treaty between city-states—the agreement is now housed in the Musée du Louvre in Paris. Meanwhile, the Roman Empire excelled in engineering and passed legislation to support public health and hygiene. Aqueducts carried fresh water into the cities while the CloacaMaxima, a vast sewer system in Rome, managed wastewater.
Driven by industrialization and population growth, however, the ground realities have changed drastically over the last 200 years. Environmental issues demanded attention, action, and organization not only at the national but also at the international level. After years of preliminary work, especially by Sweden, the UN General Assembly convened the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which was attended by 122 countries. The conference aimed to make “environment a major issue” and was an event of groundbreaking significance, taking place during the Cold War and in an atmosphere of deep geopolitical tension. Unfortunately, the nations behind the Iron Curtain were unable to attend the meeting.
While the conference was a big step forward for international and legal cooperation, it remained entirely anthropocentric. The term refers to the Age of Humans, placing people and their needs at the “center of the universe,” rather than the natural world and other living beings, which are valued only insofar as they benefit humans.
A long, hard assessment 50 years later makes it clear that matters are not going too well for the environment and for all the planet’s inhabitants. Challenging the accepted point of view is the reality of the interdependence of all living and nonliving things on Earth and their right to exist and thrive. Nature and her ecosystems are increasingly being seen as having intrinsic value. These emerging views signal a shift toward ecocentrism, which is “derived etymologically from the Greek oikos (house) and kentron (center).” Ecocentrism is Earth law. It asserts that Earth is the home of all beings.
Here, we explore how and why a growing number of countries are granting legal personhood to nature, and why there is increasing interest in understanding the Earth system.
The anthropocentric origins of environmental law
The belief that human beings are the most important species on the planet is very old. It is often traced to the Book of Genesis in the Bible, where humans are counseled to subdue the Earth and have dominion over all living things. Human superiority is ingrained in many of the dominant religions and philosophies of the West.
When nature is viewed primarily as a resource for human benefit and utilization, this leads to anthropocentric policies. Some early examples of such policymaking include the first modern environmental statutes, such as the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Forest Transfer Act of 1905. Meanwhile, Yellowstone National Park, created in 1872, was seen as an attempt to support conservation while ensuring the enjoyment of visitors.
In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published and served as a critical voice, contributing greatly to the growth of the environmental movement. Astronaut William Anders’s image “Earthrise”—a photo taken in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission—made a similar impact by showing our small planet floating in space. The next big steps were the establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 and the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970.
The Stockholm 1972 conference, meanwhile, issued 26 principles. Its language stated that “man” is a being of his environment, but then stressed his power of transforming it. The declaration’s opening statement reads as follows:
“Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth… through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights, the right to life itself.”
After Stockholm 1972, the International Environmental Law gradually evolved. In the beginning, there were no rules and no institutions to make them, resulting in the formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The global community had to start from scratch. A growing understanding of the planet’s health and scientific knowledge of its deterioration, along with public awareness, led to agreements, statutes, goals, and treaties. Many of these were non-binding and voluntary, leading to an uphill battle to hold countries accountable for their actions.
The next two milestone conferences were the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the Paris Agreement of 2016. And over the last 50 years, while there have been many other national and international efforts and gatherings, the serious environmental crisis has continued to worsen, raising the question of why.
As of 2024, there were an estimated 8.2 billion human beings on our planet. The rising populations in countries and the unequal distribution of resources have left people preoccupied with meeting their immediate needs and those of their children. Armed conflict further adds to land degradation and food insecurity. When such circumstances arise, all the “best-laid schemes of mice and men” are swept aside. Those with vested interests defend their positions tooth and nail, politics becomes harsh and volatile, and the task of safeguarding our planet flies out the window.
The rise of ecocentrism
The rise of ecocentrism represents a logical advance toward an environmental philosophy that considers all beings and ecosystems as essential to the well-being of the planet. Anthropocentrism’s shortcomings result from the persistent infighting among human populations, class conflict, and divergent social and legal traditions. In contrast to humans, nature and natural entities have no inherent rights. But they need rights and personhood. Otherwise, there can be no equilibrium on Earth, and such a narrow-minded view destroys the earthly foundations humans depend on for their survival.
Aldo Leopold—wildlife ecologist, environmentalist, and writer—is credited with establishing the principles of ecocentrism. His vision is fleshed out in his books Land Ethic and A Sand County Almanac.
A more detailed look finds that Leopold was greatly influenced by John Muir (1838–1914), founder of the Sierra Club, who wrote, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” Muir, in turn, was inspired by researcher Alexander von Humboldt. Writing to a friend in September 1865, Muir said, “How intensely I desire to be a Humboldt.” As for Humboldt, he believed in nature as an interconnected whole and regarded science as free, cooperative, and meant to be shared with others.
Evidently, Humboldt’s ideas point to a conceptual ecosystem, as shown by Aaron Sachs, author of The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth-Century Exploration and the Roots of American Environmentalism. Sachs discusses Humboldt’s “chain of connection,” which is seen as existing among all things, both in nature and in human thought and activity. As Humboldt put it, “In considering the study of physical phenomena… we find its noblest and most important result to be a knowledge of the chain of connection, by which all natural forces are linked together, and made mutually dependent on each other.” It was a way of interconnection that appealed to 19th-century American intellectuals and naturalists.
According to Sachs, Muir was a disciple of Humboldt. And so was Leopold, argued John Hannigan, who wrote in his book Rethinking Environmental Sociology that “Humboldt’s legacy lay not only in natural science but equally in social science, where he pioneered a moral position that critiqued colonialism, environmental despoilation, indigenous work conditions, slavery, [and] violence against tribal groups.”
This particular “chain of connection” between all things ruptured. If a break occurs, erasure happens. However, the seeds of ideas are resilient. They may engage in some evolutionary shapeshifting and regain life. Christopher D. Stone’s 1972 book Should Trees Have Standing? was published the same year as the Stockholm Conference and first introduced the idea of legal personhood for natural entities. This aligns with many Indigenous values and even with legal perspectives that differ from the common law followed by many countries and their property-based ownership regimes.
At first, Stone’s idea was not taken seriously. But during the decades that followed, the ecocentric Rights of Nature movement steadily gained momentum.
“According to the ‘Rights of Nature’ doctrine, an ecosystem is entitled to legal personhood status and… has the right to defend itself in a court of law against harms. … Furthermore, when an ecosystem is declared a ‘subject of rights,’ it has the right to legal representation by a guardian—much like a charitable trust designates a trustee—who will act on their behalf and in their best interest,” according to the Columbia Climate School.
This piece has been edited and condensed for length. This is Part 1 of a four-part series.
