Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T20:12:28.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Ecuador's Courts Are Giving Form and Force to Rights of Nature Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2023

Craig M. Kauffman  and
Pamela L. Martin
Craig M. Kauffman
Affiliation:
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (United States (US)) Email: [email protected].
Pamela L. Martin
Affiliation:
Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC (US) Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2008, Ecuador recognized rights of nature (RoN) in its Constitution. Since then, RoN have been relied upon in judicial decisions 55 times in Ecuador. Following years of ad hoc treatment of RoN by Ecuador's government and courts, its Constitutional Court selected various cases to establish binding jurisprudence in respect of RoN. In doing so, the Constitutional Court and various provincial courts in Ecuador have clarified the content of RoN, including specific criteria for determining RoN violations and the relationship between RoN and other constitutional rights, including community and economic rights related to development. Moreover, the courts are imposing sanctions on RoN violators, including the state and powerful commercial sectors. This article shows how Ecuadorian court decisions are changing RoN from a vague, abstract concept into a set of specific standards for how to balance RoN with various human rights and existing environmental law in order to implement sustainable development in an integrated and holistic manner that does not sacrifice ecosystem functioning. In doing so, the article contributes to the emerging literature on how new environmental law norms are constructed as they are put into practice, as well as the important role that judges play as norm entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Rights of NatureEcuadorSustainable developmentNorm developmentJudicial action
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , July 2023 , pp. 366 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Competing interests: The authors declare none.

References

1 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, Official Registry No. 449, 20 Oct. 2008, available at: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html. Arts 71–73 recognize rights of nature.

2 All data regarding the number of RoN cases is sourced from an original dataset of RoN legal provisions worldwide compiled by the authors through a project funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, available at: https://ecojurisprudence.org.

3 This point was stressed by numerous Ecuadorian lawyers and activists in interviews with the authors, and is frequently noted in human rights reports, including Human Rights Watch, ‘Ecuador: Implement Constitutional Court Rulings Protecting Rights’, 27 May 2021, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/27/ecuador-implement-constitutional-court-rulings-protecting-rights.

4 C. Kauffman et al., ‘Eco Jurisprudence Tracker’, V1, 2022, distributed by the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor, available at: https://ecojurisprudence.org/dashboard.

5 Constitution of Ecuador, n. 1 above. For analysis of RoN in Ecuador, see Acosta, A. & Martinez, E (eds), Derechos de la Naturaleza: El Futuro es Ahora (Abya Yala, 2009)Google Scholar; Acosta, A. & Martinez, E. (eds), Derechos de la Naturaleza: De Filosofia a la Politica (Abya Yala, 2011)Google Scholar; Boyd, D., The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution that Could Save the Planet (ECW Press, 2017)Google Scholar; Borràs, S., ‘New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature’ (2016) 5(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 113–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kotzé, L.J. & Calzadilla, P. Villavicencio, ‘Somewhere between Rhetoric and Reality: Environmental Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature in Ecuador’ (2017) 6(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 401–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daly, E., ‘The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindication of Constitutional Rights of Nature’ (2012) 21(1) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 63–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kauffman, C. & Martin, P., The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future (The MIT Press, 2021), pp. 79–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Whittenmore, M.E., ‘The Problem of Enforcing Nature's Rights under Ecuador's Constitution: Why the 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite’ (2011) 20(3) Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, pp. 659–91Google Scholar; Borràs, n. 5 above.

7 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 5 above.

8 Fitz-Henry, E., ‘Decolonizing Personhood’, in Maloney, M. & Burdon, P. (eds), Wild Law: In Practice (Routledge, 2014), pp. 133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Organic Integral Penal Code, Republic of Ecuador, 2014, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/44acc7854.html.

10 Organic Environmental Code, Republic of Ecuador, 2018, available at: https://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2018/01/CODIGO_ORGANICO_AMBIENTE.pdf.

11 Esmeraldas Environment Ministry v. de los Santos Meza Macías (Shrimping in Cayapas case), Judgment No. 166-15-SEP-CC, 20 May 2015, Constitutional Court of Ecuador.

12 Ibid., p. 12. All English translations in this article are by the authors.

13 Ibid., p. 10.

14 Ibid.

15 M. Chuji, ‘Sumak Kawsay versus Desarrollo’, in A.L. Hidalgo Capitán, A. Guillén Garcia & N. Deleg Guazha (eds), Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay (Universidad de Cuenca, 2014), pp. 229–36; A. Oviedo, ‘El Buen Vivir Posmoderno y el Sumak Kawsay Ancestral’, in Hidalgo Capitán, Guillén Garcia & Deleg Guazha, ibid., pp. 267–96.

16 S. Adelman, ‘The Sustainable Development Goals, Anthropocentrism and Neoliberalism’, in D. French & L. Kotzé (eds), Global Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (Edward Elgar, 2018), pp. 15–40.

17 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, n. 1 above.

18 Ibid.

19 Chuji, n. 15 above.

20 S. Adelman, ‘Human Rights and Climate Change’, in G. DiGiacomo (ed.), Human Rights: Current Issues and Controversies (University of Toronto Press, 2016), pp. 411–35, at 425.

21 Shrimping in Cayapas case, n. 11 above, p. 12.

22 Municipality of Cotacachi v. Ministry of Environment (Los Cedros case), Judgment No. 1149-19-JP/21, 10 Nov. 2021, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, p. 13.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., p. 9.

25 P. Villavicencio Calzadilla & L.J. Kotzé, ‘Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia’ (2018) 7(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 397–424.

26 E. Boulot & J. Sterlin, ‘Steps Towards a Legal Ontological Turn: Proposals for Law's Place beyond the Human’ (2022) 11(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 13–38.

27 For assessments of RoN laws as being primarily symbolic, see Villavicencio Calzadilla & Kotzé, n. 25 above.

28 E. Macpherson, J. Torres Ventura & F. Clavijo Ospina, ‘Constitutional Law, Ecosystems, and Indigenous Peoples in Colombia: Biocultural Rights and Legal Subjects’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 521–40; E. O'Donnell, ‘Rivers as Living Beings: Rights in Law, but no Rights to Water’ (2021) 29(4) Griffith Law Review, pp. 643–68.

29 Macpherson, Torres Ventura & Clavijo Ospina, n. 28 above; F. Girard, I. Hall & C. Frison (eds), Biocultural Rights, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (Routledge, 2022).

30 Criollo Quenama v. Perez Garcia, Judgment No. 21333-2018-00266, 2019, Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios (Ecuador).

31 Ibid., pp. 17–9.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., pp. 13, 31, 54; Center for Social Justice Studies et al. v. Presidency of the Republic et al. (Atrato River case), Judgment T-622/16, 2016, Constitutional Court of Colombia.

35 Criollo Quenama v. Perez Garcia, n. 30 above, p. 19.

36 M. Tănăsescu, ‘Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 429–53; V. Marshall, ‘Removing the Veil from the “Rights of Nature”: The Dichotomy between First Nations Customary Rights and Environmental Legal Personhood’ (2020) 45(2) Australian Feminist Law Journal, pp. 233–48.

37 T. Nuquez, Constitutional Court Justice, interview with author, Quito (Ecuador), 23 May 2022; A. Grijalva, former Constitutional Court Justice, interview with author, Quito (Ecuador), 18 May 2022; R. Avila, former Constitutional Court Justice, interview with author, Quito (Ecuador), 18 May 2022; A. Grijalva, former Constitutional Court Justice, interview with author, New York, NY (United States (US)), 23 Sept. 2022; R. Avila, former Constitutional Court Justice, interview with author, New York, NY (US), 22 Sept. 2022.

38 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, n. 1 above.

39 For descriptions of how the traditional approach to sustainable development prioritizes economic growth over ecological sustainability, see Kotzé & Villavicencio, n. 5 above, p. 410.

40 Criollo Quenama v. Perez Garcia, n. 30 above, p. 19.

41 K. Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics (W.W. Norton & Company, 2011); A. Rzabay et al., ‘Implementation of International Norms in National Environmental Legislation’ (2019) 49(6) Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 389–94; O. Dilling & T. Markus, ‘The Transnationalisation of Environmental Law’ (2018) 30(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 179–206.

42 M. Krook & J. True, ‘Rethinking the Life Cycles of International Norms: The United Nations and the Global Promotion of Gender Equality’ (2012) 18(1) European Journal of International Relations, pp. 103–27, at 104.

43 A.-M. Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 66; E. Barritt, ‘Consciously Transnational: Urgenda and the Shape of Climate Litigation: The State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) v Urgenda Foundation’ (2020) 22(4) Environmental Law Review, pp. 296–305.

44 J.M. Angstadt, ‘Environmental Norm Diffusion and Domestic Legal Innovation: The Case of Specialized Environmental Courts and Tribunals’ (2022) 31(2) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, pp. 222–32.

45 Ibid., p. 225.

46 N. Affolder, ‘Contagious Environmental Lawmaking’ (2019) 31(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 187–212.

47 Quito (Ecuador), 17 Jan. 2014, available at: http://www.rightsofnaturetribunal.org/tribunals/quito-tribunal-2014.

48 S. Park, ‘Theorizing Norm Diffusion within International Organizations’ (2006) 43(3) International Politics, pp. 342–61.

49 See, e.g., UN General Assembly, ‘Harmony with Nature: Report of the Secretary-General’, 28 July 2022, UN Doc. A/77/244, pp. 5–8, available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/444/24/PDF/N2244424.pdf?OpenElement. This and other examples are available at: http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/unDocs.

50 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Environment and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, 15 Nov. 2017, requested by the Republic of Colombia, available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_23_ing.pdf.

51 ‘Methodological Assessment regarding the Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and its Benefits, including Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions and Services’, adopted by the Plenary of IPBES, 9th session, Bonn (Germany), 3–9 July 2022, available at: https://www.ipbes.net/the-values-assessment.

52 The authors determined this from text analysis of RoN legal documents in an original dataset of RoN legal provisions worldwide compiled by the authors through a project funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, available at: https://ecojurisprudence.org/dashboard.

53 Atrato River case, n. 34 above, fn 87.

54 Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v. Government of Bangladesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 13989/2016, 2016, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, p. 228.

55 C. Kauffman & P. Martin, ‘How Courts Are Developing River Rights Jurisprudence: Comparing Guardianship in New Zealand, Colombia, and India’ (2019) 20(3) Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 260–89; S. Jolly & K.S. Roshan Menon, ‘Of Ebbs and Flows: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Granting Personhood to Natural Entities in India’ (2021) 10(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 467–92.

56 Kauffman & Martin, n. 5 above, pp. 82–84.

57 Ibid., pp. 89–102.

58 Kauffman et al., n. 4 above.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 C. de la Torre, ‘Latin America's Shifting Politics: Ecuador after Correa’ (2018) 29(4) Journal of Democracy, pp. 77–88, at 78; J. Wolff, ‘Ecuador after Correa: The Struggle over the Citizens’ (2018) 38(2) Revista de Ciencia Política, pp. 281–302.

63 De la Torre, n. 62 above, p. 78.

64 M. Stott, ‘Ecuadorian President Vows Indigenous Groups Will Not Block Mining Projects,’ 30 Dec. 2021, The Financial Times, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/e7cf642b-6784-4d46-a38c-f8519e703b08.

65 F. Ramírez, ‘El 4 de Febrero y la Descorreización de Ecuador’, Nueva Sociedad, Jan. 2018, available at: https://nuso.org/articulo/el-4-de-febrero-y-la-descorreizacion-de-ecuador-ramirez.

66 De la Torre, n. 62 above, p. 83.

67 Human Rights Watch, n. 3 above. This point was stressed by numerous Ecuadorian lawyers and activists in interviews with authors.

68 M.L. Picq, Vernacular Sovereignties: Indigenous Women Challenging World Politics (University of Arizona Press, 2019).

69 Kauffman & Martin, n. 5 above, pp. 89–97; Borràs, n. 5 above, pp. 139–42.

70 CEDHU v. ARCONEL et al. (Dulcepamba River case), Case No. 502-19-JP, selected 6 May 2019, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, pp. 2–3.

71 Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, Republic of Ecuador, 2009, Art. 25, pp. 15–6.

72 These include: Dulcepamba River case, n. 70 above; Canton Santa Clara et al. v. Ministry of Environment et al. (Piatúa River case), Case No. 1754-19-JP, selected 9 July 2020, Constitutional Court of Ecuador; Los Cedros case, n. 22 above; Riera v. Ministry of Environment et al. (Nangartiza case), Case No. 1632-19-JP, selected 5 Mar. 2020, Constitutional Court of Ecuador; Rights of Nature and Animals as Subjects of Rights (Monkey Estrellita case), Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22, 27 Jan. 2022, Constitutional Court of Ecuador; Guayusa Parish et al. v. PetroEcuador et al. (San Rafael case), Case No. 974-21-JP, selected 18 May 2021, Constitutional Court of Ecuador.

73 See Los Cedros case, n. 22 above; Monkey Estrellita case, n. 72 above.

74 Kauffman & Martin, n. 5 above, p. 109. This point was noted by Ecuadorian lawyers in interviews with authors.

75 Almeida v. Narvaez (Condor Mirador case), Judgment No. 1711120130317, 2013, Provincial Court of Pichincha (Ecuador).

76 Cristian Rigoberto v. GENEFRAN (Piatúa River case), Judgment No. 16281-2019-00422, 5 Sept. 2019, Multicompetent Chamber of the Provincial Court of Pastaza (Ecuador); Gualaceo v. Azuay (Collay Forest case), Judgment No. 01281-2019-00032, 10 May 2019, Specialized Court for Family, Children, Adolescents and Offenders of the Provincial Court of Justice of Azuay (Ecuador).

77 Realpe Herrera v. SENAGUA (Aquepi River case), Judgment No. 1185-20-JP/21, 15 Dec. 2021, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, p. 18.

78 Piatúa River case, Provincial Court of Pastaza, n. 76 above, pp. 1–2.

79 Ibid., p. 5.

80 Ibid.

81 Piatúa River case, Constitutional Court, n. 72 above.

82 Gualaceo v. Azuay (Collay Forest case), Judgment No. 01281-2019-00032, 18 Feb. 2019, Criminal Judicial Unit of Gualaceo (Ecuador), pp. 15–8.

83 Ibid., p. 18.

84 Ibid., pp. 32–3.

85 Collay Forest case, Provincial Court of Justice of Azuay, n. 76 above, p. 23.

86 Extraordinary Protective Action for the Collay Forest (Collay Forest case), Case No. 1863-19-EP, 19 Sept. 2019, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, pp. 3–4.

87 Aquepi River case, n. 77 above, p. 4.

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid., pp. 4–5.

90 Ibid., pp. 5–6.

91 Ibid., p. 6.

92 Ibid., p. 1.

93 Ibid., p. 7.

94 Ibid., p. 25

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid., p. 17.

97 Ibid., p. 11.

98 Ibid., p. 13.

99 Ibid., p. 14.

100 Ibid.

101 Ibid., p. 15.

102 Ibid., pp. 16–8.

103 Ibid., p. 20–2.

104 O'Donnell, n. 28 above; Macpherson, E. et al., ‘Where Ordinary Laws Fall Short: “Riverine Rights” and Constitutionalism’ (2021) 30(3) Griffith Law Review, pp. 438–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Los Cedros case, n. 22 above.

106 Nangaritza case, n. 72 above.

107 Los Cedros case, n. 22 above, pp. 5–6.

108 Ibid., p. 19.

109 Ibid., p. 20.

110 Ibid., p. 22.

111 Cevallos Moreno v. Ministry of Environment (Los Cedros case), Judgment No. 10332-2018-00640, 13 Nov. 2018, Multicompetent Judicial Unit of Cotacachi Canton (Ecuador).

112 Cevallos Moreno v. Ministry of Environment (Los Cedros case), Judgment No. 10332-2018-00640, 19 June 2019, Court of the Multicompetent Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Imbabura (Ecuador), pp. 13–23.

113 Los Cedros Case, Constitutional Court, n. 22 above.

114 Ibid., p. 11.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid., p. 12.

117 Ibid., p. 13.

118 Ibid., pp. 99–100.

119 Ibid., pp. 41–2.

120 Ibid., p. 41.

121 Ibid., p. 50.

122 Ibid., p. 63.

123 Ibid., pp. 81–3.

124 Unconstitutionality of National Environment Law Regulations on Mangroves (Mangroves case), Judgment No. 22-18-IN/21, 8 Sept. 2021, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, p. 2.

125 Ibid., pp. 3–4.

126 Ibid., p. 4.

127 Ibid., pp. 54–7.

128 Ibid., p. 6.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid., pp. 40–1.

131 Ibid., p. 15.

132 H. Echeverría, Ecuadorian environmental attorney, email communication, 16 June 2021.

133 Mangroves case, n. 124 above, p. 18.

134 Ibid., p. 41.

135 Echeverría, n. 132 above.

136 Monge v. Quito Municipality (Monjas River case), Case No. 2167-21-EP, Judgment No. 2167-21-EP/22, 19 Jan. 2022, Constitutional Court of Ecuador, pp. 1–2.

137 Ibid., pp. 7, 42–3.

138 Ibid., p. 14.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid., pp. 8–10.

141 Ibid., p. 3.

142 Ibid., pp. 48.

143 Ibid., pp. 34–5.

144 Ibid., pp. 43–5.

145 Ibid., pp. 3–7.

146 Ibid., pp. 16–8.

147 Ibid., pp. 42–3.

148 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, n. 50 above.

149 Monjas River case, n. 136 above, pp. 14, 20, 41–2.

150 Ibid., p. 36.

151 Ibid., p. 48.

152 This point was stressed through author interviews with multiple Constitutional Court justices.

153 Monkey Estrellita case, n. 72 above.

154 Ibid., p. 12.

155 Ibid., pp. 7–10.

156 Ibid., p. 13.

157 Ibid., p. 12.

158 Ibid., p. 16.

159 Ibid., pp. 57–8.

160 Ibid., p. 18.

161 Ibid., pp. 19–20.

162 Ibid., p. 22.

163 Ibid., pp. 39–42.

164 Ibid., p. 43.

165 Ibid., pp. 38–42.

166 Ibid., pp. 49, 51–2.

167 Ibid., p. 57.

168 Ibid., pp. 55–8.

169 Whittenmore, n. 6 above; Fitz-Henry, n. 8 above.

170 Kotzé & Villavicencio, n. 5 above.

171 See, e.g., Aquepi River case, n. 77 above, pp. 12, 15–6, 23; Los Cedros case, n. 22 above, p. 13; Mangroves case, n. 124 above, pp. 54–7.

172 See, e.g., Shrimping in Cayapas case, n. 11 above, p. 10; Los Cedros case, n. 22 above, pp. 11–13; Aquepi River case, n. 77 above, pp. 11–13.