At the turn of the new millennium, the animistic belief in the figure of Mother Earth was enshrined in the law of several countries of the Global South. This has been interpreted as an
evolution of modern environmental law under the influence of indigenous cosmologies. On the other hand, M-A Hermitte observed in 2011 with regards to the evolution of French law « dans leurs raisonnements, les juges font exactement comme si certaines entités naturelles étaient déjà des sujets de droit ». In France, civil society has been pleading for the recognition of the Loire or the Tavignagnu Rivers as legal persons. Many international texts and judicial decisions also seem to have indirectly enshrined the rights of nature as both autonomous from and connected to human rights. The Constitution of Ecuador in 2008 and the Bolivian constitution and laws (2009-2012) explicitly refer to the Pachamama as a structuring element of the countries’ Grundnorm, linking the respect of indigenous worldview to that of nature. Nature was thus explicitly given the status of a legal person endowed with its own rights. This hybrid legal construct challenges the hierarchies of western legal modernity which places the human person above all non-human things. Could the recognition of non-human beings as legal persons be the sign of an evolution towards a posthuman conception of law? What are the differences in the approaches across jurisdictions? Could these evolutions be considered as constitutive of a common trend towards posthuman law or on the contrary do they merely reflect local realities? Does this posthuman turn concern other legal fields? From an empirical perspective, have the rights of nature improved the protection of the environment or of human rights? The panel welcomes contributions on the origins of the rights of nature, as well as their empirical impact on the legal systems, human rights and environmental protection. The personification of nature as a maternal figure has been criticized as yet another patriarchal manifestation of power over natural resources. Should feminists see the emergence of the maternal figure of nature as a source of empowerment or, on the contrary as a trap? What could be a posthuman feminist perspective on the rights of non-humans? In New Zealand, a 2017 statute declared the Whanganui River to be a legal person. This new legal entity was named Te Awa Tupua, “an indivisible and living whole from the mountains to the sea, incorporating the Whanganui River and all of its physical and metaphysical elements.” The statute implements the Mauri vision of the entangled interconnections between human and non-human lives. It sets up institutions and principles of governance which reflect a posthuman approach to caring for the commons. Are there convergences between feminist care theories and the legal recognition of non-human legal subjects? If so, what are the potential effects or limits of such evolutions of the law? Is feminist legal theory the carrier of a posthuman care tun in the law? What would be the significance of such a turn for law and its effectiveness? To what extent are the women’s rights connected to the rights of nature in both rhetorical and empirical terms? The panel welcomes contributions on the above issues with a specific focus on feminist approaches grounded in, or critical of posthuman and/or care theories applied to environmental issues.

Abstracts in French or English can be sent to coralie.raffenne@dauphine.psl.eu