Page 30 - Coespu 2018-4

the new Andean constitutionalism lies in a different social contract which, ascribing the inequalities
to the subjugation of Nature by man, is now stipulated between Nature itself and people, the latter
considered both as individuals and communities (Baldin, 2014a).
Art 10, para. 2, of the Constitution
of Ecuador rules that Nature shall be
the subject of those rights that the
Constitution recognizes for it, as
specified in arts. 71 to 74. The rights
of Nature as per art. 71 are
considered on the same level as
those of human beings, pursuant to
art. 11, para. 6, establishing the
equal importance of the rights. In
particular, with clear ecological
vision, art. 71 states that: “Nature
has the right to integral respect for
its existence and for the maintenance
and regeneration of its life cycles,
structure, functions and evolutionary
processes”. It goes on to affirm that: “All persons, communities, peoples and nations can call upon
public authorities to enforce the rights of Nature”.
The Constitution of Bolivia (art. 34) states that: “Any person, in his own right or on behalf of a
collective, is authorized to take legal action in defense of environmental rights, without prejudice to
the obligation of public institutions to act on their own in the face of attacks on the environment”.
While the Constitution of Ecuador is still without implementing legislation, that of Bolivia was
implemented rapidly with Law no. 71 of 21 December 2010 (Ley de derechos de la Madre Tierra),

according to which: “For the purpose of protecting and enforcing its rights, Mother Earth takes on
the character of an entity of collective public interest” (art. 5). These rights are listed in the
subsequent art. 7: to life, to biodiversity, to water, to clean air, to balance, to restoration and to live
free of contamination.
Giving Nature rights means recognizing that ecosystems and natural communities are not
commercializable resources, property to be disposed of at will, but rather entities with an
independent right to exist and prosper (Baldin, 2014a). The rights of animals are also recognized in
the legal systems of Switzerland, Germany and India (Rescigno, 2005). According to one of the
milestones in “Earth jurisprudence”, Nature is seen as a plurality of legal rights holders, meaning
that it may take legal action through special “guardians” appointed by the judge (Stone, 1973). The
idea of the legal personality of Nature (Stone’s “standing”) was taken up authoritatively in a
“dissenting opinion” during the lawsuit Sierra Club vs. Morton resolved by the USA Supreme Court
in 1973. On that occasion, Judge Douglas, well disposed to Stone's theory, wrote that the critical
question of “standing” in environmental lawsuits “would be simplified and also put neatly in focus
if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal
agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or
invaded by roads and bulldozers”.

28