Fig 1 The Whanganui River Gorge, New Zealand

Permission from Simon Dixon

Abstract

The recognition that other-than-human entities have legal personality has always been recognised in forms of
customary law. Some jurisdictions, however, denied their existence in a natural-spiritual context but not in
other non-human contexts. Now some jurisdictions are evolving allowing for the concept of juristic personhood
to expand. The Romans introduced jus gentium which provided the conceptual basis of public trusts and of
juristic persons. The former (public trusts) held that the sea, the sea shore, the air and running water were
common to everyone. The latter (juristic personhood) which was initially limited to public bodies (i.e. trusts,
corporations, and clubs) has been expanded by society to include other legal subjects with specific rights and
obligations. During the British Raj (1858-1947) Colonial Judges recognized super-subjects had legal status.
Temples, idols, and deities were declared as juristic persons with the same legal rights as human beings.
Much more recently society began to recognise infra-subjects as legal entities. Pachamama (Mother Earth)
has been recognized as a juristic person and various "rights of nature" have been incorporated into the
constitutions of several countries. Efforts are being made to have animals declared as legal persons, while in
New Zealand, India and Colombia rivers (and their associated ecosystems) have been recognized by legislators
and Judges as juristic persons. The consequences, benefits and drawbacks, of juristic personhood are
discussed with reference to Sacred Natural Sites as a platform for spiritual governance. Clearly further study is
required and possibly litigation and legislation for such an approach to become widely recognized and used as a
tool for conservation.

Introduction

Most conservation initiatives aimed at the legal protection of the natural environment are
undertaken by homo sapiens acting as the plaintiff and beneficiary. This article represents a
point-of-view shift as under the aegis of juristic personhood the numina that inhabit most
Sacred Natural Sites (SNS) are granted standing as plaintiffs in the defence of their domain,
represented by a guardian or agent.

Many SNS are typically characterised as biodiverse habitats or refugia that have formed in
response to ritual protection in the context of animistic beliefs rather than a conservation
ethic. As far as many indigenous peoples and local communities are concerned the spirits
of place or numina that inhabit most SNS are juristic persons, in all but name, and they
regularly invoke the numina enabling them to engage in spiritual governance (Studley and
Awang 2016, Studley and Horsley Forthcoming in Verschuuren and Brown).
Historically, however, some legal systems have denied legal personhood to natural-spiritual
entities. It is that denial that is being reversed in the legislation and cases highlighted in this
paper predicated on juristic personhood, under the rubric of an animistic world-view, and/or
an ecocentric rights approach under the aegis of a pan(en)theistic world-view (Berry 1988
McDermott 2012 Nash 1989 Zeleha 2008).

Juristic Personhood

A legal or juristic person refers generally to an entity or legal subject that is not a human
being, but one on which society has decided to recognise as a subject of rights and
obligations (Sohm 1892 Shelton 2015). These rights, duties and obligations include: -
standing so they can sue or be sued, the ownership and disposal of property, the seeking of
judicial relief, the receipt of legacies, gifts and inheritances, the incurring of debt, entering
into contracts, marrying, and compliance with the laws of the state (de Vos 2006 Greenfield
1996). When juristic personhood is used in the context of enspirited SNS (inhabited by a
numina) the concept may be better understood with reference to the literature on other-
than-human personhood (OTHP) (Hallowell 2002) and "legal experiences with animated
entities" (Petrazycki 2011).

Public Trusts

It would appear that the concept of public trusts (of common natural resources) which is
well established in many countries is providing an important staging post on the road to
legal personhood (Shelton 2015).
The ancient laws of jus gentium, which later developed into the public trust doctrine,
were formulated by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (Sandars 1917) who held that the sea,
the shores of the sea, the air and running water was common to everyone. The principle (of
public trust) became the law in England which distinguished between private property which
could be owned by individuals and certain common resources which the monarch held in
inalienable trust for present and future generations. Many common law courts have adopted
and applied public trust law (Shelton 2015), conferring trusteeship or guardianship on the
government, with an initial focus on fishing rights, access to the shore, and navigable waters
and the lands beneath them. After the publication of an influential law review article by
Joseph Sax (1969) courts in the United States began to expand the doctrine of public trusts
and apply it to other resources, including wildlife and public lands (Wade v Kramer 1984).
This included the constitutions of Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Alaska (Shelton
2015).

Public trusts, however, are normally constituted only for the benefit of humankind and so a
far more reaching measure is required to confer juristic personhood and direct rights on
other-than-human entities.
Fig 2 An enspirited idol of Radha
Shyamsunderji (Krishna and Radha) was
recognized as a "juristic person" in 1925
(Mullick v Mullick), Privy Council, Bombay
High Court
Fig 3 An idol of Khrishna and Fig 4 Bolivia enshrined Fig 5 Te Urewera - the Tuhoe
Radha being enspirited at a natural world's rights with homelands (NE of North Island,
pran pratisha ceremony at Sri equal status for New Zealand) was declared a
Sri Radha Madhava Mandir, Pachamama in 2009. juristic person in 2014
Kanpur, UP, India. Enspiriting is
required before the idol can
legally become a juristic
person

Permission from Rrahul Yadav Permission from ISKCON Permission from F Kemp Permission from Maea Rurehei
desiretree

Recognition of other-than-human entities as juristic persons

Roman law recognised both natural persons and persona ficta which were later known as
"juristic persons" (Gierke1954). Natural persons is the term used to refer to human beings
who have certain legal rights automatically upon birth which expand as a child becomes an
adult.

Various attempts have been made since Roman times for according legal status to other-
than-human persons.

In 1925 Colonial Judges in India conferred juristic personhood on temples, idols and deities
(e.g. Mullick v Mullick 1925) contingent upon the enspiriting of an idol and Salmonds
definition of person (1913). An idol (or a temple) does not develop into a juristic person
until it is enspirited during a Pran Pratistha ceremony (Bharne and Krusche 2014 Elgood
2000 Mukherjea and Sen 2013).

Salmond defined person (1913) in the following way:

So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable
of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or
not, and no being that is not so capable is a person even though he be a man.

In a seminal article, 'Should Trees Have Standing?', Stone (1976) highlighted the absurdities
of granting legal personality to corporations and ships but not animals, trees, rivers and
ecosystems. He argued for conferring legal personality and rights on the environment
because, as a rights-holder, the natural object would:
"have a legally recognised worth and dignity in its own right, and not merely to serve as a
means to benefit 'us'...."

Although the environment has worth and dignity in its own right this does not suggest it
exists in a passive state. Given that it has been conferred with legal personality and standing
it has the capacity as a plaintiff to sue or seek judicial relief and engage in all the duties and
capacities of a juristic person.

Stones innovation was to propose that the interests of nature should be represented (in
court) by a guardian and that the burden of proof should rest upon the party that has
allegedly compromised the integrity of the ecosystem or organism.

Stones comments echoed remarks made by Justice William O. Douglas who argued in a
landmark environmental law case (Sierra Club v. Morton 1972) that environmental objects
should have standing to sue in court because:

Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to
the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation...The
river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes fish, aquatic
insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who
are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff
speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.

In the years since Stones and Douglass comments various innovations in law have allowed
for the concept of juristic personhood to be expanded.

Recognising Mother Earth or Pachamama as a juristic person

In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to declare in its constitution that
nature is a legal person. Articles 10 and 71-74 of the Constitution (Ecuador National
Assembly 2008); recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems, gives individuals the
authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to remedy
violations of nature's rights, including:

"the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and
its processes in evolution."

On 21 May 2009 indigenous churches issued a joint declaration at the UN Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues recommending that the forum recognise Mother Earth as a legal
subject (WCC 2009)

Bolivia followed Ecuadors example by similarly giving constitutional protection to natural

ecosystems which were amended in 2010 (Legislative Assembly of Bolivia 2010). The
amendments redefining the country's mineral deposits as "blessings", established new
rights for nature namely:

the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from
human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to ecological balance; the
right to the effective and opportune restoration of life systems affected by direct or indirect
human activities, and the right for preservation of Mother Earth and any of its components
with regards to toxic and radioactive waste generated by human activities.

Furthermore they appointed an ombudsman to defend or represent Mother Earth.

The constitutional changes made by Bolivia and Ecuador resulted in a Pachamama

movement that has spread to sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, Canada, India, Nepal, New
Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States and to Harmony with Nature resolutions
in the United Nations (2009, 2015, 2016)

Efforts have also been made to secure a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth
at the UN but these have not been forthcoming, or in other words, a declaration does not
appear to be about to appear or take place or appear to be approaching to date (Weston
and Bollier 2013).

There is evidence that constitutional provisions are beginning to give rise to enforcement
litigation based on the legal personality of nature.

In Ecuador there have been two cases:

The first lawsuit (Wheeler c. Director de la Procuraduria General Del Estado de Loja) was filed
against the local government near Rio Vilcabamba in March 2011, who were responsible for
a road expansion project that dumped debris into the river, narrowing its width and thereby
doubling its speed. The project was also done without the completion of an environmental
impact assessment or consent of the local residents. The case was filed by two such
residents, citing the violation of the Rights of Nature, rather than property rights, for the
damage done to the river. The case was important because the court stated that the rights
of nature would prevail over other constitutional rights if they were in conflict with each
other, setting an important precedent. The proceedings also confirmed that the burden of
proof to show there is no damage lies with the defendant. Though the plaintiffs were
granted a victory in court, the enforcement of the ruling has been lacking, as the local
government has been slow to comply with the mandated reparations (Daly 2012)

In March 2011 the government of Ecuador filed a case (Repblica del Ecuador Asamblea
Nacional, Comisin de la Biodiversidad y Recursos Naturales) against illegal gold mining
operations in northern Ecuador, in the remote districts San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro. The
rights of nature were violated by the mining operations, which were argued to be polluting
the nearby rivers. This case is different from the previous in that it was the government
addressing the violation of the rights of nature. It was also swiftly enforced, as military
operation to destroy the machinery used for illegal mining was ordered and implemented
(Daly 2012)
Fig 6 The Whanganui River, New Zealand
declared a juristic person in 2017
Fig 7 The Ganges River, India, and its 115
tributaries declared as multiple juristic
persons in 2017 by the Uttarakhand High
Court, Nanital, Kumaon Region,
Uttarakhand State, India
Fig 8 The Himalayan Ecosystem of India
was declared as multiple juristic persons in
2017 by the Uttarakhand High Court,
Nanital, Kumaon Region, Uttarakhand
State, India

Permission from Geoff Cloake Permission from Richard Haley Permission from ICIMOD

Recognising ecosystems as juristic persons

Although it was Stone and Douglas who laid the foundations for ecosystems to become
juristic persons it was the New Zealand government that translated rhetoric into praxis,
when it introduced legislation that covered ecosystems.

Te Urewera, New Zealand

In 2014 New Zealand were the first nation on earth to give up formal ownership of a
National Park (Te Urewera Act 2014) and declare, the area known by the local Tuhoe as Te
Urewera, a legal person with:

all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person.

Personhood means that lawsuits to protect the land (Te Urewera) can be brought on behalf
of the land itself, obviating the need to show harm to a human being. The new legal entity is
now administered by the Te Urewera Board which comprises joint Tuhoe and Crown
membership who are empowered to file lawsuits on behalf of Te Urewera and to:

"to act on behalf of, and in the name of, Te Urewera" and "to provide governance
for Te Urewera".

Tuhoe spirituality is directly provided for in Board decision-making, whereby in performing

its functions, the Board may consider and give expression to tuhoetanga (Tuhoe identity and
culture) and the Tuhoe concepts that underpin nurturance namely: mana (authority,
identity), mauri (life-force), kaitiaki (spiritual guardians), tikanga (traditional custom), ture
(societal guidelines), tohu (signs and signals), tapu (sacredness), muru (social deterrent), and
rahui (temporary bans)

Te Awa Tupua, New Zealand

New Zealand followed up by declaring that the Whanganui River was a legal person after 170
years of litigation. The House of Representatives passed the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River
Claims Settlement) Bill (2017) at its third reading on 15 March 2017 (Scoop News
15/3/2017). The legislation established a new legal framework for the Whanganui River (or
Te Awa Tupua) whereby:

Te Awa Tupua is a legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal
person

predicated on a set of overarching "intrinsic values," or Tupua te Kawa :

Furthermore in a statement of significance (schedule 8) recognition is also given to the

numina or kaitiaki (Jenkins et al 2016) that inhabit each of the 240 plus rapids (ripo) on the
Whanganui River and are associated with a distinct hapu (sub-tribe):

The kaitiaki provide insight, guidance, and premonition in relation to matters affecting the
Whanganui River, its resources and life in general and the hapu invoke (karakia) the kaitiaki
for guidance in times of joy, despair, or uncertainty for the guidance and insight they can
provide.

The legislation makes provision for two Te Pou Tupua or guardians appointed jointly from
nominations made by iwi (Maori confederation of tribes) with interests in the Whanganui
River and the Crown. Their role is to:

act and speak on behalf of the Te Awa Tupua and protect the health and wellbeing of the
river.

The Te Pou Tupua is supported by a Te Karewao, or advisory committee comprising

representatives of Whanganui iwi, other iwi with interests in the River and local authorities.
The Te Pou Tupua enter into relationships with relevant agencies, local government and the
iwi and hapu of the river.

Ganga and Yamuna Rivers, India

On the 20th March 2017 the High Court of Uttarakhand (Salim v State of Uttarakhand and
Others 2017) declared that the:

Ganga and Yamuna Rivers and all their (115) tributaries and streams. are juristic persons
with all the corresponding rights duties and liabilities of a living person

The courts decision was necessary because both rivers are losing their very existence and
both are sacred and revered and presided over by goddesses (Ganga Maa and
Yamuna).

The court appointed 3 officials to act as legal custodians responsible for conserving and
protecting the rivers and their tributaries and ordered a management board be established
within three months.
Himalayan Ecosystems, India

Expanding on their previous judgment (of 20/3/17), the High Court of Uttarakhand re-
examined a previous (failed) petition (Miglani v State of Uttarakhand and Others) and
declared on 30/3/17 that:

We, by invoking our parens patriae jurisdiction, declare glaciers including Gangotri &
Yamunotri, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests wetlands,
grasslands, springs and waterfalls, legal entity/ legal person/juristic person/juridicial person/
moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all corresponding
rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, in order to preserve and conserve them. They
are also accorded the rights akin to fundamental rights/ legal rights.

In contrast to the earlier judgment the court recognised the role of other riparian states
(under the aegis of an inter-state council), community participation and the importance of
extending juristic personhood to the Himalayan ecosystem. It appointed 6 government
officials to act as persons in loco parentis of the geographic features in the State of
Uttarakhand and permitted the co-option of seven local representatives.

The judgment quotes repeatedly and extensively from Secret Abode of Fireflies (Singh
2009) which underlines the sacredness of mountains (as the abode of deities) and the
sacredness of Indian trees and plants and emphasises the rights for nature.

Atrato River, Colombia

On the 2nd May 2017 it was publically announced in El Tiempo that the constitutional court
of Colombia had declared that the Atrato River Basin was a "subject of rights" (i.e. a juristic
person) and merited special constitutional protection (ABColombia 2017). The court called
on the state to protect and revive the river and its tributaries and the Choco Department.
The state has been given 6 months to eradicate illegal mining and to begin to decontaminate
the river (of mercury) and reforest areas affected by illegal mining (44,000ha). The Court also
ordered the national government to exercise legal guardianship and representation of the
rights of the river (through an institution designated by the President of the Republic),
together with the indigenous ethnic communities (mostly Emberas) that live in the Atrato
River Basin in Choc. Hopefully the legislation will allow the Emberas to secure standing and
protection for some of their jaikatuma or spirit mountains (JusticiayPas 2009) and defend
their Sitios Sagrados Naturales or SNS (Organizacin Indgena de Antioquia (OIA) undated,
CRIC undated).

Sacred Natural Sites, Africa

The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights resolved in May 2017 to protect
Sacred Natural Sites and Territories (ACHPR 2017). This was in response to a submission
from the African Biodiversity Network and the Gaia Foundation for a call for legal
recognition of SNS and territories and their customary governance systems (ABN 2016).

Recognizing that animals are juristic persons

During the Middle Ages in Europe it was widely accepted that animals could be held
responsible for the commission of crimes (Sykes 2011). Much more recently scholarly and
activist attention has been devoted to questioning whether some or all living species should
be recognized as legal persons. The international "Great Ape Project" seeks to imbue non-
human primates with attributes of legal personhood specifically:

"protections of the right to life, the freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and
protection from torture." (GAP ud)

Although among some indigenous people (the Ifugao Tribe in the Philippines) "Animals are
attributed with legal personalities and it is an assault of a personal nature to maliciously
kill an animal (Paul 1986) Spain is the only country, so far, to approve human rights for apes
(Glendinning 2008)

In August 2011 Chief Justice Catherine Fraser in her dissenting judgement during Reece and
others v Edmonton City (2011) inquired if a female elephant might qualify for standing in her
own right. She went on reason that:-

it arguably remains an open question whether the common law has now evolved
to the point where, depending on the circumstances, an animal might be able to sue
through its litigation representatives to protect itself

The Chief Justices remarks may be seen due to the inadequacies of animal protection
laws and an attempt to further develop and advance standing for other-than-human
entities.

Notwithstanding Chief Justice Frasers comments the legal status of nonhuman animals
globally is in a grey zone, between "things" and "persons". On the basis of summa divisio
(literally the biggest division) two categories are well established: legal properties and legal
personhood. Animals do not (yet) fall within the category of legal personhood (Brels pers.
comm. 2/7/2017), either physical (humans) or abstract (corporations). However, they are
increasingly recognised in a number of European countries as sentient beings rather than
"things" (Brels 2017). Even though recognised as sentient beings animals remain subjected
to the things (or common goods) legal regime. The civil codes of these countries create
more of a terminological precision rather than a real transformation of the legal status of the
animal (Brels 2017).
Fig 9 The Ifugao tribe who live
near Luzon in the Cordillera
Administrative Region of the
Philippines attribute legal
personality to animals
Fig 10 A Mauri Kohata from Te
Kaha, Ngti maru, Te Whnau a
Apanui, Raukmara Range,
North Island, New Zealand. The
Maori's engage in ritual liturgies
(karakia) to enspirit mauri
stones (of the forest, person,
thing) and to enable mana
(spiritual power) to flow.
Fig 12 The New Zealand ruru (Ninox
novaeseelandiae) provides a rich source of
Fig 11 Tibetans
symbolism for the Mori borne out of a deeply
engaging in an
spiritual connection as an important kaitiaki
invocation to a local
(guardian) linked to tohu (signs) tapu (spiritual
numina of a SNS in
restriction), and as a messenger of forewarning,
Donggo Village, Qinghai
grief and awareness. .
Province, China in order
to perpetuate their legal
relationship with the
numina.

Permission from Rick St John Photo credit Auckland Museum Image taken by Awang Image taken by The Graf Boys -
2017 www.tvwild.co.nz]

Discussion

Much of the recent legislation addressing the legal status of natural entities has been
formulated under the aegis of juristic personhood or ecocentric approaches under the aegis
of rights of nature, Earth Law, Earth Jurisprudence. The former appears to be mostly
predicated on an animistic worldview and the latter mostly on a Gaian pan(en)theistic
worldview. It is important not to confuse the two especially when both are used in the
context of the same legislation (Legislative Assembly of Bolivia 2010, Miglani v State of
Uttarakhand and Others 2017). The advantage of conflating both approaches is that it
addresses two discrete communities both indigenous animistic people and the advocates of
ecocentrism (Barouskaya 2011).

The disadvantage is that the ecocentric rights approach does not resonate well with the
world-view of the local people who protect most enspirited SNS. The concept of rights is a
construction from outside an indigenous animistic context (Solon undated) and Berry (1999)
states that other modes of non-human existence have no rights. In order to resolve this
conundrum rights of Mother Earth and rights of Nature have had to be expressed through
socio-cultural practices rather than legal terms and Earth Jurisprudence has by necessity
been predicated under the aegis of a communion of subjects (Burdon 2011).
The conflation of approaches is illustrated in the resolution passed in favour of protecting
African SNS (ACHPR 2017). The call from the African Biodiversity Network and the Gaia
Foundation (ABN 2016) was predicated on ecocentric rights under the aegis of a
pan(en)theistic worldview rather than the animistic worldview that is common among most
indigenous people who protect SNS (Studley 2014) and the resolution was not predicated on
juristic personhood for SNS and it appears to depend more on human custodians than
spiritual ones and on customary but anthropocentric governance (Lambert pers. com
3/3/2017)

Most enspirited SNS are protected by people who are often described as animists. This,
however, should not be confused with new animism (Harvey 2006) which only exhibits
partial resonance with the worldview of most of the local people who protect SNS. The
emphasis of new animism is on knowing how to behave appropriately with other-than-
human persons but who are only alive when participating in a relationship but not as a
result of a spirit taking up residence (Whitehead 2013). This contrasts with most animistic
societies where enspirited entities and landscapes are inhabited by numina who remain live
and active for at least a year although if they are ignored the spirits eventually become
displaced (Ramble 2008).

The protection of SNS (and their flora and fauna) by most IPs is not predicated on a
conservation ethic but on ritual compliance enjoined by the numina that inhabits the SNS.
The numina do not differ from juristic persons in terms of their duties and capacities but in
addition they determine what constitutes good and bad behavior within a SNS. The
behavioral expectations of numina in their role as custodians of SNS might be viewed as
harmful in terms of, for example, preventing tourist development and gender relations. In a
Tibetan context although some behavior in non-negotiable (e.g. humans climbing on sacred
snow mountains) most other behavior can be negotiated under the aegis of contractual
reciprocity and appeasement. Limited tourist development within SNS is often negotiable
(e.g. The metal walkway above the Minyong Glacier, Dechin County). Retribution usually
only occurs because the human party fails to honor or appease the numina prior to an
intervention (e.g. the cable car on Lion Mountain, Ninglang County). Gender relations can be
maintained by Tibetan women who although banned from entering a SNS, inhabited by a
male numina, may enspirit another SNS with a female numina (e.g.Ton Ton knoll near
Shangrila City).

Although juristic persons have standing they are also perpetual minors and require
guardians to represent their interests (especially in court). In the context of Tibetan SNS the
most suitable guardians would be the hereditary village leader and/or a divination master (in
order to establish the wishes and demands of the numina). If a dispute did occur courts are
able to appoint, by court order, a guardian ad litum for the duration of the legal action or a
state guardian (parens patriae) on a longer term basis.

Much of the animal rights legislation is predicated on human-defined concepts in loco

parentis and appears at times to be contradictory. There are strict laws concerning
treatment of cattle and pigs in Switzerland, for example, but the conundrum is that at the
end of the day these well-treated animals are slaughtered for our benefit (Sochaczewski
pers. com. 1/7/2017). Juristic personhood appears to offer an alternative in order to protect
animal species.

Most enspirited SNS, especially in the context on SW China, typically average 250ha (Studley
2014) and are protected by a small group of local people. Challenges arise however in terms
of standing (as plaintiffs) for larger natural entities such as the Great Barrier Reef or the
Mekong River. The Great Barrier Reef is being degraded as a result of global warming
(Marshall and Johnson 2007) but even if it is enspirited and a guardian can be appointed
who can be sued possibly the countries that produce most CO2 - USA, China and India
(Clark 2011). The plaintiff could argue that by way of reparation the main contributors
participate in more carbon offsetting programmes and lower their CO2 emissions. The
Mekong presents different problems because it crosses multiple borders and jurisdictions. As
a result it would require transnational regional cooperation and enforcement would require
several countries working together.

Conclusions
Although on the face of it the concept of juristic personhood has potential for ensuring the
protection of SNS in their totality, there are also dangers of trying to apply concepts
predicated on western jurisprudence (Deva 2005 Sawmveli 2016) and Gaian
pan(en)theism in the context of indigenous people and enspirited places (Read 2003).

It is important to recognise that, in most of the recent cases where juristic personhood has
been applied to legal subjects the subjects are typically inhabited by a numina. In other
words super/infra subjects appear to be eligible for juristic personhood only after they have
been enspirited on a regular basis. There are Gaian pan(en)theists that claim that all the
earth is 'animated' (Harding 2006) and anthropologists (Hallowell 2002) who claim that only
select subjects become enspirited. Most Sacred Natural Sites are typically enspirited by a
unique geospecific spirit with a unique personhood predicated on a tradition that should not
be confused with panentheism or with monistic pantheism (Harrison 2004). The former
focuses on gnostic mystic advancement in order to merge with the world soul. The latter
does not recognise deities who are personal and anthropogenic and the approach robs
particular life forms of their own measure of significance and agency (Plumwood 1993)
and the particularity of place and ecosystem and the diversity of life (Northcott 1996).
As a result of western juridicalization it would appear that other-than-human persons
(both super-subjects and infra-subjects) have to be integrated into the circle of legal
subjects in order to survive (Stavru 2016). Both jurists and legal anthropologists (Malinowski
1926) have suggested alternatives to juristic personhood such as legal relationships with
animated entities (Petrazycki 2011) and that juristic entities should be locally defined rather
than by the court or government (Bohannan 1957) or on the basis of western law (Deva
2005 Sawmveli 2016) or by Gaian pan(en)theists (Berry 1996, Harding 2007, Lovelock 1979).
It may, however, be easier for indigenous people or knowledge-brokers (Studley 2007) to co-
opt the alien legal language of juristic personhood but infuse it with indigenous meaning
(Cajete 2000). The term spiritual governance, for example, did not exist in the conservation
lexicon until recently but it was observable as a behavioural practice under the aegis of
spiritual agency in enspirited landscapes (i.e. SNS) so it was co-opted and infused with
indigenous meaning (Studley & Awang 2016, Hou 2016). Consequently it has gained
currency in the conservation literature (Verschuuren 2016 Forthcoming) hopefully leading to
its acceptance as a governance type by IUCN/ICCA.
Although the semantics are different most of the indigenous people who live closest to
most SNS accept other-than human personhood, experience culturally specific legal
relationships with enspirited entities. These relationships are predicated on contractual
reciprocity between local people and their numina who provides protection and blessing
providing they are honoured and appeased and empowered to exercise spiritual governance
over their SNS (Studley 2014).
Currently many SNS in the homelands of indigenous people are seemingly rendered
invisible or discursively excluded (Studley and Awang 2016) because they are owned and
governed by other-than-human persons. By recognizing enspirited SNS as juristic persons
with standing hopefully the scales will fall from the eyes of the conservation community
leading to their recognition by IUCN/ICCA as a governance sub-type under the aegis of a
spiritual governance type (Verschuuren 2016)
It appears perverse that although dissenting Justices could only inquire about standing for
natural entities (Sierra Club v. Morton 1972, Reece v Edmonton City 2011) the judges in
Mullick v Mullick in 1925 were able to employ the great legal freedom to personify, almost
it would seem on a whim (Naffine 2009) and operated on the assumption that an enspirited
idol certainly had standing. By endorsing the idol's legal personhood, the Privy Council was
able to consider its interests, writing that "the idol is not otherwise represented in the
proceedings, though the result might conceivably vitally affect its interest" and concluded
that it "would be in the interests of all concerned that the idol should appear by a
disinterested next friend appointed by the Court."
The Privy Council employed a line of reasoning that mirrors a key element of the argument
in favor of legal standing for most OTHP. As the directly affected parties deserve the courts'
consideration of their interests, and may also require the courts to appoint appropriate legal
representatives to argue their case for them (Totten 2015).
Some scholars writing on the topic of legal standing for nonhuman entities have suggested
that extensive legislative change would be necessary to recognize these entities' legal
standing (W 2000). A case such as Reece v Edmonton City (2011) suggests that it is already
within the power of the judiciary to consider these issues. As Chief Justice Fraser asserted,
unusual cases such as Reece offer a fertile ground for the growth of law in our changing
society. It appears that the judiciary already has at its disposal the legal tools necessary to
accommodate standing for both animals and SNS and judges need only to make use of them
(Totten 2015).

Although the judiciary appears to have the legal tools at their disposal there are clearly
dangers in granting juristic personhood within an already faulted legal and institutional
framework (Jonas pers. com. 29/6/2017). Clearly more research is required in order to
address legal systems that do not appear to be fit for purpose and under the aegis of legal
pluralism and a sui generis framework to identify legal systems predicated on ethno-
jurisprudence and customary law (Zion 1988)

Glossary
Animism is the most ancient, geographically widespread and diverse of all belief systems adhered
to by 300 million indigenous people. It is predicated on the assumption that biophysical entities such
as mountains, forests, and rocks are typically inhabited by spirits or numina (Sponsel 2007)

Ecocentrism - Ecocentrism is a philosophy or perspective that places intrinsic value on all living organisms and
their natural environment, regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human beings. It
recognizes that humans have responsibility towards the ecosphere and moral sentiments that are increasingly
expressed in the language of rights. Such 'rights are now variously termed Earth jurisprudence, rights of
nature, earth law and wild law. http://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/statement-of-ecocentrism.php O'Riordan
(1981) has suggested that Gaia has also emerged as a popular symbol of ecocentrism primarily because it
has come to be associated with the belief that humankind is not a dominant species and human
consciousness is not the only means through which nature should be judged and interpreted.

Enspiriting- is an animistic ritual (and sometimes liturgical) process whereby a spirit or numina is
called down or invoked by animistic humankind and invited to inhabit a biophysical entity
(mountain, forest, rock, idol) which becomes enspirited permanently providing the spirit is honored
and appeased on a regular basis.

Guardian ad litum- (guardian appointed by a court) is someone appointed by the court to represent a
client for the duration of a particular legal action
in loco parentis (in place of a parent) refers to the legal requirement of a person (or persons) to
take on the responsibilities of a parent for another entity

infra-subject is a term used by Stavru (2016) to describe biophysical entities (mountains, forests,
rivers)

Legal subject is an entity capable of holding rights, duties, and capacities and includes both juristic
and natural persons

numina is a spirit of place or genius loci that is present within an object or place (mountain,
forest, spring, idol)

Pantheism (all is God) has been referred to as a form of monism (Mercadante 2014) and
sexed-up atheism (Dawkins 2016) where all of reality is one substance (call it God or Nature or
the Universe) and there are no personal or anthropomorphic God. It has become popular in
Hollywood, among some scientists and within the environmental movement (McDermott 2012
Zaleha 2008). The World Pantheist Movement sponsors nature conservation (Harrison 2004 Taylor
2008)

Panentheism (all is IN God) is predicated on an intrinsic connection between all living things and
the physical universe which accord with natural laws. It assumes, however, there is a separate and
greater divine reality outside the material world (Mercadante 2014). Panentheism is part of a gnostic
mystic tradition that is informed by Plato, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (2015) and Thomas Berry (1988)
and the evolutionary omega point (de Chardin 2015 218) is achieved when all things are united or
merged under the aegis of the world soul or anima mundi (Timaeus 34b10-36d7 cited in Zeyl 2000).
Berrys mystic panentheism inspired movements for Earth Jurisprudence (Burdon 2014), Wild Law
(Cullinan 2002), Earth Law (Earth Law Centre undated), Whole-Earth Consciousness (Hastings 2016)
and Sacred Earth Economics (Korten 2013) although Berry emphasized the physical universe rather
than the Earth.

parens patriae (parents of the nation) is a public policy power of the state to intervene as legal
guardian of an entity in need of protection

persona ficta (artificial person) is another term for juristic person

jus gentium (law of the nations) in Roman law jus gentium referred to the rules and laws that were
common in the nations within the Roman Empire

super-subject - is a term used by Stavru (2016) to describe deities, spirits, and other spiritual and
metaphysical enties.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following for their comments and contributions:- Sabine
Brels, Peter Holmsley, Harry Jonas, Joseph Lambert, and Paul Sochaczewski

References

ABColombia (2017) Colombian Constitutional Court Sets a Global Precedent [online] available from
<http://www.abcolombia.org.uk/subpage.asp?subid=700&mainid=23> [10 June 2017]
ABN African Biodiversity Network (2016) Call to African Commission [online] available from
<http://africanbiodiversity.org/call-to-african-commission/> [11 July 2017]

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (2017) Final Communiqu of the 60th Ordinary
Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights [online] available from
<http://www.achpr.org/sessions/60th/info/communique60/> [11 July 2017]

Barouskaya, I. (2011) Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism: Finding Balance for Environmental Protection
Purposes. in Earth Jurisprudence: Building Theory and Practice. held 16 September 2011 at Griffith University,
Brisbane

Berry, T. (1996) Every Being Has Rights | Schumacher Center For New Economics

Berry, T. (1988) The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books 1 (988), 1

Bharne, V. and Krusche, K. (2014) Rediscovering the Hindu Temple: The Sacred Architecture and Urbanism of
India Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bohannan, P. (1957) Judgement and Justice among the Tiv. Published for the International African Institute by
Oxford University Press,

Brels, S. (2017) The Evolution of the Legal Status of Animals: From Things to Sentient Beings | [online] available
from <http://www.globalanimalnetwork.org/evolution-legal-status-animals-things-sentient-beings> [7 July
2017]

Burdon, P. (2011) Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence [online] Wakefield Press.

Burdon, P.D. (2014) Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment vol. 3. Routledge.

Cajete, G. (2000) Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence, Ceremony, Body Sense. Santa Fe New
Mexico: Clear Light Publishers

de Chardin, P.T. (2015) The Phenomenon of Man Lulu.com.

Clark, D. (2011) Which Nations Are Most Responsible for Climate Change? Guardian [online] available from
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change> [5 July
2017]

Constitutional Court of Bolivia (2010) Peoples Agreement: Building the People's World Movement for Mother
Earth [online] available from <http://peoplesagreement.org/?p=1651> [7 July 2017]

CRIC Consejo Regional Indgena Del Cauca (undated) Universidad Autnoma Indgena Intercultural UAII | - CRIC
[online] available from <https://www.cric-colombia.org/portal/universidad-autonoma-indigena-intercultural-
uaii/> [10 June 2017]

Cullinan, C. (2002) Wild Law SiberInk.

Daly, E. (2012) The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights of Nature. Review
of European Community & International Environmental Law 21 (1), 6366

Dawkins, R. (2016) The God Delusion Random House.

Deva, I. (2005) Sociology of Law/Edited by Indra Deva Oxford University Press.

Earth Law Centre (undated) What Is Earth Law [online] available from <https://www.earthlawcenter.org/faq/>
[11 July 2017]

El Tiempo (2017) Corte Constitucional Ordena Proteger Al Ro Atrato de La Minera Ilegal - Cortes - Justicia -
[online] available from <http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/cortes/corte-constitucional-ordena-proteger-al-rio-
atrato-de-la-mineria-ilegal-83708> [7 July 2017]

Elgood, H. (2000) Hinduism and the Religious Arts A&C Black.

GAP Great Apes Project (undated) GAP Project [online] available from <http://www.projetogap.org.br/en/> [7
July 2017]

Gierke, O.F. von (1954) Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht [online] Graz, Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt.

Glendinning, L. (2008) Spanish Parliament Approves Human Rights for Apes. The Guardian [online] available
from <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare> [7 July 2017]

Greenfield, J. (1996) The Return of Cultural Treasures Cambridge University Press.

Hallowell, A.I. (2002) Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View. Readings in Indigenous Religions 22, 1749

Harding, S. (2006) Animate Earth: Science, Intuition, and Gaia. Chelsea Green Publishing

Harrison, P. (2004) Elements of Pantheism Llumina Press.

Hastings, S.L. (2015) Whole-Earth Consciousness in Maximus the Confessor, Nicholas of Cusa, and Teilhard de
Chardin: Seeds for a 21 St Century Sacramental Creation Spirituality and Ecological Ethics Boston University.

Harvey, G. (2006) Animism: Respecting the Living World. New York: Columbia University Press

Hou, Y. (2016) Ritual and Cultural Revival at Tuvan Sacred Natural Sites Supports Indigenous Governance and
Conservation of Nature in China. in Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas and
Conservation. ed. by Verschuuren, B. and Furuta, N. Routledge, 286296

Jenkins, W.J., Tucker, M.E., and Grim, J. (2016) Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology Routledge.

JuduciayPas (2009) Indigenous Ember Communities Resist Invasion by Multinational Mining Corporation in the
Bajo Atrato, Colombia. available from
<http://jyp.megadatesystem.com/IMG/pdf/Muriel_English_summary.pdf> [7 April 2017]

Korten, D. (2013) Sacred Earth, a New Economy and the 21st Century University - David Korten

Lovelock, J. (1979) A New Look at Life on Earth. Ox-Ford University Press, Oxford

Malinowski, B. (1926) Crime and Custom in Savage Society 210. Rowman & Littlefield.

Marshall, P.A. and Johnson, J.E. (2007) The Great Barrier Reef and Climate Change: Vulnerability and
Management Implications. Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority and the Australian Greenhouse Office, Australia 774801

McDermott, P. (2012) Beyond Reason: Evolving Consciousness Balboa Press.

Mercadante, L.A. (2014) Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but Not Religious Oxford
University Press.
Miglani v State of Uttarakhand (2017) Miglani v State of Uttarakhand (2017) Writ Petition (PIL) No.140 of 2015
Uttarakhand High Court, Nanital [online] available from
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yudmJtTERRSjdBUEk/view>

Mukherjea, B.K. and Sen, A.C. (2013) The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust. Eastern Law House.

Mullick v Mullick (1925) Pramatha Nath Mullick vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064 Bombay
High Court - Privy Council [online] available from <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290902/> [7 July 2017]

Naffine, N. (2009) Laws Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person Bloomsbury
Publishing.

Northcott, M.S. (1996) The Environment and Christian Ethics vol. 10. Cambridge University Press.

ORiordan, T. (1981) Environmentalism Pion.

OIA Organizacin Indgena de Antioquia - (undated) Sitios Sagrados Naturales (SNS) [online] available from
<http://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=21142177e0d448d59a9dc7de4c5d2c36> [7 July
2017]

Paul, P. (1986) Some Origins of Laws Legal Codes Regarding Animals. III. [online] available from
<http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US19870119841> [7 July 2017]

Petrazycki, L. (2011) Law and Morality Transaction Publishers.

Plumwood, V. (2002) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature Routledge.

Ramble, C. (2008) The Navel of the Demoness: Tibetan Buddhism and Civil Religion in Highland Nepal. Oxford
University Press

Read, P. (2003) Haunted Earth UNSW Press.

Reece v. Edmonton City (2011) Reece v. Edmonton City (2011) ABCA 238 [online] 10030264AC. available from
<http://canlii.ca/t/fmjhh>

Republic of Ecuador (2011) The constitution of the Republic of Ecuador [online] available from
<http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html> [15 February 2017]

Salim v State of Utarakhand (2017) Salim v State of Utarakhand and Others (2017) Writ Petition No. 210 of
2017(M/S) Uttarakhand High Court, Nanital [online] available from
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81629830/

Salmond, J.W. (1913) Juriprudence. London: Stevens and Haynes

Sandars, T.C. (1917) The Institutes of Justinian The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

Sawmveli, V. (2012) Law Religion and Gender a Study of Womens Rights in Mizoram PhD. Hyderabad: University
of Hyderabad.

Sax, J.L. (1970) The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention. Michigan
Law Review 68 (3), 471566

Scoop News (2017) Te Awa Tupua Passes in to Law. Scoop Politics [online] available from
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1703/S00187/te-awa-tupua-passes-in-to-law.htm> [9 June 2017]

Shelton, D. (2015) Nature as a Legal Person. VertigO - La Revue lectronique En Sciences de Lenvironnement
[online] (Hors-srie 22). available from <https://vertigo.revues.org/16188> [29 May 2017]
Sierra Club v Morton (1972) Sierra Club v Morton (1972) 405 US 727 US Supreme Court [online] available from
<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/727/case.html>

Singh, N. (ed.) (2009) The Secret Abode of Fireflies: Loving and Losing Spaces of Nature in the City Youthreach.

Sohm, R. (1892) The Institutes of Roman Law .

Solon, P. (undated) The Rights of Mother Earth Systemic Alternatives [online] available from
<https://systemicalternatives.org/2017/03/29/the-rights-of-mother-earth/> [9 July 2017]

Sponsel, L. (2007) Religion Nature and Environmentalism. NIEHS

Stavru, S. (2016) Rights of Nature Is There a Place for Them in the Legal Theory and Practice? Sociological
Problems 12, 146166

Stone, C.D. (1972) Should Trees Have StandingToward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Southern California
Law Review 45, 450501

Studley, J. (2014) gzhi bdag: Custodians of the Tibetan Spiritscape: A Bio-Cultural Audit of Sacred Natural Sites
in NW Yunnan (with Special Reference to the Yubeng Valley) CERS Hong Kong

Studley, J. (2007) Hearing a Different Drummer: A New Paradigm for keepers of the Forest IIED.

Studley, J. and Awang, J. (2016) Creating New Discursive Terrain for the Custodians of the Tibetan Spiritscapes
of North West Yunnan. in Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas and
Conservation. ed. by Verschuuren, B. and Furuta, N. Routledge, 271285

Studley, J. and Horsley, P. (Forthcoming) Spiritual Governance: A Behavioural Practice and Expression of Sui
Generis Norms in Indigenous Sacred Natural Sites with Implications for Conservation and Protected Areas. in
Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature). ed. by Verschuuren, B. and Brown, S. Routledge

Sunstein, C.R. (1999) Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights). Ucla L. Rev. 47, 1333

Sykes, K. (2010) Human Drama, Animal Trials: What the Medieval Animal Trials Can Teach Us About Justice for
Animals. Animal L. 17, 273

The New Zealand Parliament Counsel Office (2016) Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill
[online] 1291. available from <https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-
laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL68939_1/te-awa-tupua-whanganui-river-claims-settlement-bill> [7 July 2017]

Totten, T. (2015) Should Elephants Have Standing. WJ Legal Stud. 6, 1

United Nations General Assembly (2016) Harmony with Nature A/71/266. available from
<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/266>

United Nations General Assembly (2015) United Nations Official Document A/RES/70/208 Harmony with
Nature. United Nations. available from <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?
symbol=A/RES/70/208> [11 June 2017]

United Nations General Assembly (2009) United Nations Document A/RES/ 64/196 - E - Harmony with Nature.
United Nations. available from <http://undocs.org/en/A/RES/64/196> [11 June 2017]

Verschuuren, B. and Brown, S. (eds.) (Forthcoming) Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature).

Verschuuren, B. and Furuta, N. (2016) Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas
and Conservation Routledge.
de Vos, V. (2006) The Law of Persons. UNISA. available from
<https://www.disag.unisi.it/sites/st07/files/allegatiparagrafo/06-10-2016/pvl101q-unit1.pdf>

Wade v Kramer (1984) Wade v Kramer (1984) 121 Ill. App.3d 377 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) | California Eastern District
Court [online] available from <https://casetext.com/case/wade-v-kramer-9> [7 July 2017]

Weston, B.H. and Bollier, D. (2013) Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights, and the Law of the
Commons Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, A. (2013) Religious Statues and Personhood: Testing the Role of Materiality A&C Black.

WCC World Council of Churches (2009) Joint Declaration of Indigenous Churches: Eighth Period of Sessions of
the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues [online] available from
<https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/unity-mission-evangelism-and-
spirituality/just-and-inclusive-communities/indigenous-people/joint-declaration-of-indigenous-churches-at-un-
forum> [7 July 2017]

Zaleha, B.D. (2008) The Only Paradise We Ever Need: An Investigation into Pantheisms Sacred Geography in
the Writings of Edward Abbey. Thomas Berry, and Matthew Fox, and a Preliminary Survey of Signs of Emerging
Pantheism in American Culture (MA Thesis, University of Florida)

Zeyl, D.J. (2000) Timaeus vol. 9. Hackett Publishing.

Zion, J.W. (1988) Searching for Indian Common Law. in Indigenous Law and the State. ed. by Morse, B. and
Woodman, G. Dordrecht: Foris, 12150