This article investigates the relationship between legal personality for nature and Indigenous philosophies by comparing two cases: the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 and the 2014 Te Urewera Act of Aotearoa, New Zealand. Through these case studies the article considers the nature of Indigenous relations with the concept of rights of nature, arguing that this relation is primarily strategic, not genealogical. The article engages with the concept of legal personality and shows that it is not a direct translation of Indigenous conceptions, but rather a potential straitjacket for Indigenous emancipatory politics. The radical character of Indigenous ontologies is not fully reflected in the concept of legal personality. Furthermore, the way in which rights are granted to the natural environment is an important part of the effect that such rights might have on Indigenous communities. Despite some affinities between rights of the environment and Indigenous philosophies, overstating the connection might constrain the radical political and legal implications of Indigenous thought.

中文翻译：

---

自然权利、法人资格和土著哲学

本文通过比较两个案例：2008 年厄瓜多尔宪法和 2014 年新西兰奥特阿罗亚的 Te Urewera 法案，研究自然法人资格与土著哲学之间的关系。通过这些案例研究，本文将土著关系的性质与自然权利的概念结合起来，认为这种关系主要是战略性的，而不是宗谱学的。文章涉及法律人格的概念，并表明它不是对土著概念的直接翻译，而是土著解放政治的潜在紧身衣。土著本体论的激进特征并没有充分体现在法律人格的概念上。此外，授予自然环境权利的方式是此类权利可能对土著社区产生影响的重要组成部分。尽管环境权与原住民哲学之间存在一些关联，但夸大这种联系可能会限制原住民思想的激进政治和法律影响。