Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:19:34.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paving the Way for Rights of Nature in Germany: Lessons Learnt from Legal Reform in New Zealand and Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2020

Laura Schimmöller
Laura Schimmöller*
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). Email: laura.schimmoller@student.kuleuven.be.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the concept of granting legal rights to nature as a strategy for more effective environmental protection in the era of the Anthropocene. Following decades of debate over the possibility and consequences of natural objects becoming legal rights holders, a number of countries have recently implemented rights of nature laws in their national legal systems. Comparing two of these examples – a constitutional amendment in Ecuador and recently transposed legislation in New Zealand – will help in understanding the potential for and challenges in the implementation of this concept. On the basis of the findings of this comparison the article further analyzes the possibility of legal reform in a European country, using Germany by way of example. This analysis demonstrates that the realization of rights of nature in Europe is faced with many obstacles as it contests institutional and legal frameworks that are deeply rooted in Western individual rights doctrines and neoliberal economic models. Nevertheless, the holistic approach of expanding the number of rights-bearing subjects beyond an anthropocentric framework can allow for more serious consideration of environmental interests, something that aligns with the German narrative of recognizing nature's intrinsic value in law and the need for effective environmental protection measures.

Keywords

Rights of natureAnthropoceneComparative environmental lawLegal personhoodAnthropocentrismIndigenous rights
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 569 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

I would like to thank Claudio Franzius and Till Markus for their feedback and encouragement, as well as Pananya Larbprasertporn, Marius Bonasera and the anonymous reviewers for TEL for their very helpful comments.

References

1 Cf. Barnosky, A. et al. , ‘Has the Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?’ (2011) 471(7336) Nature, pp. 51–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; cf. IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (IPCC, 2018), available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15.

2 Kauffman, C. & Martin, P., ‘Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail’ (2017) 92(3) World Development, pp. 130–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 132.

3 Stone, C., ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45(2) Southern California Law Review, pp. 450–501Google Scholar.

4 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, at 114, 135–6.

5 Stone, n. 3 above.

6 [1972] 405 U.S. 727.

7 Ibid.

8 Definition of ‘standing’, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edn (West Group, 1999).

9 Definition of ‘personality’, Dictionary of Law, 6th edn (Pearson, 2002).

10 Cf. Stone, n. 3 above, pp. 459–60; Whittemore, M.E., ‘The Problem of Enforcing Nature's Rights under Ecuador's Constitution: Why the 2008 Environmental Amendments Have No Bite’ (2011) 20 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, pp. 659–91Google Scholar, at 667.

11 Stone, n. 3 above, p. 456.

12 Ibid., p. 453.

13 Ibid., p. 451.

14 Emmenegger, S. & Tschentscher, A., ‘Taking Nature's Rights Seriously: The Long Way to Biocentrism in Environmental Law’ (1994) 6(3) Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 545–742Google Scholar, at 550, 568–72; see, e.g., United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution, ‘Harmony with Nature’ (22 Dec. 2015), UN Doc. A/RES/70/208.

15 An overview of rights of nature laws can be found at Harmony with Nature, ‘Rights of Nature Law and Policy’, available at: http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/rightsOfNature.

16 Crutzen, P.J. & Stroemer, E.F., ‘The Anthropocene’ (2000) 41 Global Change Newsletter, pp. 17–8Google Scholar.

17 Ibid.; Chakrabarty, D., ‘The Climate of History: Four Theses’ (2009) 35(2) Critical Inquiry, pp. 197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 206.

18 Kersten, J., ‘Das Anthropozän-Konzept’ (2014) 3 Rechtswissenschaft, pp. 378–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kotzé, L.J., ‘Rethinking Global Environmental Law and Governance in the Anthropocene’ (2014) 32(2) Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, pp. 121–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 123; Knauß, S., ‘Conceptualizing Human Stewardship in the Anthropocene: The Rights of Nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India’ (2018) 31(6) Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, pp. 703–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 706.

19 Burdon, P., ‘The Earth Community and Ecological Jurisprudence’ (2013) 3(5) Oñati Socio-Legal Series, pp. 815–37Google Scholar, at 823.

20 Grear, A., ‘Destructing Anthropos: A Critical Legal Reflection on “Anthropocentric” Law and Anthropocene “Humanity”’ (2015) 26(3) Law and Critique, pp. 225–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 230–41.

21 Berry, T., Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community (Sierra Club Books, 2006), pp. 20ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Gutmann, A., ‘Pachamama als Rechtssubjekt’ (2019) 11 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, pp. 611–8Google Scholar, at 616ff.

23 Emmenegger & Tschentscher, n. 14 above, pp. 575–6; Borràs, n. 4 above, pp. 115, 136.

24 Dyschkant, A., ‘Legal Personhood: How We Are Getting It Wrong’ (2015) 5 University of Illinois Law Review, pp. 2075–110Google Scholar, at 2076; Thomale, C., ‘Rechtsfähigkeit und juristische Person als Abstraktionsleistungen’, in Gröschner, R., Kirste, S. & Lembcke, O. (eds), Person und Rechtsperson (Mohr Siebeck, 2015), pp. 173–85Google Scholar, at 181.

25 Dyschkant, ibid., p. 2077.

26 Galvin, R., ‘What Rights for Animals? A Modest Proposal’ (1985) 2 Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 245–54Google Scholar, at 251–3.

27 Ibid., p. 246.

28 Gruber, M.C., Rechtsschutz für nichtmenschliches Leben: Der moralische Status des Lebendigen und seine Implementierung in Tierschutz, Naturschutz und Umweltrecht (Nomos, 2006), p. 174Google Scholar; Dillard, C., ‘Empathy with Animals: A Litmus Test for Legal Personhood?’ (2012) 19(1) Animal Law Review, pp. 1–21Google Scholar, at 11; Dyschkant, n. 24 above, p. 2077.

29 Cf. Knauß, n. 18 above, p. 710.

30 Ibid., p. 704.

31 Ley Marco de la Madre Tierra y Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien [Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well] 2012, No. 300.

32 The Supreme Court of Colombia granted legal rights to the Amazon region and to the Atrato River in Colombia Constitutional Court Ruling T-622 (2016) Expediente T-5.016.242.

33 Tamaqua Borough, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Ordinance No. 612 of 2006, s. 7.6; An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Establishing Sustainability Rights, Ordinance No. 2421.

34 Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 367; Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, MCC 139/2017.

35 Te Urewera Act 2014, Public Act No. 51.

36 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, Public Act No. 7.

37 Sanders, K., ‘“Beyond Human Ownership?” Property, Power and Legal Personality for Nature in Aotearoa’ (2018) 30(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 207–34Google Scholar, at 207ff.

38 National Parks Act 1980, Public Act No. 66, s. 4.

39 Ruru, J., ‘Reimagining Governance for “Yellowstone” Modelled National Parks in the New Era of Indigenous Legal Recognition’, in Elenius, L., Allard, C. & Sandström, C. (eds), Indigenous Rights in Modern Landscapes: Nordic Conservation Regimes in Global Context (Routledge, 2017), pp. 113–26Google Scholar, at 122.

40 Ibid., pp. 122–3.

41 Ibid.; Argyrou, A. & Hummels, H., ‘Legal Personality and Economic Livelihood of the Whanganui River: A Call for Community Entrepreneurship’ (2019) 44(6–7) Water International, pp. 752–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 752.

42 Re the Bed of the Whanganui River [1962] NZLR 600 (CA).

43 Te Urewera Act 2014, n. 35 above, s. 11(2); Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, n. 36 above, s. 20(1), (2).

44 As defined in the Resource Management Act 1991, Public Act No. 69, s. 2(1).

45 Ruru, J., ‘Tūhoe-Crown Settlement: Historical Background’ (2014) 9 Māori Law ReviewGoogle Scholar, available at: https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/10/tuhoe-crown-settlement-te-urewera-act-2014.

46 Te Urewera Act 2014, n. 35 above, s. 12.

47 Ibid., s. 11.

48 Ibid., s. 11(2), s. 16.

49 Ibid., s. 21.

50 Ibid., ss. 18, 87, 96ff; Kauffman, C. & Martin, P., ‘Constructing Rights of Nature Norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand’ (2018) 18(4) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 50.

51 Te Awa Tupua Act 2017, n. 36 above, s. 14.

52 Ibid., s. 3.

53 Ibid., s. 20(1), (2).

54 Ibid., s. 19, ss. 64–7.

55 Sanders, n. 37 above, p. 231.

56 Argyrou & Hummels, n. 41 above, pp. 757, 765.

57 Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 58.

58 Knauß, n. 18 above, p. 711; Ruru, J. & Morris, J., ‘Giving Voice to Rivers: Legal Personality as a Vehicle for Recognising Indigenous Peoples’ Relationships to Water?’ (2010) 14(2) Australian Indigenous Law Review, pp. 49–62Google Scholar, at 50.

59 Te Awa Tupua Act 2017, n. 36 above, s. 57(2).

60 Ibid., s. 16.

61 Ibid., s. 17; Resource Management Act 1991, n. 44 above, ss. 13, 14; Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 52.

62 Kauffman & Martin, ibid., p. 52.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Sanders, n. 37 above, p. 230.

66 Constitutión Politica de la República del Ecuador (Constitution of Ecuador), Arts 71, 72.

67 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 130.

68 Whittemore, n. 10 above, p. 660.

69 Cf. L. Greyl & G.U. Ojo, ‘Digging Deep Corporate Liability: Environmental Justice Strategies in the World of Oil’, EJOLT Report No. 9, 10 Oct. 2013, available at: http://www.ejolt.org/2013/10/digging-deep-corporate-liability-report.

70 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, at 416.

71 Borràs, n. 4 above, p. 136.

72 Constitution of Ecuador, preamble; Borràs, n. 4 above, p. 136; Zimmerer, K., ‘The Indigenous Andean Concept of “Kawsay”, the Politics of Knowledge and Development, and the Borderlands of Environmental Sustainability in Latin America’ (2012) 127(3) Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, pp. 600–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 603.

73 Gutmann, n. 22 above, pp. 613–4; Constitution of Ecuador, preamble.

74 Constitution of Ecuador, preamble.

75 Zimmerer, n. 72 above, p. 601.

76 Ibid., pp. 600–1.

77 Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 283.

78 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 130.

79 Walsh, C., ‘Development as Buen Vivir: Institutional Arrangements and (De)colonial Entanglements’ (2010) 53(1) Development, pp. 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 16; Gutmann, n. 22 above, p. 612.

80 Constitution of Ecuador, Arts 71, 72.

81 Ibid., Art. 73.

82 Ibid., Art. 399; Daly, E., ‘The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights of Nature’ (2012) 21(1) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, pp. 63–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 63.

83 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 133.

84 Código Orgánico Integral Penal 2014, Official Registry No. 180 (Organic Penal Code 2014), Ch. 4.

85 Código Orgánico General de Procesos 2015, Official Registry No. 506 (General Organic Code of Processes 2015), Arts 30, 38.

86 Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 425.

87 Borràs, n. 4 above, p. 136.

88 Kim, R.E. & Bosselmann, K., ‘International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene: Towards a Purposive System of Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (2013) 2(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 285–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 288.

89 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, pp. 425–6.

90 Corte Constitucional del Ecuador (2015), Sentencia No. 166-15-SEP-CC, Caso No. 0507-12-EP; Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 137.

91 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 137.

92 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 419.

93 Burdon, n. 19 above, p. 821.

94 Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 48.

95 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 427; Kischel, U., Rechtsvergleichung (C.H. Beck, 2015), p. 644Google Scholar.

96 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 426; Fitz-Henry, E., ‘Decolonizing Personhood’, in Maloney, M. & Burdon, P. (eds), Wild Law: In Practice (Routledge, 2014), pp. 133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 142.

97 Constitution of Ecuador, Arts 275, 276.

98 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 419.

99 Ibid., p. 427.

100 Ley de Minería [Mining Law] 2009, Official Registry No. 517, Art 25.

101 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 132.

102 Ibid., p. 133.

103 Organic Penal Code 2014, n. 84 above, Ch. 4.

104 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 131.

105 Ibid., p. 134.

106 Ibid., pp. 135–6.

107 Ibid., pp. 135–6.

108 Ibid., pp. 133ff.

109 Ibid., p. 137; Gutmann, n. 22 above, p. 617.

110 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 139.

111 Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 49.

112 Argyrou & Hummels, n. 41 above, pp. 753–4.

113 Ibid., p. 765; Ruru, J. et al. , ‘Reversing the Decline in New Zealand's Biodiversity: Empowering Māori within Reformed Conservation Law’ (2018) 13(2) Policy Quarterly, pp. 65–71Google Scholar, at 70.

114 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 402; cf. O'Gorman, R., ‘Environmental Constitutionalism: A Comparative Study’ (2017) 6(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 435–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Whittemore, n. 10 above, p. 660; Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 415.

116 Cho, H.S. & Pedersen, O., ‘Environmental Rights and Future Generations’, in Tushnet, M., Fleiner, T. & Saunders, C. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law (Routledge, 2013), pp. 401–12Google Scholar, at 404.

117 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 407.

118 Te Urewera Act 2014, n. 35 above, s. 11(1); Te Awa Tupua Act 2017, n. 36 above, s. 14(1).

119 Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 71.

120 Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 50.

121 Rühs, N. & Jones, A., ‘The Implementation of Earth Jurisprudence through Substantive Constitutional Rights of Nature’ (2016) 8(2) Sustainability, pp. 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 12.

122 General Organic Code of Processes 2015, n. 85 above, Art. 38.

123 Argyrou & Hummels, n. 41 above, p. 765; Sanders, n. 37 above, p. 231.

124 Kauffman & Martin, n. 2 above, p. 133.

125 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 433.

126 Huffman, J.L., ‘Do Species and Nature Have Rights?’ (1992) 13 Public Land and Resources Law Review, pp. 51–76Google Scholar, at 65; Ramsauer, U., ‘Eigenrechte der Natur: Verwaltungsrechtliche Überlegungen’, in Seidel, E. (ed.), Georg Winter: Pionier der umweltbewussten Unternehmensführung (Metropolis, 2011), pp. 445–59Google Scholar, at 446.

127 Ruru, n. 45 above.

128 Bunikowski, D., ‘Indigenous Peoples, Their Rights and Customary Laws in the North: The Case of the Sámi People’ (2014) 43(1) Nordia Geographical Publications, pp. 75–85Google Scholar, at 84; B. Mackey et al., ‘Introduction’, in P. Figgis et al. (eds), Valuing Nature: Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services (Australian Committee for IUCN Inc., 2015), pp. 4–5, at 4.

129 Grear, n. 20 above, pp. 233–4; Schröter, M.W. & Bosselmann, K., ‘Die Robbenklage im Lichte der Nachhaltigkeit’ (2018) 29 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, pp. 195–205Google Scholar, at 196.

130 Huffman, n. 126, p. 65.

131 Knauß, n. 18 above, p. 710.

132 Keukeleire, S. & Lecocq, S., ‘Operationalising the Decentring Agenda: Analysing European Foreign Policy in a Non-European and Post-Western World’ (2018) 53(2) Cooperation and Conflict, pp. 277–95Google Scholar, at 284; Gutmann, n. 22 above, p. 616.

133 Borràs, n. 4 above, p. 129; Grear, n. 20 above, pp. 225–6; Knauß, n. 18 above, p. 705.

134 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: https://www.cbd.int; Emmenegger & Tschentscher, n. 14 above, p. 568.

135 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, COM(2011) 244 final, 3 May 2011, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52011DC0244.

136 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora [1992] OJ L 206/7.

137 Schoukens, H., ‘Granting Legal Personhood to Nature in the European Union: Contemplating a Legal (R)evolution to Avoid an Ecological Collapse? (Part II)’ (2019) 16(1) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, pp. 65–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 67.

138 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT.

139 Ibid., Art. 3; Delreux, T. & Happaerts, S., Environmental Policy and Politics in the European Union (Red Globe Press, 2016), p. 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 ‘Amendment for the Rights of Nature in the Constitution of Sweden’, Naturens Rättigheter, 15 May 2019, available at: http://www.naturensrattigheter.se/2019/05/15/amendment-for-the-rights-of-nature-in-the-constitution-of-sweden.

141 The Green Party of England and Wales, ‘Responsibilities and Rights’, available at: https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/rr.html.

142 Scholz, R., ‘GG Art. 20a’, in Maunz, T. & Düring, G. (eds), Grundgesetz-Kommentar (C.H. Beck, 2018)Google Scholar, paras. 1–85, at para. 32.

143 Bundesnaturschutzgesetz [Federal Nature Protection Act], Art. 1, para. 1; Gruber, n. 28 above, pp. 21–2.

144 Ramsauer, n. 126 above, p. 451; Gärditz, K.F., ‘§ 42 II VwGO’, in Gärditz, K.F. (ed.), VwGO Kommentar, 2nd edn (Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2018)Google Scholar, paras 52–53.

145 Robbenklage, VG Hamburg, Judgment of 22 Sept. 1988, NVwZ 1988, 1058.

146 Heinz, K., ‘Eigenrechte der Natur: Lichtblick oder Irrlicht für einen Verstärkten Rechtlichen Schutz der Natur?’ (1990) 29(3) Der Staat, pp. 415–39Google Scholar, at 428; Schröter & Bosselmann, n. 129 above, p. 195.

147 Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung [Administrative Procedures Code], Art. 42(2).

148 Ibid., Art. 42(2); Gärditz, n. 144 above, para. 49.

149 Gärditz, n. 144 above, para. 56.

150 Bundesnaturschutzgesetz [Federal Nature Protection Act].

151 Kment, M., ‘Der Ewige Patient: die Umweltverbandsklage: Einblicke in eine Lange Krankenakte und Neue Therapieansätze’ (2013) 33(2) Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, pp. 41–7Google Scholar, at 41; Ramsauer, n. 126 above, p. 448.

152 Glinski, C. & Rott, P., ‘Private Enforcement of the Public Interest and the Europeanisation of Administrative Law: The Trianel Judgment of the ECJ’ (2011) 2(4) European Journal of Risk Regulation, pp. 607–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 608; M. Eliantonio et al., ‘Standing Up for Your Right(s) in Europe: A Comparative Study on Legal Standing (Locus Standi) before the EU and Member States’ Courts’, European Parliament Think Tank, 15 Aug. 2012, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/de/document.html?reference=IPOL-JURI_ET(2012)462478.

153 UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001 (Aarhus Convention), available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html, Art. 9; Directive 2003/35/EC providing for Public Participation in Establishing Plans and Programmes Relating to the Environment and amending Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC with respect to Public Participation and Access to Justice [2003] OJ L 156/17.

154 Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz [Environmental Remedies Act], Art. 3; Glinski & Rott, n. 152 above, p. 609; A. Schmidt, C. Schrader & M. Zschiesche, Die Verbandsklage im Umwelt- und Naturschutzrecht (C.H. Beck, 2014), p. 19.

155 Schmidt, Schrader & Zschiesche, ibid., p. 22; BVerfG, judgment of 5 Sept. 2013, NVwZ 2014, 64, paras 43–49.

156 Kment, n. 151 above, p. 43.

157 Ibid., p. 44.

158 Ramsauer, n. 126 above, pp. 455–6.

159 Fischer-Lescano, A., ‘Natur als Rechtsperson’ (2018) 29 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, pp. 205–17Google Scholar, at 206.

160 Heinz, n. 146 above, pp. 425–6; Ramsauer, n. 126 above, p. 457.

161 Ramsauer, n. 126 above, p. 457.

162 Scholz, n. 142 above, paras 32–33.

163 Heinz, n. 146 above, p. 426.

164 Grundgesetz [German Constitution], Art. 79(2).

165 J. Nasr, ‘Merkel Defends Climate Plan as Activists Block Berlin Square’, Reuters, 7 Oct. 2019, available at: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-germany-protests/merkel-defends-climate-plan-as-activists-block-berlin-squares-idUKKBN1WM0UV.

166 Gruber, n. 28 above, p. 187; Fischer-Lescano, n. 159 above, p. 211.

167 Fischer-Lescano, n. 159 above, pp. 211ff.

168 Ibid., p. 211.

169 Ramsauer, n. 126 above, pp. 453–4.

170 Kauffman & Martin, n. 50 above, p. 49.

171 Schröter & Bosselmann, n. 129 above, p. 201.

172 Gutmann, n. 22 above, p. 617.

173 Ramsauer, n. 126 above, p. 455.

174 Ibid., p. 453.

175 Ibid., p. 458.

176 Knauß, n. 18 above, p. 719.

177 IPCC, n. 1 above.

178 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 433.

179 Schröter & Bosselmann, n. 129 above, p. 201.

180 Fischer-Lescano, n. 159 above, p. 212.

181 Stone, n. 3 above.

182 Kotzé & Villavicencio Calzadilla, n. 70 above, p. 430.

183 Ibid.; Stone, n. 3 above; Knauß, n. 18 above; Gutmann. n. 22 above; Fischer-Lescano, n. 159 above; Borràs, n. 4 above.