Skip to main navigation Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

A human’s Liberty to Protect Wild Animals: Challenging Nature Rights Dogmas and Renewing of European Environmental Legal Culture

Julien Bétaille

elni Review 2024, Vol. 24, pp. 21 - 23. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2024.004

In October 2024, the Conseil d'Etat, France's supreme administrative court, ruled that the State's decision to allow the hunting of the rock ptarmigan, a species protected by the European directive on the conservation of wild birds, constituted a violation of the human right to the environment. This is breaking new ground. This directly contradicts the dogma of nature rights advocates, according to which the personification of nature is the only possible way to protect the intrinsic value of nature, environmental law being vitiated by its pseudo anthropocentric character.

Access full article

References

  1. Bétaille J. (2019), Rights of Nature: why it might not save the entire world?, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, no 16, 2019, p. 35. DOI: doi-org.gorgone.univ_toulouse.fr/10.1163/18760104-01601004.
  2. Bétaille J. (2022), Climate litigation in France, a reflection of trends in environmental litigation, Environmental Law Network International Review, Vol. 22, 2022, p. 63. DOI: doi.org/10.46850/elni.2022.11.
  3. Blattner C. E. (2024). European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how. 2024 Apr 23. Nature;628: 691. DOI: doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01177- 3.
  4. Boyd D. R. (2017), The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World, ECW Press. Carducci M. et al. (2019), Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature, report for the European Economic and Social Committee. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  5. Coyle S. and Morrow K. (2004), The Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Law, Hart Publishing.
  6. De Lucia V. (2017), Beyond anthropocentrism and ecocentrism: a biopolitical reading of environmental law, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, Vol. 8 No. 2. DOI: doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2017.02.01.
  7. Donald P. F. et al. (2007), International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe, Science. 810, vol. 317. DOI: doi.org/10.1126/science.1146002.
  8. Ekardt F. (2021), Climate Revolution with Weaknesses, VerfBlog. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  9. Eskander S. and Fankhauser S. (2020), Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation, Nature Climate Change, 2020, 10 (8), 750–756. DOI: doi.org/10.1038/s41558- 020-0831-z.
  10. Faure M. G. (2012), Effectiveness of Environmental Law: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?, 36 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 293. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  11. Gaillet A. and Grimm D., La décision Climat de Karlsruhe, Actualité juridique Droit administratif, 2022, p. 166.
  12. Glicksman R. L. and Earnhart D. (2007), The Comparative Effectiveness of Government Interventions on Environmental Performance in the Chemical Industry, 26 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 317. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  13. Goldmann M.(2021), Judges for Future, VerfBlog. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  14. Kotzé L. J. and French D. (2018), The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards an Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene. Global Journal of Comparative Law, 7(1), p. 5. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211906X-00701002.
  15. Peeters M. (2016), Urgenda Foundation and 886 Individuals v. The State of the Netherlands: The Dilemma of More Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action by EU Member States. RECIEL, 25: 123-129. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/reel.12146.
  16. Ricciardi A. and MacIsaac H. J. (2022), Vector control reduces the rate of species invasion in the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem, Conservation Letters, e12866. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/conl.12866.
  17. Saiger A.-J. (2021), The Constitution Speaks in the Future Tense, VerfBlog. Accessible here (13.12.2024).
  18. Sanderson F. J. et al. (2015), Assessing the Performance of EU Nature Legislation in Protecting Target Bird Species in an Era of Climate Change, Conservation Letters, 1, 0(0). DOI: doi.org/10.1111/conl.12196.
  19. Villavicencio Calzadilla P. (2019), ‘A Paradigm Shift in Courts' View on Nature: The Atrato River and Amazon Basin Cases in Colombia’, 15/1 Law, Environment and Development Journal, p. 49. DOI: doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00033081.
  20. Wewerinke-Singh M. and McCoach A. The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: Distilling best practice and lessons learnt for future rightsbased climate litigation. RECIEL, 2021: 30: 275– 283. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/reel.12388.