130
advocating for ecological citizenship and ecological conversion of both individuals
and communities (Francis 2015).
Giving ecological limits paramount importance and treating humans as part of
nature are key features of ecological law (Garver 2013), but ecological law also
must include elements of justice related to protection of local communities of life,
including the people embedded in them. Ensuring interhuman, interspecies and
intergenerational fairness is a baseline in ecological law from which further notions
of ecological justice derive (Garver 2013; Sbert 2019). Yet, ecological law also
embraces the kind of flexibility and diversity associated with ecological resilience
(Gunderson and Holling 2002), and therefore a plurality of ways by which to ensure
justice within and across bioregional communities of life is most appropriate.
Locally crafted systems of fairness and justice can be found in the examples of sustainable governance of common pool resources that Ostrom and others have
described (Ostrom 1990; Agrawal 2001). The strength of these models is that the
systems of fairness and justice involved emerged from within the communities and
have withstood the test of time.
The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) contains elements of the kind of ecological justice that must be part of
ecological law. For example, it guarantees indigenous peoples rights to selfdetermination and self-governance. As well, it requires free, prior and informed
consent of indigenous peoples before they may be removed from their lands, before
laws affecting them are adopted or implemented, and before projects affecting their
lands are approved. These requirements go beyond the duties of governments to
consult meaningfully with indigenous peoples with regard to decisions affecting
them, but not to obtain their consent, as in Canada (Chippewas of the Thames First
Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2017). However, ecological law would go further
than UNDRIP in requiring justice to extend the logic of UNDRIP more clearly to
future generations and to other species, for example by prohibiting all human activities that make possible catastrophic global heating that imperils future generations
of all life.
Attachment to place should also be enhanced and protected in ecological law
through incorporation of principles of relational justice. Under ecological law, the
“othering” and instrumentalization of nature and non-human life reflected in contemporary law, for example by framing nature primarily as a provider of ecosystem
services to humans, would give way to recognition of the intrinsic value of all elements of ecosystems and notions of intersubjectivity between all members of the
Earth’s life communities (Michelot and Aseeva 2017). Any notion of ecosystem
services to humans would have to be paired with an equivalent notion of human
services to ecosystems (Garver 2019), akin to the concept of ecological solidarity
integrating
“(1) territorial solidarity; (2) social solidarity; [and] (3) interconnexion between
humans and nature” (Michelot and Aseeva 2017).
Although ecological law must include these justice principles to reflect mutuality
and reciprocity within Earth’s life communities, it must also allow for human life to
flourish within those communities. Ecological law cannot preclude all human
G. Garver
advocating for ecological citizenship and ecological conversion of both individuals
and communities (Francis 2015).
Giving ecological limits paramount importance and treating humans as part of
nature are key features of ecological law (Garver 2013), but ecological law also
must include elements of justice related to protection of local communities of life,
including the people embedded in them. Ensuring interhuman, interspecies and
intergenerational fairness is a baseline in ecological law from which further notions
of ecological justice derive (Garver 2013; Sbert 2019). Yet, ecological law also
embraces the kind of flexibility and diversity associated with ecological resilience
(Gunderson and Holling 2002), and therefore a plurality of ways by which to ensure
justice within and across bioregional communities of life is most appropriate.
Locally crafted systems of fairness and justice can be found in the examples of sustainable governance of common pool resources that Ostrom and others have
described (Ostrom 1990; Agrawal 2001). The strength of these models is that the
systems of fairness and justice involved emerged from within the communities and
have withstood the test of time.
The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) contains elements of the kind of ecological justice that must be part of
ecological law. For example, it guarantees indigenous peoples rights to selfdetermination and self-governance. As well, it requires free, prior and informed
consent of indigenous peoples before they may be removed from their lands, before
laws affecting them are adopted or implemented, and before projects affecting their
lands are approved. These requirements go beyond the duties of governments to
consult meaningfully with indigenous peoples with regard to decisions affecting
them, but not to obtain their consent, as in Canada (Chippewas of the Thames First
Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2017). However, ecological law would go further
than UNDRIP in requiring justice to extend the logic of UNDRIP more clearly to
future generations and to other species, for example by prohibiting all human activities that make possible catastrophic global heating that imperils future generations
of all life.
Attachment to place should also be enhanced and protected in ecological law
through incorporation of principles of relational justice. Under ecological law, the
“othering” and instrumentalization of nature and non-human life reflected in contemporary law, for example by framing nature primarily as a provider of ecosystem
services to humans, would give way to recognition of the intrinsic value of all elements of ecosystems and notions of intersubjectivity between all members of the
Earth’s life communities (Michelot and Aseeva 2017). Any notion of ecosystem
services to humans would have to be paired with an equivalent notion of human
services to ecosystems (Garver 2019), akin to the concept of ecological solidarity
integrating
“(1) territorial solidarity; (2) social solidarity; [and] (3) interconnexion between
humans and nature” (Michelot and Aseeva 2017).
Although ecological law must include these justice principles to reflect mutuality
and reciprocity within Earth’s life communities, it must also allow for human life to
flourish within those communities. Ecological law cannot preclude all human
G. Garver