• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15551 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15551 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • DICE Éditions
  • ›
  • Confluence des droits
  • ›
  • Des droits fondamentaux pour le système ...
  • ›
  • Partie 2. Panorama des droits de la natu...
  • ›
  • Chapitre 1. Expériences
  • ›
  • Rights of Nature in South Asia
  • DICE Éditions
  • DICE Éditions
    DICE Éditions
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral I. Rights of nature in India II. River rights in Bangladesh III. Rights of nature in Pakistan IV. Insights from South Asia Conclusion Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Rights of Nature in South Asia

    Ishrat Jahan et Erin O’Donnell

    p. 107-119

    Texte intégral I. Rights of nature in India II. River rights in Bangladesh III. Rights of nature in Pakistan IV. Insights from South Asia A. Dependence on the courts B. An Activist Judiciary? C. Complicated Relationships with Rivers Conclusion Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    “Rivers and Lakes have [an] intrinsic right not to be polluted . . . The rivers are not just water bodies. These are scientifically and biologically living.”3

    1In 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand in India ruled twice, in less than a month, that two of the rivers of Uttarakhand (the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers) and all of nature, including the Gangiotri and Yamunotri glaciers, are “juristic/legal persons/living entities” with all “the status of a legal person”.4 In doing so, India joined the rapidly growing list of countries that recognised the rights of nature, including Ecuador (since 2008), Bolivia (since 2010), Colombia (since 2016), and Aotearoa New Zealand (since 2017, mere days before the first Uttarakhand judgement).

    2Although the Ganga and Yamuna case has been stayed pending appeal by the Supreme Court,5 leaving the legal status of the rivers in limbo, the Glaciers ruling, which extends the rights of nature to all nature in Uttarakhand, remains in force. Since then, other court rulings across South Asia have also recognised the rights of nature/natural entities (Table 1). In addition to several other Indian court rulings, in 2019, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh recognised that all rivers in Bangladesh are legal persons/living entities. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that nature is not merely a legal object, but is rather the holder of legal rights.

    3South Asia has thus emerged as a major contributor to the transnational environmental movement to recognise the rights of nature.6 In this paper, we provide an overview of the key decisions in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan (see Table 1), and identify some insights from the South Asian jurisprudence. In particular, we can observe three trends that are relevant for the global conversation on rights of nature: (1) the role of government and the courts; (2) whether these cases can (or should) be considered as “activism” by the judiciary; and (3) the implications of rights of nature for human relationships with rivers and other natural landscape features.

    Table 1 – Rights of nature cases in South Asia

    JurisdictionCaseNatural entityLegal status
    Bangladesh

    Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Government of Bangladesh and others [2016] 

    HCD (Writ Petition No. 13989 of 2016, judgement declared on 3 February 2019) 

    All the rivers of Bangladesh Legal person/living entity. 
    IndiaMohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand & others [2014] WPPIL 126 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017 Ganga and Yamuna Rivers Juristic/legal persons/living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person.  
    Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 140/2015 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017 All of nature in the state of Uttarakhand, including the Gangiotri and Yamunotri glaciers Legal entity/legal person/juristic person/juridical person/moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. 
    Court on its own motion v. Chandigarh Administration, CWP No. 18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions (Punjab and Haryan High Court) (Unreported) Sukhna Lake (an artificial lake) Living entity/legal person with the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. 
    A Periyakaruppan v The Principal Secretary & Anr, (2022) 175 FLR (Sum 23) 12, Madras High CourtMother Nature 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. 
    PakistanDG Khan Cement Company v Government of Punjab (2021) C.P.1290-L/2019 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, Appellate Jurisdiction) Environmental objects Environmental objects are considered to be holders of legal rights, but this is not formally recognised. 

    I. Rights of nature in India

    “The very existence of the rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air and glaciers is at stake due to global warming, climate change and pollution.”7

    4In March 2017, the Indian High Court of Uttarakhand released two ground-breaking judgements, recognising first the Ganga and Yamuna rivers and then all of nature as legal persons. Coming so close after the passage of the legislation in Aotearoa New Zealand that recognised the Whanganui River as a legal person, these decisions resulted in global interest.8 In the Ganga and Yamuna case, the Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers, as well as all their tributaries “juristic/legal persons/living entities having the status of a legal person”.9 In the Glaciers case, the Court held that:

    “the Glaciers including Gangotri and Yamunotri, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests wetlands, grasslands, springs and waterfalls, legal entity/legal person/juristic person/juridical person/moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person.”10

    5In each case, the lawsuit was brought by a citizen, seeking to challenge the ways in which the rivers (and all of nature) were (or were not) being protected by the government. At the national level, the Indian government has a constitutional duty to protect the environment (Article 48A of the Constitution of India), which the citizens felt was not being upheld by the state government of Uttarakhand. The Uttarakhand High Court, rather than solely relying on the constitutional argument, invoked parens patriae, the duty to intervene on behalf of someone in need of protection. Although this duty is not typically exercised by the courts, in these cases, the court felt compelled to act, for several reasons. In the Ganga and Yamuna case, the court used the “sacred” status of the rivers as motivation for intervening,11 and in the Glaciers case, it was the magnitude of the harm posed by pollution and climate change that compelled the court to act.12

    6These two Uttarakhand cases developed a line of legal reasoning that has continued to be applied by other Indian State High Courts (Table 1). In particular, the construction of the legal rights is remarkably inclusive, as it includes not only concepts relating to the legal person (i.e. juristic person, legal person, juridical person, artificial person), but also constructions of personhood that are usually limited to human persons: living person and moral person. As a result, rights of nature in India are not only a statement of the ability to bear rights and duties in law,13 but also appear to potentially include rights, protections and duties that attach to human beings. One of the immediate outcomes of this wide definition of legal/living personhood relates to the Yamuna River. Shortly after the court decision, activist Brij Khandelwal filed a police report stating that the Yamuna River had been murdered. Khandelwal explained that “scientifically speaking, the Yamuna is ecologically dead”, and that because the court had recognised the Yamuna as a living person, if it was now dead, then someone must have killed it.14

    7On the one hand, this is a powerful example of legal creativity, and demonstrates the wide-ranging capacity of rights of nature jurisprudence to alter legal relations between humans and nature. On the other hand, conflating rivers with humans rapidly gets rather messy in terms of legal rights, powers, and obligations. In both the Uttarakhand cases, the court also constructed the rivers (and all of nature) as legal minors, with their guardians acting in loco parentis (standing in the shoes of parents). In combination with the indication that rivers have similar rights as human beings, this potentially increases the liability of the guardians (in the way that parents would be legally responsible for damages caused by a child in their care) and infantilizes the rivers as legal minors who rely on their guardians to act on their behalf.15

    8In both cases, the court nominated specific guardians, including the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand and other government officials. This appears as an effort by the court to prompt government action, as the court in both cases ruled that the guardians were “bound to uphold the status . . . and to promote the health and well-being [of the natural entity]”.16 However, it’s not clear what actions this requires, and in particular, whether this requires any actions in addition to the existing obligations of the state government of Uttarakhand to protect the environment. Recent rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador have indicated that recognising the rights of nature may impose additional duties above those already contained in environmental protection legislation,17 so it will be interesting to see whether the Indian courts adopt this line of reasoning in future cases.

    9In the Ganga and Yamuna case, the state government was extremely unwilling to take on additional responsibilities for the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers, and almost immediately appealed the decision.18 The state has indicated that there are at least two reasons for their reluctance.19 Firstly, the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers extend well outside the jurisdiction of the state government of Uttarakhand. These rivers flow across India and into Bangladesh, making it impossible for one state government in the upper reaches of the rivers to be responsible for their health and well-being in entirety. The court did not specify that only the portions of the rivers within Uttarakhand would be legal/living persons,20 thus creating a jurisdictional problem for this case that did not apply to the Glaciers case (which was limited to nature inside Uttarakhand).

    10Secondly, the state government also indicated that they were concerned about future liability for the actions of the river, including flood damages or people dying in the river.21 Given the rivers’ status as legal minors, and the guardians’ role to act in loco parentis, this case has created uncertainty regarding the liability of guardians.22 The Supreme Court has stayed the original ruling, but has not yet produced a final ruling on the appeal.

    11Since 2017, there have been several other Indian cases in which the courts have recognised natural entities as legal and living persons (Table 1). In 2020, the state High Court of Punjab and Haryana declared that the Sukhna Lake was a

    “legal entity/legal person/juristic person/juridicial person/moral person/artificial person for its survival, preservation and conservation having distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person.”23

    12This case was in response to the actions of a local resident, who was concerned about the declining water levels in Sukhna Lake, a reservoir in Chandrigarh in the foothills of the Himalayas. The lake was not a natural lake, and was created by damming the Sukhna Choe. Again, the court exercised their parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the legal status of the lake. In this case, rather than nominating government officials, the court empowered all citizens of Chandrigarh to be the “human face” of the lake, and “save Sukhna Lake from extinction”. The court then directed the state government to demolish encroaching structures in the lake catchment, and to declare the lake a protected wetland.

    13In 2022, the Madras State High Court declared “Mother Nature’ as a

    “legal entity / legal person / juristic person / juridical 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.”24

    14This case was initially brought by a former local government employee who had been forcefully retired on the basis that he had failed to act appropriately as a custodian of government land (including forest land). The court, while modifying his original punishment, upheld the original ruling, but also chose to articulate principles that should guide government action in relation to government land. In recognising “Mother Nature” as a legal and living person, the court also nominated two state government officials to act as guardians of Mother Nature, and directed the state government to “protect the ‘Mother Nature’ and take appropriate steps to protect Mother Nature in all possible ways.”25 

    15Despite the uncertainty created by the pending Supreme Court appeal of the Ganga and Yamuna case, the state High Courts across India are continuing to recognise nature as a legal and living person. The direct use of both the parens patriae jurisdiction and the specific inclusive terminology regarding the legal rights being recognised show a cohesive approach to this jurisprudence. The courts are also acting in response to particular and urgent threats to the health of nature, and seeking out opportunities to articulate the rights of nature even when these are somewhat tangential to the matter being adjudicated.

    II. River rights in Bangladesh

    16In 2019, the High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh delivered a landmark verdict recognizing the legal personhood of all rivers of Bangladesh in the Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Government of Bangladesh and Others26 case (hereinafter Turag River case). This case was originated by Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, a Bangladeshi Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), which instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the HCD to save the Turag River of Bangladesh from pollution and encroachment.27 The HCD ordered the state authorities (respondents) to show cause as to why directions should not be issued to them to stop pollution and invasion and to remove all constructions from the Turag River.

    17In its verdict, the HCD discussed the importance of the rivers in Bangladesh, highlighting the influence of rivers on Bengali literature, the historic role of rivers in the liberation war of Bangladesh and the reliance of the people of Bangladesh on rivers for their livelihood over centuries. The HCD affirmed that the rivers of Bangladesh are public trust properties according to the provisions of Articles 18A and 21 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. According to the public trust doctrine, the public is the owner of the natural resources, and the State is the trustee of those resources for the public. Article 18A of the constitution states that: “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to preserve and safeguard the natural resources, bio-diversity, wetlands, forests and wildlife for the present and future citizens.” This signifies natural resources including rivers in Bangladesh are public properties. As per Article 21, every person in the public service must serve the people. This denotes that the protection of public property (in this case, the rivers) is an obligation for everyone in the public service.

    18In response to the poor condition of the rivers of Bangladesh, and realizing the need for an alternative measure to protect the rivers (because existing legal mechanisms were manifestly failing), the HCD conferred legal personhood not just on the Turag, but on all rivers in Bangladesh. In its reasoning, the court mentioned the rights of nature norms being developed globally, and cited the Atrato River in Colombia, the Whanganui River in New Zealand, and the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers in India as examples that supported granting legal personhood status to the rivers of Bangladesh.

    19The HCD noted that the very survival of Bangladesh is subject to the survival of the rivers. The HCD wished:

    “for the rivers to flow uninterruptedly, for the rivers to see their varied pictures with recurring ebb and flow tides; for the boatmen to sing Bhatiyali song [traditional navigational song] in the rivers with their hearts’ content; for the busting boys of Bangla to go on the rampage in the rivers with their hearts’ content; for the fishermen burst into laughing . . . for the boatmen to sleep carelessly with the murmuring sound of the rivers; and for the Bangla people to explore the silver beauty of Bangla by roaming in the rivers with a sailing boat.”28

    20The HCD declared the National River Conservation Commission (NRCC), which was established by the National River Conservation Commission Act 2013, as the legal guardian of the rivers of Bangladesh, with responsibility for the protection, conservation and development of the rivers. The HCD also ordered other concerned government organisations to assist the NRCC in the protection of the rivers.

    21The HCD further ruled that the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle” would be part of the environmental law of Bangladesh and applied by the state authorities for the protection and conservation of the rivers. Furthermore, the HCD provided 17 directions to government organizations including treating river grabbing (encroachment) as a crime, publishing the names of wrongdoers, removing illegal constructions from rivers, amending the existing laws to punish criminals responsible for river pollution and grabbing, debarring polluters and river grabbers to contest any local or national elections, and educating children about the significance of water bodies to raise public awareness concerning the importance of and the rights of the rivers. These directives created significant and wide-reaching consequences for future acts that harm the rivers.

    22The Turag River case demonstrates the challenges of incorporating rights of nature jurisprudence into environmental law. The rivers are simultaneously public trust property, as well as the holders of rights in their own capacity. The Bangladesh constitution does not explicitly recognize the rights of nature, and in fact there are limits to the justiciability of constitutional protections of the environment. In this case, the court overcame those limits by reading other, judicially enforceable constitutional rights, together with the constitutional requirements to protect the environment.29 What emerges very strongly from this judgement is a court confronted by the need for urgent action to protect the rivers of Bangladesh and an awareness that the existing legal tools were inadequate. In addressing this need, the court exerted significant legal creativity, and was also clearly inspired by international examples of rights of nature.

    23This case was also immediately appealed, particularly in relation to the 17 directives issued by the court, which imposed significant consequences on river grabbers. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh upheld the legal personhood status of rivers, but they did modify some directions of the HCD.30 In particular, the appeal decision found that the Supreme Court does not have the power to direct the legislature to pass new legislation, so the directive that required the government to equip the NRCC with the powers it needs to be an effective river guardian is now to be interpreted as merely the opinion of the court, and not legally binding. The Appellate Division also ruled that “the Government shall not under any circumstances lease or sale any land within the boundary of river Turag including foreshore areas, or for that matter, any other river of Bangladesh to protect the biodiversity, ecological balance and environment of Bangladesh.”31

    24As a consequence, all rivers in Bangladesh now have the status of legal persons, and the NRCC acts as their legal guardian to protect their interests. It’s also worth noting that this ruling only extends to the rivers of Bangladesh: other natural entities like forests and hills in Bangladesh still do not have the status of legal persons/legal entities.

    III. Rights of nature in Pakistan

    25In Pakistan, on April 15, 2021, in the D.G. Khan Cement Company Vs Government of Punjab case,32 the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the need to protect the rights of nature itself. The case was initiated by D.G. Khan Cement Company, who challenged a notification issued by the provincial government of Punjab, which prohibited the construction of new cement plants, and enhancement of existing plants, in ecologically fragile areas termed as “Negative Areas”. The applicant claimed that this notification violated his right to freedom of trade, business and profession guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decision of the provincial government of Punjab concerning the issuing of the notification, ruling that the concerned notification was a “climate resilient measure” and consistent with the Constitution of Pakistan and the National Climate Change Policy.33

    26The court also stated that “the environment needs to be protected in its own right. There is more to protecting nature than a human-centered rights regime.”34 The court emphasised the need to shift from an anthropocentric approach to nature’s right-based approach, and indicated the deep bond of humans with nature, stating: “[w]e must restore and repair and care for the planetary home that will take care of our offspring. For our children, and our children’s children, and all those yet to come, we must love our rivers and mountains and reconnect with the long and life-giving cycles of nature.”35

    27Citing Professor Christopher Stone’s influential article,36 the court highlighted that the co-existence of humans and nature requires the law to treat natural objects as legal rights holders.37 However, the court did not formally recognise the rights of nature or legal personhood of nature or any natural entities, unlike the Indian and Bangladeshi courts.

    28Nevertheless, although the Pakistani court has not formally conferred full legal personhood on nature or natural entities in this judgment, this case demonstrates an important shift in the court’s thinking, and has opened the door to personifying nature/natural entities in Pakistan in future.  

    IV. Insights from South Asia

    A. Dependence on the courts

    29Unlike other parts of the world, where constitutional reform and legislation have also been mechanisms for the creation of rights of nature, in South Asia all examples so far have come from the courts. This can deliver relatively rapid outcomes: rights of nature can be created by a single court decision, whereas other processes of legal reform can take multiple years to achieve. For example, it was known that the Whanganui River would likely receive legal personhood as early as 2012, but this process was not complete until five years later, when the legislation was passed in 2017.

    30However, precisely because court decisions can be relatively rapid, there is a corresponding weakness: court decisions are not integrated into existing regulatory frameworks and institutions for environmental protection and management. In the case of the Turag River case, this resulted in the NRCC being appointed as a guardian, but without the required legal powers to take action on behalf of the rivers.38 Although the HCD directed the government to enact new laws, the Appellate Division declared in the appeal that the court has no authority to direct the government to pass new law, and therefore, modified that direction of the HCD as an opinion of the court.39

    31Court decisions also leave governments with the task of responding to the creation of legal personhood, rather than helping to shape the process. In the case of the Ganga and Yamuna case, this resulted in the state government guardians refusing to take up the role the court gave them, and instead, seeking to appeal the decision.

    32The courts are clearly observing both a catastrophic risk of environmental devastation, as well as the failure of existing legal mechanisms to protect the environment. In the context of climate change, as well as the mounting development and pollution pressures on the environment across South Asia, it is crucial for governments not to abdicate their responsibilities in this space.

    B. An Activist Judiciary?

    “Courts are duty bound to protect the environmental ecology.”40

    33In both India and Bangladesh, the courts considered the conferment of legal personhood on rivers as a radical but necessary step to guarantee their protection. The courts articulate both the magnitude of the problems threatening rivers, and the failure of the existing legal frameworks to protect them. In doing so, judiciaries of India and Bangladesh have advocated for the protection and conservation of the environment, and demonstrated their willingness to exercise legal creativity to achieve their outcomes.

    34In Bangladesh, exercising its writ jurisdiction, the HCD41 directed government authorities to protect the environment, particularly rivers in various judgments.42 The court has also taken sou motu actions, which are initiated by the court either entirely on its own motion, on the basis of news reports, or in response to letters addressed to it by anybody.43 River management has become challenging in Bangladesh, and the higher court has shown a growing willingness to make specific recommendations for government action to improve the conditions of Bangladesh’s rivers.44 The Turag River case is considered an example of judicial activism in Bangladesh for the protection of natural entities.45

    35Justice Ashraful Kamal of the High Court Division (HCD), who was the author judge of the Turag River case, discussed informally in a seminar that:

    “[i]t breaks my heart to see the deterioration of the condition of the rivers with which I had such fond memories. The Turag River judgment gave me the opportunity to redress some of the wrongs done to these rivers. While we cannot regain the past, but it is imperative that we save the planet from further destruction.”46

    36It seems that the deep connection of the Justice Kamal with the rivers, as someone who can see the reality of pollution and river grabbing, influenced the exercise of the court’s discretion and the outcome of the case to some extent. The concern of the court for river protection over the years triggered the recognition of rivers as legal persons in Bangladesh.

    37Similarly, in India, state High Court judges are also recognizing that the potential devastation facing the environment. In the Ganga and Yamuna case, the court commented on the central status of the rivers to Hindus,who represent “half the Indian population”, as a result of their sacred status.47 In the Glaciers case, the court acknowledged that the “very existence” of nature in Uttarakhand is at risk from “global warming, climate change and pollution.”48

    38In law, we are taught to be wary of judicial activism, and that it represents the insertion of self by the judge, instead of the exercise of their objective judgement. However, there is a consistent (although not universal) theme for these South Asian judgements, which is the urgent need for environmental protection in the face of the existential threats of climate change, development, and pollution. Indeed, it is possible to see the recognition of rights of nature in South Asia as a form of climate litigation.

    39In this context, then, what does advocacy really look like? Is the acknowledgement of the dire threats facing rivers in Bangladesh evidence of activism, or merely recognition of evidence-based reality? The South Asian rights of nature jurisprudence asks us to reconsider what judicial “activism” means, and whether we might expect more of the same from judges in a climate change world.49

    C. Complicated Relationships with Rivers

    “It is the fundamental duty of all the citizens to preserve and conserve the nature in its pristine glory.”50

    40The South Asian jurisprudence comments strongly on the importance of nature (and particularly rivers) to the history, culture, religion, and physical well-being of the people of this region. The courts, in acknowledging this importance, use it to identify a need to act, as well as the basis for a reciprocal obligation on governments to better protect nature.

    41In India, this discourse features strongly in the Ganga and Yamuna case, which recognised the rivers as “sacred and revered . . . central to the existence of half the Indian population”.51 During a period of rising Hindu nationalist sentiment, this was perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase by the courts, and prompted immediate pushback from Kothari et al., who commented:

    “Another issue is the Indian court’s equation of the Ganges with Hinduism. Hindus do venerate this river, but communities of other religions have lived along it for centuries. In an atmosphere of increasing religious divisiveness in India, these court orders must not be hijacked by forces of intolerance.”52

    42Others have noted that the description of the rivers as “sacred” is also not universal. Writing about the Brahmaputra, Baruah characterises their relationship to this great river as “anything but sacred.”53 These immense rivers play an enormous role in Indian life (with positive and negative impacts), but they do so in many guises, and cannot be constrained to the apparent simplicity of “sacred”.

    43In Bangladesh, rivers are associated with the very identity of the country as a delta country. Bangladesh is known as the “land of rivers”.54 In the Turag River case, the court considered that ruining rivers is tantamount to the destruction of present and future generations of Bangladesh. To paraphrase Justice Kamal’s observation in the Turag River case, if rivers survive, Bangladesh will survive. The livelihood and wellbeing of people depend on the rivers. For the existence of people, the rights of rivers need to be respected and protected. However, in Bangladesh, the river protection actions now involve the power to remove structures along riverbanks. There is fear that poor communities who live along riverbanks could be targeted.55 Similarly, in India, farming communities depend on water from the Ganga River for irrigation, and as a part of hydropower projects, river flows are diverted to supply essential power to rapidly developing sectors including industry. The Ganga River as a legal person could seek, through its guardians, to limit or curtain these activities on the basis that they are harmful for river health and well-being as well as for people who rely on the river.

    44In addition to their contribution to social life and well-being, rivers can also cause catastrophic damage. Every year, many people are forced to migrate within Bangladesh because of river flooding and riverbank erosion. According to the Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services, riverbank erosion directly affects approximately one million people every year in Bangladesh.56 Like Bangladesh, river flooding and erosion also cause huge damage to people in India.57 In this context, the appointment of the legal guardians by the Indian court as “in loco parentis” (in the place of a parent) creates a situation where there may be increased likelihood of liability of the guardians for the actions of the river, and this concern shaped the state government’s appeal of the Ganga and Yamuna case. Ultimately, whether the legal guardians of rivers in Bangladesh and India hold any responsibilities to ensure resettlement of those affected people or to compensate them is a question still to be answered.

    Conclusion

    45Rights of nature jurisprudence in South Asia is developing rapidly. There is evidence of consistent application of legal reasoning, compelling arguments supporting the creation of legal personhood for nature, and growing clarity in terms of how the courts are constructing nature as a rights holder in law. There is much to learn from this jurisprudence, and we hope that the legal creativity and experimentation in South Asia will be given serious consideration as other jurisdictions continue to engage with the transnational movement of recognizing nature’s rights.

    46However, there are also significant questions still to be answered. The continued absence of government in this space is growing harder to justify, and India, Bangladesh and Pakistan would all benefit from the regulatory clarity provided by new legislation. There is real uncertainty about the potential liabilities of nature, and the fact that this has been used by the state government of Uttarakhand (India) to appeal a ruling indicates that this argument is being seriously considered by governments. But there is no clarity on what that liability would involve, and on what basis a river could be considered liable for actions that are not choices, but simply fundamental to its nature as a river.

    47We expect to see more rights of nature cases in South Asia in coming years, and we very much hope to see greater engagement from state and national governments.

    Notes de bas de page

    3Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 140/2015 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017 64 [http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/uhc/RS/judgement/31-03-2017/RS30032017WPPIL1402015.pdf] (accessed 31 May 2017) (hereinafter, the Glaciers case), 61.

    4Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 126/2014 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017, [http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/uhc/RS/orders/22-03-2017/RS20032017WPPIL1262014.pdf] accessed 31 May (hereinafter, the Ganga and Yamuna case) [19].

    5State of Uttarakhand & others v Mohd Salim & others, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 016879/2017 (Supreme Court of India) 7 July 2017.

    6E. Macpherson et al., “Where Ordinary Laws Fall Short: ‘Riverine Rights’ and Constitutionalism” (2021) 30(3) Griffith Law Review 438; E. O’Donnell, “At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India” (2018) 30(1) Journal of Environmental Law 135; C. Agnew QC and I. Jahan, “A Critical Analysis of the Development of the Concept of Giving Rivers a Personality: Does It in Fact Help to Protect Rivers?” 27(3) Journal of Water Law 77; P. Srivastav, “Legal Personality of Ganga and Ecocentrism: A Critical Review” (2019) 4(1) Cambridge Law Review 151.

    7Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    8E. O’Donnell and J. Talbot-Jones, “Three Rivers Are Now Legally People – but That’s Just the Start of Looking after Them” [2017] The Conversation [https://theconversation.com/three-rivers-are-now-legally-people-but-thats-just-the-start-of-looking-after-them-74983] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    9Ganges and Yamuna case (n 4), [19].

    10Glaciers case (n 3), 64.

    11Ganges and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    12Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    13See definition of legal personhood developed by Naffine; Ngaire Naffine, Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person (Hart Publishing, 2009).

    14Khandelwal cited in M. Safi, “Murder Most Foul: Polluted Indian River Reported Dead despite ‘living Entity’ Status” [2017] The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/07/indian-yamuna-river-living-entity-ganges] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    15C. Lokgariwar, “The Sad State of These Persons Called Ganga & Yamuna – Can State Protect Them?” (11 April 2017) [https://sandrp.in/2017/04/11/the-sad-state-of-these-persons-called-ganga-yamuna-can-state-protect-them/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    16Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4) [19]; Glaciers case (n 3), 65.

    17C. Kauffman and P. Martin, “How Ecuador’s Constitutional Court Is Giving Form and Force to Rights of Nature Norms” (2023) Transnational Environmental Law, 12(2), 366-395.

    18State of Uttarakhand & others v Mohd Salim & others (n 5).

    19E. O’Donnell, “At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India” (2018) 30(1) Journal of Environmental Law 135, 141-143.

    20Even if it did, is it actually possible to classify a natural entity such as a river, with its own clear geographical boundaries, as a living person, and then curtail that living person to the portion of the river constrained by an artificial state boundary?

    21K. Upadhyay, “Uttarakhand Doesn’t Want Living Person Status for Ganga, Yamuna”, The Indian Express (21 June 2017) [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/uttarakhand-doesnt-want-living-personstatus-for-ganga-yamuna-4723578/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    22J. Talbot-Jones and E. O’Donnell, “To Sue or Not to Sue (and Whom): That Is the Question Confronting India’s Glaciers”, Global Water Forum (online, 2021) [https://www.globalwaterforum.org/2021/06/28/to-sue-or-not-to-sue-and-whom-that-is-the-question-confronting-indias-glaciers/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    23Court on its own motion v. Chandigarh Administration, CWP No. 18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions (P&H H.C) (Unreported).

    24A Periyakaruppan v The Principal Secretary & Anr, (2022) 175 FLR (Sum 23) 12, Madras High Court, [23].

    25Ibid.

    26Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Government of Bangladesh and others [2019] High Court Division WP No. 13989/2016.

    27Encroachment, or “river grabbing” is the development of floodplains and riverbanks so that they become inaccessible to the river, and the river channel is narrowed.

    28Translation from Bangla as per Mohammad Sohidul Islam and Erin O’Donnell, “Legal Rights for the Turag: Rivers as Living Entities in Bangladesh” (2020) 23(2) Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 160.

    29Islam and O’Donnell (n 28).

    30Nishat Jute Mills Limited v Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) and others [2020] Appellate Division Civil Petition No. 3039 of 2019.

    31Ibid. 14.

    32DG Khan Cement Company Vs Government of Punjab [2021] Supreme Court of Pakistan C.P.1290-L/2019.

    33Ibid. 15.

    34Ibid. 12.

    35Ibid. 16.

    36Chr. D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (1972) 45(2) Southern California Law Review 450.

    37D.G. Khan Cement Company Vs Government of Punjab (n 32) 13.

    38Islam and O’Donnell (n 28).

    39Nishat Jute Mills Limited v Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) and Others (n 30) 37.

    40Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    41The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh exercises writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh; see Constitution of the People‌‌’s Republic of Bangladesh [http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24659.html] (accessed 22 June 2023).

    42Islam and O’Donnell (n 28) 172–173.

    43R. Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011)152.

    44Islam and O’Donnell (n 28) 174.

    45I. Jahan, “The Turag River Case: Declaring the Rivers in Bangladesh as Legal Persons” (2021) 27(1) Journal of Water Law 35.

    46“Protecting Rights of Rivers: Turning Intention into Action”, The Daily Star (online, 20 December 2020) [https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/protecting-rights-rivers-turning-intention-action-1998201].

    47Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    48Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    49See, for example, the work of Justice Brian Preston, writing non-judicially: Brian Preston, “Climate Conscious Lawyering” (2021) 95(1) Australian Law Journal 51.

    50Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    51Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    52A. Kothari, M. Margil and S. Bajpai, “Now Rivers Have the Same Legal Status as People, We Must Uphold Their Rights” (2017) The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/apr/21/rivers-legal-human-rights-ganges-whanganui] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    53M. Baruah, ““Namami Brahmaputra”: Worshipping a river, ignoring its materialities” (27 April 2017) [https://entitleblogdotorg3.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/namami-brahmaputra-worshipping-a-river-ignoring-its-materialities/].

    54See for example, “Beautiful Bangladesh: Land of Rivers” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIo3lkALDlg] (accessed 23 June 2023).

    55R. Chandran, “Fears of Evictions as Bangladesh Gives Rivers Legal Rights”, Reuters (4 July 2019) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-landrights-rivers-idUSKCN1TZ1ZR] (accessed 5 June 2023).

    56Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) [https://www.cegisbd.com/EventData?Evntid=56].

    57R. Das and G. Samanta, “Impact of Floods and River-Bank Erosion on the Riverine People in Manikchak Block of Malda District, West Bengal” [2022] Environment, Development and Sustainability [https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-022-02648-1].

    Auteurs

    • Ishrat Jahan

      Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia

    • Erin O’Donnell

      Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    La fabrication du droit de l’Union européenne dans le contexte du « Mieux légiférer »

    La fabrication du droit de l’Union européenne dans le contexte du « Mieux légiférer »

    Nathalie Rubio (dir.)

    2018

    Rethinking Flow Beyond Control

    Rethinking Flow Beyond Control

    An Outreach Legal Essay

    Jean-Sylvestre Bergé

    2021

    Circulations de normes et réseaux d’acteurs dans la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement

    Circulations de normes et réseaux d’acteurs dans la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement

    Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (dir.)

    2017

    Solidarité et droit de l’Union européenne : un principe à l’épreuve

    Solidarité et droit de l’Union européenne : un principe à l’épreuve

    Estelle Brosset, Rostane Mehdi et Nathalie Rubio (dir.)

    2021

    Quel droit pour l’adaptation des territoires aux changements climatiques ?

    Quel droit pour l’adaptation des territoires aux changements climatiques ?

    L’expérience de l’île de La Réunion

    Anne-Sophie Tabau (dir.)

    2018

    Le contrôle de constitutionnalité des décisions de justice : une nouvelle étape après la QPC ?

    Le contrôle de constitutionnalité des décisions de justice : une nouvelle étape après la QPC ?

    Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stefanini et Caterina Severino (dir.)

    2017

    La démocratie connectée : ambitions, enjeux, réalité

    La démocratie connectée : ambitions, enjeux, réalité

    Michaël Bardin, Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stefanini, Priscilla Jensel-Monge et al. (dir.)

    2018

    Les Organisations internationales et la résolution des conflits post‑bipolaires en Afrique

    Les Organisations internationales et la résolution des conflits post‑bipolaires en Afrique

    Thierry Bidouzo

    2019

    Systèmes de contrôle de constitutionnalité par voie incidente et protection des personnes en situation de vulnérabilité

    Systèmes de contrôle de constitutionnalité par voie incidente et protection des personnes en situation de vulnérabilité

    Approche de droit comparé

    Caterina Severino et Hubert Alcaraz (dir.)

    2021

    Le droit international de la reconnaissance, un instrument de décolonisation et de refondation du droit international ?

    Le droit international de la reconnaissance, un instrument de décolonisation et de refondation du droit international ?

    Albane Geslin et Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet (dir.)

    2019

    La consultation en droit public interne

    La consultation en droit public interne

    Fleur Dargent

    2020

    Procès et environnement : quelles actions en justice pour l’environnement ?

    Procès et environnement : quelles actions en justice pour l’environnement ?

    Mathilde Hautereau-Boutonnet et Ève Truilhé (dir.)

    2020

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    La fabrication du droit de l’Union européenne dans le contexte du « Mieux légiférer »

    La fabrication du droit de l’Union européenne dans le contexte du « Mieux légiférer »

    Nathalie Rubio (dir.)

    2018

    Rethinking Flow Beyond Control

    Rethinking Flow Beyond Control

    An Outreach Legal Essay

    Jean-Sylvestre Bergé

    2021

    Circulations de normes et réseaux d’acteurs dans la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement

    Circulations de normes et réseaux d’acteurs dans la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement

    Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (dir.)

    2017

    Solidarité et droit de l’Union européenne : un principe à l’épreuve

    Solidarité et droit de l’Union européenne : un principe à l’épreuve

    Estelle Brosset, Rostane Mehdi et Nathalie Rubio (dir.)

    2021

    Quel droit pour l’adaptation des territoires aux changements climatiques ?

    Quel droit pour l’adaptation des territoires aux changements climatiques ?

    L’expérience de l’île de La Réunion

    Anne-Sophie Tabau (dir.)

    2018

    Le contrôle de constitutionnalité des décisions de justice : une nouvelle étape après la QPC ?

    Le contrôle de constitutionnalité des décisions de justice : une nouvelle étape après la QPC ?

    Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stefanini et Caterina Severino (dir.)

    2017

    La démocratie connectée : ambitions, enjeux, réalité

    La démocratie connectée : ambitions, enjeux, réalité

    Michaël Bardin, Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stefanini, Priscilla Jensel-Monge et al. (dir.)

    2018

    Les Organisations internationales et la résolution des conflits post‑bipolaires en Afrique

    Les Organisations internationales et la résolution des conflits post‑bipolaires en Afrique

    Thierry Bidouzo

    2019

    Systèmes de contrôle de constitutionnalité par voie incidente et protection des personnes en situation de vulnérabilité

    Systèmes de contrôle de constitutionnalité par voie incidente et protection des personnes en situation de vulnérabilité

    Approche de droit comparé

    Caterina Severino et Hubert Alcaraz (dir.)

    2021

    Le droit international de la reconnaissance, un instrument de décolonisation et de refondation du droit international ?

    Le droit international de la reconnaissance, un instrument de décolonisation et de refondation du droit international ?

    Albane Geslin et Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet (dir.)

    2019

    La consultation en droit public interne

    La consultation en droit public interne

    Fleur Dargent

    2020

    Procès et environnement : quelles actions en justice pour l’environnement ?

    Procès et environnement : quelles actions en justice pour l’environnement ?

    Mathilde Hautereau-Boutonnet et Ève Truilhé (dir.)

    2020

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    3Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 140/2015 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017 64 [http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/uhc/RS/judgement/31-03-2017/RS30032017WPPIL1402015.pdf] (accessed 31 May 2017) (hereinafter, the Glaciers case), 61.

    4Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 126/2014 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017, [http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/uhc/RS/orders/22-03-2017/RS20032017WPPIL1262014.pdf] accessed 31 May (hereinafter, the Ganga and Yamuna case) [19].

    5State of Uttarakhand & others v Mohd Salim & others, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 016879/2017 (Supreme Court of India) 7 July 2017.

    6E. Macpherson et al., “Where Ordinary Laws Fall Short: ‘Riverine Rights’ and Constitutionalism” (2021) 30(3) Griffith Law Review 438; E. O’Donnell, “At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India” (2018) 30(1) Journal of Environmental Law 135; C. Agnew QC and I. Jahan, “A Critical Analysis of the Development of the Concept of Giving Rivers a Personality: Does It in Fact Help to Protect Rivers?” 27(3) Journal of Water Law 77; P. Srivastav, “Legal Personality of Ganga and Ecocentrism: A Critical Review” (2019) 4(1) Cambridge Law Review 151.

    7Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    8E. O’Donnell and J. Talbot-Jones, “Three Rivers Are Now Legally People – but That’s Just the Start of Looking after Them” [2017] The Conversation [https://theconversation.com/three-rivers-are-now-legally-people-but-thats-just-the-start-of-looking-after-them-74983] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    9Ganges and Yamuna case (n 4), [19].

    10Glaciers case (n 3), 64.

    11Ganges and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    12Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    13See definition of legal personhood developed by Naffine; Ngaire Naffine, Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person (Hart Publishing, 2009).

    14Khandelwal cited in M. Safi, “Murder Most Foul: Polluted Indian River Reported Dead despite ‘living Entity’ Status” [2017] The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/07/indian-yamuna-river-living-entity-ganges] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    15C. Lokgariwar, “The Sad State of These Persons Called Ganga & Yamuna – Can State Protect Them?” (11 April 2017) [https://sandrp.in/2017/04/11/the-sad-state-of-these-persons-called-ganga-yamuna-can-state-protect-them/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    16Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4) [19]; Glaciers case (n 3), 65.

    17C. Kauffman and P. Martin, “How Ecuador’s Constitutional Court Is Giving Form and Force to Rights of Nature Norms” (2023) Transnational Environmental Law, 12(2), 366-395.

    18State of Uttarakhand & others v Mohd Salim & others (n 5).

    19E. O’Donnell, “At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India” (2018) 30(1) Journal of Environmental Law 135, 141-143.

    20Even if it did, is it actually possible to classify a natural entity such as a river, with its own clear geographical boundaries, as a living person, and then curtail that living person to the portion of the river constrained by an artificial state boundary?

    21K. Upadhyay, “Uttarakhand Doesn’t Want Living Person Status for Ganga, Yamuna”, The Indian Express (21 June 2017) [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/uttarakhand-doesnt-want-living-personstatus-for-ganga-yamuna-4723578/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    22J. Talbot-Jones and E. O’Donnell, “To Sue or Not to Sue (and Whom): That Is the Question Confronting India’s Glaciers”, Global Water Forum (online, 2021) [https://www.globalwaterforum.org/2021/06/28/to-sue-or-not-to-sue-and-whom-that-is-the-question-confronting-indias-glaciers/] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    23Court on its own motion v. Chandigarh Administration, CWP No. 18253 of 2009 & other connected petitions (P&H H.C) (Unreported).

    24A Periyakaruppan v The Principal Secretary & Anr, (2022) 175 FLR (Sum 23) 12, Madras High Court, [23].

    25Ibid.

    26Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Government of Bangladesh and others [2019] High Court Division WP No. 13989/2016.

    27Encroachment, or “river grabbing” is the development of floodplains and riverbanks so that they become inaccessible to the river, and the river channel is narrowed.

    28Translation from Bangla as per Mohammad Sohidul Islam and Erin O’Donnell, “Legal Rights for the Turag: Rivers as Living Entities in Bangladesh” (2020) 23(2) Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 160.

    29Islam and O’Donnell (n 28).

    30Nishat Jute Mills Limited v Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) and others [2020] Appellate Division Civil Petition No. 3039 of 2019.

    31Ibid. 14.

    32DG Khan Cement Company Vs Government of Punjab [2021] Supreme Court of Pakistan C.P.1290-L/2019.

    33Ibid. 15.

    34Ibid. 12.

    35Ibid. 16.

    36Chr. D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (1972) 45(2) Southern California Law Review 450.

    37D.G. Khan Cement Company Vs Government of Punjab (n 32) 13.

    38Islam and O’Donnell (n 28).

    39Nishat Jute Mills Limited v Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) and Others (n 30) 37.

    40Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    41The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh exercises writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh; see Constitution of the People‌‌’s Republic of Bangladesh [http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24659.html] (accessed 22 June 2023).

    42Islam and O’Donnell (n 28) 172–173.

    43R. Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011)152.

    44Islam and O’Donnell (n 28) 174.

    45I. Jahan, “The Turag River Case: Declaring the Rivers in Bangladesh as Legal Persons” (2021) 27(1) Journal of Water Law 35.

    46“Protecting Rights of Rivers: Turning Intention into Action”, The Daily Star (online, 20 December 2020) [https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/protecting-rights-rivers-turning-intention-action-1998201].

    47Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    48Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    49See, for example, the work of Justice Brian Preston, writing non-judicially: Brian Preston, “Climate Conscious Lawyering” (2021) 95(1) Australian Law Journal 51.

    50Glaciers case (n 3), 42.

    51Ganga and Yamuna case (n 4), [11, 17].

    52A. Kothari, M. Margil and S. Bajpai, “Now Rivers Have the Same Legal Status as People, We Must Uphold Their Rights” (2017) The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/apr/21/rivers-legal-human-rights-ganges-whanganui] (accessed 21 June 2023).

    53M. Baruah, ““Namami Brahmaputra”: Worshipping a river, ignoring its materialities” (27 April 2017) [https://entitleblogdotorg3.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/namami-brahmaputra-worshipping-a-river-ignoring-its-materialities/].

    54See for example, “Beautiful Bangladesh: Land of Rivers” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIo3lkALDlg] (accessed 23 June 2023).

    55R. Chandran, “Fears of Evictions as Bangladesh Gives Rivers Legal Rights”, Reuters (4 July 2019) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-landrights-rivers-idUSKCN1TZ1ZR] (accessed 5 June 2023).

    56Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) [https://www.cegisbd.com/EventData?Evntid=56].

    57R. Das and G. Samanta, “Impact of Floods and River-Bank Erosion on the Riverine People in Manikchak Block of Malda District, West Bengal” [2022] Environment, Development and Sustainability [https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-022-02648-1].

    Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre

    X Facebook Email

    Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre

    Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Jahan, I., & O’Donnell, E. (2025). Rights of Nature in South Asia. In L. Gay & O. Le Bot (éds.), Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre (1‑). DICE Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/1444u
    Jahan, Ishrat, et Erin O’Donnell. « Rights of Nature in South Asia ». In Des Droits Fondamentaux Pour Le système Terre, édité par Laurence Gay et Olivier Le Bot. Aix-en-Provence: DICE Éditions, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/1444u.
    Jahan, Ishrat, et Erin O’Donnell. « Rights of Nature in South Asia ». Des Droits Fondamentaux Pour Le système Terre, édité par Laurence Gay et Olivier Le Bot, DICE Éditions, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/1444u.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Gay, L., & Le Bot, O. (éds.). (2025). Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre (1‑). DICE Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/14463
    Gay, Laurence, et Olivier Le Bot, éd. Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre. Aix-en-Provence: DICE Éditions, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/14463.
    Gay, Laurence, et Olivier Le Bot, éditeurs. Des droits fondamentaux pour le système Terre. DICE Éditions, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/14463.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    DICE Éditions

    DICE Éditions

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://dice.univ-amu.fr/fr

    Adresse :

    Espace René Cassin

    3, avenue Robert Schuman

    13628

    Aix-en-Provence

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement