Since the struggle for human rights started, there has been a very controversial issue on whether the environment has its own right. The basis of this argument arises from the fact that the society has been enlightened on the existence of various inanimate right holders. Such bodies include municipalities, corporations, ships, and trusts among others. In order to recognise the right of nature, this means that the inanimate objects must have the same rights of existence as the human beings. Or else, everything on the surface of the earth will have the same right with each other similar to human beings. Presently, natural objects have no legal rights and no stand to sue for any damage caused to it. Even in the courts of law, the fate of the natural object is ignored per see in any legal suit that involves injury to the environment. Therefore, it is good to say, the nature has a legal right and can institute a legal action if any injury is caused on it.
In order to enable the nature to seek redress on its own behalf and manage their own affairs and the courts to recognise the nature on its own, the natural objects have to be accorded their legal rights. In this way, such authorities like the Environments Defence Fund can institute the land rights in the name of the land, and one way of doing this is to prevent unwarranted strip mining activities. Any injury to the environment is perceived as a violation of the rights and can simply be rectified though the guidance of the law. The court can calculate the damage made to a natural object and the consequences brought about to the environment. Therefore, the government is responsible as a party and should bear the liability of making either a person or a natural object in its healthiest state.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
The other reason that makes the authorities and government to recognise the rights of existence of natural objects is due to the realisation of fundamental needs in the non-human world. Both plants and animals including the human beings require air, water and nutrition in order to reproduce, grow and survive. With such basis the Right activists advocate for establishment of an empathy and identity of human morals evolution that that will conceivably result in extension of non-human rights in the world. The internal dynamics of every form of assault in world domination is an ever widening realisation of identify and reciprocity. The human race have to realise their relationship with the nonhuman objects, and if this discovery is emphasised to others in the planet, then global authorities have to undertake some psychic investment to separate humankind with their specialness. Despite this task becoming a bit difficult, it is also desirable in enabling the world to convince the world to respect the rights of their non-human counterparts, it is more desirable and enables the humans to free themselves of the need for supportive illusion.
Therefore, extending the legal rights to natural objects enables us to reaffirm several facts: the first fact is that the oppressors are among the first set of people to be freed when the yorks are lifted, and the other one is that freedom can best be realised when there is high fidelity to obligations. Thus, by recognising the legal rights that have long been denied to nature, we can not only develop the human capacity for empathy and understanding but also the ability to be free from the illusion that the dominant members of a single species are the centre of the universe.