Stewart Motha: "Nature has all too often been treated as a source of resources and inert backdrop"

Bild

In your research you dismantle the traditional separation between legal norms and nature – how could this approach contribute to a more effective legal response to the ecological crises we face today, particularly within the context of international climate measures?
 ‘Nature’ has all too often been treated as a source of ‘resources’ and inert backdrop to human actions and affairs. This has meant that the law is usually only concerned with human flourishing, and only indirectly on how the ‘environment’ impacts on human well-being. Legal norms have evolved with this separation of what the ancient Greeks called nomos/physis – law/nature. With greater attention to human impacts on climate and biodiversity, there has been a push to undo this sense of human-centred thinking. 

In law this has taken the form of non-human animals, trees, rivers, seas and other ‘natural’ phenomena seeking the ability to come to courts in their own names. Although initially viewed as a radical shift, now there are many examples of legal personality being extended in this way. In the international legal arena, it is still the case that it is sovereign formations (states); as well as human communities and peoples that have standing in legal disputes. What it means for nature to be received in court differently is still a work in progress. There are many examples of indigenous knowledge systems where this strong separation human-norms and ‘nature’ is not present; indeed, a deeper form of entanglement is the norm.

What are the greatest challenges in translating legal practice into concrete measures for climate and environmental protection, and how might these challenges be overcome through international cooperative mechanisms?
The persistence of the ‘nation-state’ as the primary actor in international relations is a major limitation. The nation-state is viewed as the primary agent of action. There are examples of inter-governmental organisations, such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group which was very active in the recent ICJ process where the UN General Assembly sought an Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. The singular interests of states are then superseded by attention to a region and its multiple peoples and cultures. Another major issue is the structure of the ‘private’ corporation. These major actors – larger and more impactful than many states – are much more difficult to tackle through international mechanism.

With the new legal examples concerning states' accountability for climate impact, how do you view the possibility of recognising ecocide as an international crime, and what implications might this have for the actions of both states and corporations?
I don’t anticipate that ecocide will be formally recognized as an international crime in the near future. This will stake the cooperation and consensus if many states (and their corporate clients) who have too much to lose with such a measure. However, ecocide has become a powerful discursive tool – it deepens peoples’ understanding of what is at stake with ecological destruction. That is likely to help. Additionally, other multilateral bodies and nation-states may amend their laws to recognize ecocide as a crime. The new Environmental Crime Directive 2024 requires member states of the EU to adopt strong measures to address environmental crimes. This is likely to lead to higher standards, and definition and enforcement measures. This may provide a model that can be used in other jurisdictions.

Academics and scholars have a responsibility to not only convey existing knowledge and practices within disciplines, but to create new ways of seeing old problems; and helping people to comprehend and adjust to novel challenges.

What is the role of academia?
Academics and scholars have a responsibility to not only convey existing knowledge and practices within disciplines, but to create new ways of seeing old problems; and helping people to comprehend and adjust to novel challenges. This involves drawing material and knowledge from across disciplines; and breaking down barriers that make legal practitioners ‘blinkered’, narrow, and mere functionaries, like cogs in a machine. I read, write, and teach material from across many disciplines. I also value knowledge that is created across many cultures and communities. Academics can also engage wider publics.