All the Earth’s legal children. Some sceptical comments about Nature’s legal personhood

This essay aims to provide an introductory account of Earth Jurisprudence as a legal theory and to examine its claims regarding rights of nature. First, two versions of Earth Jurisprudence qua legal theory are identified: a stronger and a moderate version, respectively. Then, the theory’s claims regarding the rights of nature are examined from the perspective of the general theory of rights. The idea of ascribing legal rights to Nature tout court is rejected, while it is acknowledged that sentient animals could be considered persons in law. Finally, the author suggests that instead of rejecting anthropocentrism, as Earth Jurisprudence proposes, the preservation of nature requires that more emphasis is put on human obligations in this respect.