Quantitative data for the paper The Puzzling Persistence of Nature’s Rights can be found in the file below. This dataset includes 119 proposed or enacted rights of Nature laws. The data is current to October 2023.
Laws, resolutions, and declarations (proposed or enacted) (“RON Laws”) were included in the database where they (1) purport to expressly recognize the rights of “Nature”, “natural systems” (or similar), or where they confer rights on specified nonhuman features or phenomena; or (2) where the recognize the legal personhood of “Nature”, “natural systems” (or similar), or that of specified nonhuman features or phenomena. Data was collected from three sources: (1) United States RON laws identified in the EcoJurisprudence Monitor database and tagged with “rights of Nature” or “personhood”, but only after reviewing the text of the primary source to ensure it met the working definition of RON laws; (2) cases identified in interviews with interview participants; and (3) cases identified in the secondary literature.
Variables were coded as follows:
| Binding: RON Laws that purported to generate legal rights or obligations, or affect concrete legal relations, were coded as “binding”. This included the ability to bring enforcement actions, or formal obligations on local government bodies to follow certain procedures or perform certain functions. Other RON Laws were coded as “nonbinding”. This included legal instruments without binding legal force (such as resolutions or declarations), as well as resolutions with made factual findings as to Nature’s rights, but had no enforcement mechanism or which generated no formal obligations. Cases were coded as “common law litigation” where they relied on no positive law other than rights claimed in litigation. |
Status: Laws were coded according to whether (1) they were in force; and (2) whether they had been challenged. This produced the following codes: (1) In force – unchallenged (no challenge and remaining in force); (2) invalidated (challenge has taken place successfully); (3) proposed (not yet in force); (4) rejected (proposed and rejected by voters or local government bodies); (5) screened (enacted or formally proposed as a ballot measure, but ruled invalid by a screening body such as a state-level electoral commission); (6) withdrawn (enacted but later withdrawn). Cases coded “common law litigation” for the purposes of bindingness were coded the same for the “status” variable.
| Litigation_defensive: this concerns litigation over the validity of the RON Law – i.e., challenges from non-RON advocates. Cases were coded either (1) Yes – concluded; (2) Yes – pending; or (3) No. Litigation_enforcement: this concerns litigation attempting to enforce Nature’s rights. Coded either (1) Yes – concluded; (2) Yes – pending; or (3) No. |
Year_enacted: For RON Laws successfully enacted, this variable records the year of enactment.
Year_proposed: for RON Laws which were not successfully enacted, this variable records the year in which they were proposed.
Partner: If known, this variable records the lead national-level partner involved in the drafting or enactment of the RON Law. This includes (1) CELDF; (2) CDER; (3) ELC (Earth Law Center), or (4) MR (Movement Rights).
Sam Bookman 