Features
Rights of Nature vis-à-vis Human Rights to Nature:Earth Jurisprudence and Eco-centric Property Law (Wild Law)
by Professor Emeritus Nimal Gunatilleke,
University of Peradeniya
Jurisprudence, as a layman like myself would understand, refers to the knowledge of the law – the norms and rules that govern our lives. In legal parlance, it is defined as the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that guide the judiciary to make the decisions it does.
Earth Jurisprudence
Earth Jurisprudence is an emerging branch of legal philosophy that critiques law from an Earth-centred perspective and proposes new approaches to law, economics, and governance. It perceives human beings only as a part of the wider Earth Community and was developed as a response to the present environmental crisis. Earth Jurisprudence has drawn its knowledge base from different disciplines of studies, like basic sciences, earth science, and Common Law jurisprudence.
In a sense, Earth Jurisprudence represents an all-embracing ecological theory of law. It was first proposed in 2001 by the cultural historian and poet Thomas Berry, who is considered the ‘father of Earth Jurisprudence’. He held the view that ‘we must understand that our own well-being can be achieved only through the well-being of the entire natural world around us’. Thomas Berry proposed that society’s laws should derive from the laws of nature (Great Laws), explaining that ‘the universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects to be owned and used or misused’.
The rationale of Earth Jurisprudence is rooted in the philosophy of “Deep Ecology” in which all living beings have a moral and ethical claim, regardless of their utility value to humanity. For most of human history, human societies across our planet have seen life from an Earth-centred, rather than a human-centred, perspective. This is evident among indigenous and traditional communities who continue to derive their ethics, customary laws, and governance systems from the laws of Mother Earth or Natural Laws.
It is becoming patently clear that the prevailing human laws should be consistent with, and therefore, need to be realigned with the laws of Mother Earth if we are to live in harmony on our home planet well within its planetary boundaries. The starting point is the recognition that the laws of the Earth are primary. They govern life on the planet and human laws should be derived from these.
This is clear for Indigenous peoples whose languages, customary laws, and governance systems are rooted in the understanding that nature regulates the order of living processes in which humans are inextricably embedded. Thus, to maintain health and well-being for people and the planet, humans need to comply with the dynamics of nature. For indigenous peoples, the relationship between land and species is regarded as sacred and involves reciprocity.
Many of the world’s religious and spiritual traditions offer insights consistent with a nature’s rights worldview. Eastern religious and philosophical traditions embrace a holistic conception of spirituality that includes the Earth. It was Arahath Mahinda, the son of the Emperor of India, over two thousand years ago, who said to King Devanampiya Tissa, at Mihintale, “O’ great king, the beasts that roam the forest and birds that fly the skies have the same right to this land as you. The land belongs to the people and to all other living things, and you are not its owner but only its guardian.”
Earth Jurisprudence calls on us to recognize that Nature is and should be, the source of human laws, ethics, and how we govern ourselves. Earth Jurisprudence calls for us to transform the currently held human-centred (anthropocentric) perspectives to Earth-centred (eco-centric) perceptions of our place on Earth and how we should conduct our lives.
Earth Jurisprudence has been increasingly recognized and promoted worldwide by legal scholars, the United Nations, lawmakers, philosophers, ecological economists, and other experts as a foundation for Earth-centred governance, including laws and economic systems that protect the fundamental rights of nature. Therefore, the primary purpose of legal and governance systems must be to ensure that people protect and contribute to the integrity, health, and well-being of the entire Earth Community. Earth Jurisprudence can be described as a crucial alternative concept of law and governance for sustainability.
Rights of Nature
A novel approach to environmental protection has emerged in the law, known as the ‘Rights of Nature’ (RoN). The rights of nature, or Earth rights, is a legal and jurisprudential theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, akin to the concept of fundamental human rights. The rights of nature concept challenges that the 20th-century laws are generally grounded in a flawed frame of nature as a ‘resource’ to be owned, exploited, and degraded.
In this currently dominant legal approach world over, only human beings and some of their artificial creations, including corporations, are ‘legal persons’ with rights, while other organisms and nature are objects to be owned or consumed.
In contrast, the RoN crusade considers all beings, organic and inorganic—including organisms, species, ecosystems, land, air, water, and Earth itself—to be members of a planetary community. These beings are in relationships of interdependence with one another. They all have rights, and responsibilities, in their own ways. RoN laws recog nize a variety of non-human entities as holders of rights, from animals to rivers to ecosystems to the entire planet. Different species or parts of nature, all will have different rights, i.e. rivers have river rights, birds have bird rights, and humans have human rights.
Rights of Nature proponents argue that nature is a legal subject possessing inherent rights-based laws grounded in the rights of nature that direct humanity to act appropriately and, in a way, consistent with modern, system-based science, which demonstrates that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected. The Rights of Nature ideology takes the view that human beings need to stop treating nature as objects or property and accordingly change their perception of nature.
This school of thought is underpinned by two basic lines of reasoning. First, since the recognition of human rights is based in part on the philosophical belief that those rights emanate from humanity’s own existence, logically, so too do inherent rights of the natural world arise from the natural world’s own existence. A second and more pragmatic argument asserts that the survival of humans depends on healthy ecosystems, and so protection of nature’s rights, in turn, advances human rights and well-being.
From a rights of nature perspective, most environmental laws of the 20th century are based on an outmoded framework that considers nature to be composed of separate and independent parts, rather than components of a larger whole. The increasing importance of this new way of thinking, situated at the intersection of environmental law and ethics, is directly influenced by growing concerns about the climate and biodiversity crises that we experience today.
For example, the Gaia hypothesis, named after the ancient Greek goddess of Earth, posits that Earth and its biological systems behave as a huge single entity/organism. This entity has closely controlled self-regulatory negative feedback loops that keep the conditions on the planet within boundaries that are favorable to life. Therefore, the Rights of Nature recognizes that non-human elements should be treated as legal entities with the right to exist, thrive, regenerate, and evolve.
Like human rights, the Rights of Nature are inherent, inalienable rights that arise from the mere existence of the rights holder. This means that every being or aspect of nature (including people) must, at a minimum, have the right to exist, the right to occupy space, and the right to interact with other beings in a manner that allows them to fulfill their unique role in ecological and evolutionary processes.
Humans have co-evolved in relationship with other beings, and this community of life is the fountain of our well-being. Therefore, the primary purpose of legal and governance systems must be to ensure that people protect and contribute to the integrity, health, and well-being of the entire Earth Community.
This implies transforming nature from a legal object into a legal subject, possessing its own inherent rights, regardless of its use for humanity. It would then be an ecocentric paradigm shift in our legal system. This ecocentric discourse shows striking similarities with human rights law. The Rights of Nature is one legal tool, among others, through which this paradigm shift can be realized.
Recent recognition of the Rights of Nature within Western legal systems is an important stepping stone towards an ecocentric orientation. Until now, the legal approach towards nature has been too ‘anthropocentric’ and heavily focused on neoliberal sustainable development concepts. It means that nature is perceived from a human perspective and as an object of law (e.g., as property or a source of raw materials). At present, Nature is seen as something that has resources (‘natural resources’) that are meant to benefit human beings having a commodifiable and disposable value.
Legal systems around the world for well over centuries have treated land and nature as “property”. Something that is considered property confers upon the property owner the right to exploit it for profit and in turn, damage or destroy it. Thus, those who “own” wetlands, forestland, and other ecosystems and natural communities, are largely permitted to use them however they wish, even if that includes destroying the health and wellbeing of nature. Laws and contracts are written to protect the property rights of individuals, corporations, and other legal entities. As such, environmental protection laws legalize environmental harm by regulating how much pollution or destruction of nature can occur within the law. Under such law, nature and all of its non-human elements have no legal standing.
Rather than treating nature as property under the current law, the rights of nature acknowledge that nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate its vital cycles.
Nature as Rights-bearing Entities and Wild Laws
A fundamental principle of Earth Jurisprudence is that all components of Nature, including plants, animals, rivers, and even entire species or ecosystems, should be granted legal personality in the same way as human beings. Earth Jurisprudence or Wild law is an emerging theory of law and governance that seeks to evolve law that recognizes our relationship with the broader Earth community.
Earth Jurisprudence aspires to promote a greater respect for nature and all living things on Earth, aiming to intertwine Earth’s natural law with the body of law that governs humanity. Wild Laws are human-made laws that are aligned with the laws of Nature and promote the flourishing of life, diversity, and healthy relationships, instead of legitimizing human exploitation of Earth. Wild laws reflect the understanding that, in order for humans to flourish, we must recognize and respect the rights of every member of the Earth community. Since, human beings are deeply interconnected with and dependent on nature, the ecocentric concept is proposed as a standard and measure for human law.
When we talk about the Rights of Nature, it means our recognition that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned. Rather, they are entities that have an independent and inalienable right to exist and flourish. Laws recognizing the Rights of Nature change the status of ecosystems and natural communities to being recognized as rights-bearing entities, right holders, or Juristic persons. They have rights and obligations according to the law of the land, just like any natural person. Any harm to these bodies would be treated in the same way as if inflicted on human beings.
The recognition of the Rights of Nature has been established through several constitutional, legislative, and judicial enactments in several countries that aim to provide legal protection for non-human entities and natural systems. People, communities, and governments have the authority to defend those rights on behalf of ecosystems and natural communities.
(To be continued)
Representatives of almost all the main opposition parties were in attendance at the recent book launch by Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila. The book written by the PHU leader was his analysis of the Easter bombing of April 2019 that led to the mass killing of 279 persons, caused injuries to more than 500 others and caused panic and shock in the entire country. The Easter bombing was inexplicable for a number of reasons. First, it was perpetrated by suicide bombers who were Sri Lankan Muslims, a community not known for this practice. They targeted Christian churches in particular, which led to the largest number of casualties. The bombing of Sri Lankan Christian churches by Sri Lankan Muslims was also inexplicable in a country that had no history of any serious violence between the two religions.
There were two further inexplicable features of the bombing. The six suicide bombings took place almost simultaneously in different parts of the country. The logistical complexity of this operation exceeded any previously seen in Sri Lanka. Even during the three decade long civil war that pitted the Sri Lankan military against the LTTE, which had earned international notoriety for suicide attacks, Sri Lanka had rarely witnessed such a synchronised operation. The country’s former Attorney General, Dappula de Livera, who investigated the bombing at the time it took place, later stated, upon retirement, that there was a “grand conspiracy” behind the bombings. That phrase has remained central to public debate because it suggested that the visible perpetrators may not have been the only planners behind the attack.
The other inexplicable factor was that intelligence services based in India repeatedly warned their Sri Lankan counterparts that the bombings would take place and even gave specific targets. Later investigations confirmed that warnings were transmitted days before the attacks and repeated again shortly before the explosions, yet they were not acted upon. It was these several inexplicable factors that gave rise to the surmise of a mastermind behind the students and religious fanatics led by the extremist preacher Zahran Hashim from the east of the country, who also blew himself up in the attacks. Even at the time of the bombing there was doubt that such a complex and synchronised operation could have been planned and executed by the motley band who comprised the suicide bombers.
Determined Attempt
The book by PHU leader Gammanpila is a determined attempt to make explicable the inexplicable by marshalling logic and evidence that this complex and synchronised operation was planned and executed by Zahran himself. This is a possible line of argumentation in a democratic society. Competing interpretations of public tragedies are part of political discourse. However, the timing of the intervention makes it politically more significant. The launch of the PHU leader’s book comes at a critical time when the protracted investigation into the Easter bombing appears to be moving forward under the present government.
The performance of the three previous governments at investigating the bombing was desultory at best. The Supreme Court held former President Maithripala Sirisena and several senior officials responsible for failing to act on prior intelligence and ordered compensation to victims. This judicial finding gave legal recognition to what victims had long maintained, that there was a grave dereliction of duty at the highest levels of the state. In recent weeks the investigation has taken a dramatic turn with the arrest and court production of former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Sallay on allegations linked directly to the attacks. Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or disproven, they indicate that the present phase of the investigation is moving beyond negligence into possible complicity.
This is why the present moment requires political sobriety. There is a danger that the line of political division regarding the investigation into the Easter bombing can take on an ethnic complexion. The insistence that the suicide bombers alone were the planners and executors of the dastardly crime makes the focus invariably one of Muslim extremism, as the suicide bombers were all Muslims. This may unintentionally narrow public attention away from the unanswered questions regarding intelligence failures, possible political manipulation, and the allegations of a broader conspiracy that remain under active investigation. The minority political parties representing ethnic and religious minorities appear to have realised this danger. Their absence from the book launch was politically significant. It suggests an unwillingness to be drawn into a narrative that could once again stigmatise an entire community for the crimes of a handful of extremists and their possible handlers.
Another Tragedy
It would be another tragedy comparable in political consequence to the havoc wreaked by the Easter bombing if moderate mainstream political parties, such as the SJB to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, were to subscribe to positions merely to score political points against the present government. They need to guard against the promotion of anti-minority sentiment and the fuelling of majority prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities. Indeed, opposition leader Sajith Premadasa in his Easter message said that justice for the victims of the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter Sunday attacks remains a fundamental responsibility of the state and noted that seven years on, both past and present governments have failed to deliver accountability. He added that building a society grounded in trust and peace, uniting all ethnicities, religions and communities, is vital to ensure such tragedies do not occur again.
Sri Lanka’s post war history offers too many examples of how unresolved security crises become vehicles for majoritarian mobilisation. The Easter tragedy itself was followed by waves of anti-Muslim suspicion and violence in some parts of the country. Responsible political leadership should seek to prevent any return to that atmosphere. There are many other legitimate issues on which the moderate and mainstream opposition parties can take the government to task. These include the lack of decisive action against government members accused of corruption, the passing of the entire burden of rising fuel prices on consumers instead of the government sharing the burden, and the failure to hold provincial council elections within the promised timeframe. These are issues that touch the daily lives of citizens and the health of democratic governance. They offer the opposition ample ground on which to build credibility as a government in waiting.
The search for truth and justice over the Easter bombing needs to continue until all those responsible are identified, whether they were direct perpetrators, negligent officials, or political actors who may have exploited the tragedy. This is what the victim families want and the country needs. But this search must not be turned into a partisan and religiously divisive matter such as by claiming that there are more potential suicide bombers lurking in the country who had been followers of Zaharan. If it is, Sri Lanka risks replacing one national tragedy with another. coming together to discredit the ongoing investigations into the Easter bombing of 2019 is an unacceptable use of ethno-religious nationalism to politically challenge the government. The opposition needs to find legitimate issues on which to challenge the government if they are to gain the respect and support of the general public and not their opprobrium.
by Jehan Perera
* The new duty-free regime for Africa, announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in February, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession offered by any country to developing countries since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.
* Yet, it is a clear violation of the cornerstone of the multilateral trade law, the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle.
* Hence, its implications on developing countries, without duty-free access to China, will be extremely negative. Sri Lanka is one of the few developing countries without duty-free access to China.
On 14 February, 2026, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China will grant zero-tariff treatment to 53 African nations, effective 01 May, 2026. Under this new unilateral policy initiative, China would eliminate all import tariffs on all goods imported from all the countries in Africa, except Eswatini. China already enforces a zero-tariff policy for 33 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in Africa. Now this policy would be extended to non LDCs as well. This policy initiative clearly aims at reducing the continuously expanding trade deficit between China and Africa. In 2024, China’s trade surplus against Africa was recorded at US $ 61 billion.
This trade initiative, a precious gift amidst ongoing global trade tensions, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession given by any country to developing countries, since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.
Though this landmark announcement has far-reaching implications on global trade, as much as President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, it was almost overlooked by the global media.
Implications for Global Trade
This Chinese policy initiative, though very generous, is a clear violation of the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle and the “Enabling Clause” of the International Trade Law. The MFN principle is the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and is enshrined in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It mandates that any trade advantage, privilege, or immunity granted by a WTO member to any country must be extended immediately and unconditionally to all other WTO members. Though, the GATT “Enabling Clause” allows developed nations to offer non-reciprocal preferential treatment (lower tariffs) to developing countries without extending them to all WTO members, this has to be done in a non-discriminatory manner. By extending tariff concessions only to developing countries in Africa, China has also breached this requirement.
This deliberate violation of the MFN principle by China occurs less than 12 months after the announcement of “Liberation Day” tariffs by President Trump, which breached Article I (MFN) and Article II (bound rates) of the GATT. However, it is important to underline that the objectives of the actions by the two Presidents are poles apart; the US objective was to limit imports from all its trading partners, and China’s objective is to increase imports from African countries.
Though the importance of the MFN principle of the WTO law had eroded over the years due to the proliferation of preferential trade agreements and unilateral preferential arrangements, the WTO members almost always obtained WTO waivers, whenever they breached the MFN principle. Now the leaders of the main trading powers have decided to violate the core principles of the multilateral trading system so brazenly, the impact of their decisions on the international trading system will be irrevocable.
Implications for Sri Lanka
China’s unilateral decision to provide zero-tariff treatment to African countries will have a strong adverse impact on Sri Lanka. Currently, all Asian countries, other than India and Sri Lanka, have duty-free access, for most of their exports, into the Chinese market through bilateral or regional trade agreements, or the LDC preferences. Though Sri Lanka, India and China are members of the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), preferential margins extended by China under APTA to India and Sri Lanka are limited.
The value of China’s imports from Sri Lanka had declined from US$ 650 million in 2021 to US$ 433 million by 2025. However, China’s exports to Sri Lanka increased significantly during the period, from US$ 5,252 million to US$ 5,753 by 2025. This has resulted in a trade deficit of US$ 5,320 million. Sri Lanka’s exports to China may decline further from next month when African nations with duty-free access start to expand their market share.
Let me illustrate the challenges Sri Lanka will face in the Chinese market with one example. Tea (HS0902) is Sri Lanka’s third largest export to China, after garments and gems. Sri Lanka is the largest exporter of tea to China, followed by India, Kenya and Viet Nam. During the last five years the value of China’s imports of tea from Sri Lanka had declined significantly, from US$76 million in 2021 to US$ 57 million by 2025. Meanwhile, imports from our main competitors had increased substantially. Most importantly, imports from Kenya increased from US$ 7.9 million in 2021 to US$ 15 million in 2025. For tea, the existing tariff in China for Sri Lanka is 7.5% and for Kenya is 15%. From next month the tariff for Kenya will be reduced to 0%. What will be its impact on Sri Lanka exports? That was perhaps explained by a former Ambassador to Africa, when he urged Sri Lankan exporters to “leverage duty free access from Kenya” to expand their exports to China!
(The writer is a retired public servant and a former Chairman of WTO Committee on Trade and Development. He can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
by Gomi Senadhira
Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya was a famous actress and her name still rings a bell with many. And now in the spotlight is her daughter Senani Wijesena – not as an actress but as a singer – and she has been singing, since the age of five!
The plus factor is that Senani, now based in Australia, is also a songwriter, plays keyboards and piano, dancer, and has filmed and edited some of her own music videos.
Says Senani: “I write the lyrics, melody and music and work with professional musicians who do the needful on my creations.”
Her latest album, ‘Music of the Mirror’, is made up of 16 songs, and her first Sinhala song, called ‘Nidahase’, is scheduled for release this month (April) in Colombo, along with a music video.
‘Nidahase’,
says Senani, is a song about Freedom … of life, movement, love and spirit. Freedom to be your authentic self, express yourself freely and Freedom from any restrictions.
In fact, ‘Nidahase’ is the Sinhala translated version of her English song ‘Free’ which made Senani a celebrity as the song was nominated for a Hollywood Music in Media Award in the RnB /Soul category and reached the Top 20 on the UK Music weekly dance charts, as well as No. 1 on the Yes Home grown Top 15, on Yes FM, for six weeks straight.
Senani went on to say that ‘Nidahase’ has been remixed to include a Sri Lankan touch, using Kandyan drums and the Thammattama drum, with extra music production by local music producer Dilshan L. Silva, and Australia-based Emmy Award winning Producer and Engineer Sean Carey … with Senani also in the scene.
The song was written (lyrics and melody) and produced by Senani and it features Australian musicians, while the music video was produced by Sri Lanka’s Sandesh Bandara and filmed in Sri Lanka.
First Sinhala song scheduled for release this month … in Colombo
Senani’s music is mostly Soul, Funk and RNB – also Fusion, using ethnic sounds such as the tabla, sitar, and sarod – as well as Jazz influenced.
“I also have Alternative Music songs with a rock edge, such as ‘New Day’, and upcoming releases ‘Fly High’ and ‘Whisper’“, says Senani, adding that she has also recorded in other languages, such as Hindi and Spanish.
“As much of my fan base are Sri Lankans, who have asked me to release a song in the Sinhala language, I decided to create and release ‘Nidahase’ and I plan to release other original Sinhala songs in the future.
Senani has a band in Australia and has appeared at festivals in Australia, on radio and TV in Australia, and Sri Lanka.
She trained as a vocalist, through Sydney-based Singing Schools, as well as private tuition, and she has 5th Grade piano music qualifications.
And this makes interesting reading:
“I graduated from the University of Newcastle in Australia with a Bachelor of Medicine and I work part time as a doctor (GP) and an Integrative Medicine practitioner, with a focus on nutrition, and spend the rest of the time dedicated to my music career.”
Senani hails from an illustrious family. In addition to her mum, Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya, who made over 40 films, including starring in the first colour movie ‘Ranmuthu Duwa’, her dad is Dr Lanka Wijesena (retired GP) and she has two sisters – all musical; one is a doctor, while the other is a dietitian/ psychotherapist.
-
Features3 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News6 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News3 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Business7 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial6 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Opinion5 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Editorial7 days ago
Ideological confusion and identity crisis
-
Opinion6 days agoIs there hope for Palestine?