Image of Pachamama. In the indigenous cultures of the Andes, Pachamama means “Mother Earth” and symbolizes the source of the earth and life. Depicted as a woman composed of mountains, forests, and animals, this image symbolically shows that humans are not separate from nature but are part of it.
In 2022, the Spanish Parliament passed a law granting legal personhood to the Mar Menor (meaning “Little Sea”), a lagoon. It is highly unusual for such a law to be enacted in a European country with a modern civil law system, unlike nations like Ecuador or New Zealand, where spiritual and relational worldviews regarding nature are reflected in their institutions. Lawmakers from Spain’s conservative parties filed a constitutional challenge, arguing that extending legal personhood to non-human natural entities distorts the concept of personhood and undermines the dignity inherent in humans.
The Spanish Constitutional Court was divided in its ruling. The majority of justices argued that “a dignified life is only possible in an appropriate natural environment,” asserting that recognizing the legal personality of the Mar Menor strengthens human dignity. They viewed human dignity not as a concept that places humans at the center of the natural world, but as one that calls for humans to coexist with the environment.
However, five justices expressed a dissenting opinion, stating that “an appropriate environment is merely a condition for human personal development and quality of life; environmental protection itself cannot be an end in itself,” and that “even if the necessity of nature conservation is acknowledged, humans and nature must not be placed on the same value-theoretical plane.”
The dissenting opinion argued that the concept of legal personhood for nature (or “Mama Tierra”) is rooted in the cosmology or worldview of countries like Ecuador and Bolivia (particularly among indigenous peoples), whereas Europe has already moved beyond a pantheistic or animistic understanding of the world and developed into a rationalist and scientific culture.
Here, I wish to critique the dissenting opinion’s perspective, which seems to view Ecuador’s recognition of the rights of nature as stemming solely from the belief that “natural objects possess souls.”
First, Ecuador’s legal framework on the rights of nature is not solely a product of the indigenous worldview. It combines not only the influence of Indigenous thought but also legal discussions on the rights of natural objects, the understanding of Earth system science that views the Earth as a single self-regulating system, and ethical and religious currents such as Earth ethics and the Earth Charter.
Meanwhile, the opposing view seems to regard animism as an inferior, primitive form of thought. However, according to French anthropologist Philippe Desclos, who has reexamined the world’s diverse ontological modes beyond the Western nature-culture dichotomy, animism is an ontological framework that views humans and non-humans as sharing a certain inner essence (such as consciousness or a soul) even though they possess different bodies; it is not merely a belief but a mode of relationship that humans form with non-humans.
In today’s era of climate and ecological crises, rather than absolutizing the hierarchy between humans and non-humans, we need to reflect that humans, too, are part of nature and exist within an order of symbiosis. Even if we acknowledge human uniqueness, this should not serve as a basis for justifying human superiority or exceptionalism, but rather for demanding greater ethical and legal responsibility.
In this regard, Ecuador’s worldview, which emphasizes coexistence with nature, is not a premodern belief system to be overcome, but rather a mode of thought that deserves serious respect today.
