Rapid growth in the development of environmental law has not rid the planet of the immense environmental challenges that confront it today. The optimism that prevailed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit^{Footnote 1} has been replaced by the pessimism and division that marked the Rio+20 conference.^{Footnote 2} Whereas the 1992 Rio Earth Summit seemed to foreshadow an exciting new era for the development of international environmental law, the years that followed brought considerable disappointment to environmentalists who struggled at Rio+20 simply to prevent the erosion of previous gains. At this critical juncture, Rule of Law for Nature presents a group of 34 distinguished environmental law scholars from 13 countries who offer their visions for the future of environmental law. In a collection of 21 provocative essays, edited by Christina Voigt, the authors call for re-imaging law to make it nature-centred, rather than human-centred. Not all of the essays are clear on precisely what this means or how it can be achieved, but the book offers a wealth of ideas that should spawn a lively dialogue concerning how to reshape the field. The exciting array of proposals offered by the authors mirror the current ‘kaleidoscopic’ state of the environmental law field.

The anthology starts with the premise – articulated in the 1987 ‘Report: Our Common Future’^{Footnote 3} – that ‘[h]uman laws must be reformulated to keep human activities in harmony with the unchanging and universal laws of nature’.^{Footnote 4} The contributors repeatedly note that the promise of this transformational enterprise has not been achieved in more than a quarter of a century since the Brundtland Commission issued its report. Some contributors suggest that the law has failed or even contributed to an acceptance of environmental harm. In the opening chapter, Hans Christian Bugge explores ‘twelve fundamental problems in environmental law’ that make the task of using law to promote environmental protection appear particularly daunting. These include not only uncertainty, latency, and free rider problems, but also corruption, which undermines the rule of law in many parts of the world.

Edith Brown Weiss (Chapter 2) repeats scientific warnings that human influence on the planet’s environment has become so dominant that we may be entering a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene. She then traces the evolution of global environmental law from a largely top-down approach dominated by multilateral treaties between states to its current ‘kaleidoscopic’ condition in which all kinds of entities, networks, and individuals increasingly influence environmental practices. She notes that this ‘[b]ottom-up empowerment of non-state actors through easy access to information and communications technology can provide fast, flexible, powerful ways to target specific environmental problems directly’ (p. 37). However, she cautions that this approach will be less effective in dealing with large-scale problems in an integrated fashion unless individuals and other non-state actors share a common vision of environmental values.

Drawing on evolutionary biology, Nicholas Robinson (Chapter 3) argues that humans should enhance their biological instincts to preserve nature and incorporate principles of cooperation, biophilia, and resilience into law. He notes that in 1611 humans placed one-metre high stone tablets in Fukushima (Japan) to warn of tsunami wave heights – wisdom that was ignored four centuries later when a nuclear power plant was built there.

Klaus Bosselmann (Chapter 4) is highly critical of law, not only for ignoring ecological realities but also for ‘legitimizing and legalizing excessive growth and environmental destruction’ (p. 76). He argues that in 40 years, environmental law has not made much difference and he calls for all levels of lawmaking to make a fundamental commitment to hard sustainability. Bosselmann provides a fascinating discussion of the influence of sustainability in the history of pre-industrial Europe’s response to deforestation. He also provides a valuable outline of ten subject areas for further legal research pertaining to sustainability.

What would it mean to transform environmental law into a ‘rule of law for nature’? Some contributors advocate conferring rights on nature and/or granting natural objects legal standing. Cormac Cullinan (Chapter 5) argues that a true ‘rule of law for nature’ would authorize a court to overrule approval of a new coal-fired power plant on the ground that its emissions will contribute to climate change. He notes that Ecuador and Bolivia have embraced broad rights for nature in new constitutions and that New Zealand has recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person.

Gerd Winter (Chapter 6) proposes incorporating into law the concept of ‘ecological proportionality’, building on the European Union (EU)’s influential proportionality principle that initially was developed in French and German law before being embraced by the EU. Winter argues that eco-proportionality is already emerging as a social norm, adopted in some corporations’ internal policies. Louis Kotzé (Chapter 7) endorses eco-constitutionalism, citing the benefits of the South African constitutional embrace of sustainable development. Anastasia Telesetsky (Chapter 10) emphasizes the importance of incorporating large-scale ecoscape restoration obligations into any rule of law for nature.

Reviewing the historical evolution of natural resources law, Jan Laitos (Chapter 12) traces its evolution from first generation resource use laws to second generation conservation laws and third generation resource non-use laws. He notes the emergence of a fourth generation of ‘publicly held resource non-use law’, but criticizes all four approaches for being founded on an anthropocentric concern for maximizing human welfare. Laitos proposes creating a legal right of non-use to be held by the natural resource itself, the interests of which could be represented by concerned individuals and entities.

The essays by Christina Voigt (Chapter 8) and Froukje Platjouw (Chapter 9) decry the current fragmented state of environmental law and argue in favour of a more integrated approach to law based on principles of ecosystem integrity. Emphasizing the value of traditional norms and knowledge, Chizoba Chinweze and his co-authors (Chapter 11) argue for greater inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process. Massimiliano Montini (Chapter 14) proposes merging the EU’s processes for conducting environmental impact assessments (EIAs) with the process for performing strategic environmental assessment, to produce what he calls a ‘holistic impact assessment’.

Rebecca Bratspies (Chapter 17) rejects Rio+20’s celebration of the ‘green economy’, arguing that it papers over important conflicts between economic and environmental interests. Surya Deva (Chapter 18) calls for the development of a legally binding human rights framework for corporate environmental behaviour using the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights^{Footnote 5} as a point of reference. In one of the few essays to focus on enforcement, Cristina Verones (Chapter 16) proposes opening up to private citizens the process of enforcing international law.

The book concludes with essays on reforming the international legal framework governing the oceans and the global commons. Mary Turnipseed and her co-authors (Chapter 21) argue that ocean stewardship would be improved by negotiating a new treaty applying the public trust doctrine to the oceans. Robin Warner (Chapter 20) recommends the development of international EIAs for activities that affect the commons.

In the current political environment, the prospects for any meaningful transformation of the legal system into a rule of law for nature appear slim. While environmental protection was a bipartisan cause in the United States (US) 40 years ago, today it is the focus of a sharp partisan split that blocks any significant legislative changes at the federal level. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the contributors stress the need for further efforts to shape public opinion to support environmental concerns.

Nevertheless, the ideas articulated in the book are not as far-fetched as they may have seemed four decades ago when Christopher Stone proposed that trees should have legal standing.^{Footnote 6} As the contributors note, some countries have adopted laws and constitutional provisions that explicitly confer rights on nature. As more experience is acquired with the implementation of these measures, the fears of opponents of rights for nature may abate. Moreover, a narrow conservative majority of the US Supreme Court has seen fit to bestow upon non-human corporate entities constitutionally protected rights of free-speech to spend money directly on political campaigns^{Footnote 7} and to assert religious liberty claims.^{Footnote 8} If corporations can be afforded rights traditionally restricted to individuals, is it really far-fetched to suggest that nature should be afforded some form of legal personhood?

A reader could be forgiven for concluding that the book, at times, seems overly pessimistic concerning the current state of environmental law. It does not highlight some of the great successes of environmental law, including the nearly global phase-out of gasoline lead additives and ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Furthermore, regulations limiting air pollution have saved countless lives in the developed world. Yet, the overall tone of the book is hopeful and forward-looking.

Like the field of global environmental law itself,^{Footnote 9}Rule of Law for Nature is ‘kaleidoscopic’, brimming with ideas for reimagining environmental law that should inspire the diverse set of actors – states, non-governmental organizations, corporates, and individuals – who are shaping both the future of law and the future of the planet.