The World as Argentina’s Oyster: Understanding Article 118 and Universal Jurisdiction

By: Ethan Abisellan

Edited By: Faith Magiera and Anna Dellit

In October 2008, in Spain, Judge Baltasar Garzón opened an investigation on alleged crimes against humanity committed under the Franco regime. However, the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court quickly blocked the investigation, citing the currently in effect 1977 Amnesty Law, which guarantees impunity to those who participated in crimes during the Spanish Civil War under the Franco regime. [1] Frustrated with this ruling, relatives of victims traveled to Argentina seeking justice. Soon after, on April 14th, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed before Argentine courts alleging crimes against humanity in Spain perpetrated by the Franco regime. Since then, “la querella Argentina” – “the Argentine complaint” – has grown into an ongoing 14 year investigation withover 330 complaints filed on behalf of victims.[2]

But, why Argentina?

Article 118 of the Argentine Constitution grants Argentine courts jurisdiction over cases “committed outside the territory of the Nation against public international law”, conferring Argentine courts with a unique universal jurisdiction. [3] Essentially, any crimes in violation of international conventions can be prosecuted in Argentina. Cases like the Argentine Complaint ground their investigations on violations of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which established four international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. [4]

The Argentine Complaint against Spain marked the first time Article 118 was invoked to prosecute crimes against humanity outside Argentina. Since then, human rights activists from around the globe – often with the help of their Argentine counterparts – have brought about dozens of cases accusing countries of international crimes. Currently, there are ongoing investigations regarding international crimes allegedly committed in China, Colombia, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and more – all thanks to Argentina’s universal jurisdiction. [5]

The effectiveness of universal jurisdiction, however, seems to be painfully minimal. The demands, findings, and verdicts of Argentine courts hold no real enforcement outside of Argentina. The attempts of Argentine courts to exact justice can be written off by other countries as encroaching on sovereignty or simply denied outright, as in the case of Spain. For example, Judge Maria Romilda Servini – who presided over the Francoist investigation – issued arrest and extradition warrants against 20 senior officials of the Franco regime in late 2014, to no avail. [6]

Although it may not have any real enforcement or pressure to effect change, Argentina’s universal jurisdiction demonstrates the nation’s unwavering commitment to international law and human rights. This commitment gives human rights activists – especially those living in oppressive regimes – avenues to express dissenting opinions, expose human rights violations, and pursue justice in impartial, competent courts. [7] Moreover, universal jurisdiction might have powerful implications on guiding Argentine foreign policy and raising awareness of human rights violations on an international scale.

Notes:

1. Garcia, “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime:Outcomes and Challenges,” 2.

2. Íñigo Álvarez, Laura, and Aintzane Márquez Tejón, “Ten Years of the Argentine Inquiry into Franco-Era Crimes: What Has Been Achieved?”

3. Digital Library of the Ministry of Justice, “Constitution of the Argentine Republic,” 20.

4. International Criminal Court, “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” 3.

5. Uyghur Human Rights Project. “Landmark Decision as Argentina Court of Cassation Reverses Judge’s Decision Not to Open Uyghur Case for Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.”

6. Garcia, “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime:Outcomes and Challenges,” 3.

7. Amnesty International, “Argentina: Amnesty International Makes Submission to Argentine Criminal Court’s Investigation into Crimes against Humanity in Venezuela.” 

Bibliography:

Amnesty International. “Argentina: Amnesty International Makes Submission to Argentine Criminal Court’s Investigation into Crimes against Humanity in Venezuela.” Amnesty International, 27 Feb. 2024, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2024/02/amicus-curiae-argentina-venezuela-crimes-against-humanity-universal-jurisdiction-human-rights/.

Digital Library of the Ministry of Justice. CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION, www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/Argentina-Constitution.pdf.

Garcia, Alejandro Lerena. “Overview of the Argentine Lawsuit against the Crimes of the Franco Regime: Outcomes and Challenges.” Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 2021, www.longdom.org/open-access-pdfs/overview-of-the-argentine-lawsuit-against-the-crimes-of-the-franco-regime-outcomes-and-challenges.pdf.

International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2021, www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf.

Íñigo Álvarez, Laura, and Aintzane Márquez Tejón. “Ten Years of the Argentine Inquiry into Franco-Era Crimes: What Has Been Achieved?” Oxford Human Rights Hub, 27 Oct. 2020, ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/ten-years-of-the-argentine-inquiry-into-franco-era-crimes-what-has-been-achieved/.

Uyghur Human Rights Project. “Landmark Decision as Argentina Court of Cassation Reverses Judge’s Decision Not to Open Uyghur Case for Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.” Uyghur Human Rights Project, 12 July 2024, uhrp.org/statement/landmark-decision-as-argentina-court-of-cassation-reverses-judges-decision-not-to-open-uyghur-case-for-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide/.

The Federal Cases Against President Trump

By: Riley Meyer

Edited by: Melany Torres and Olivia Paik

Following the reelection of Donald Trump, special counsel Jack Smith is reevaluating the federal cases against the President-elect. Smith asked to delay these cases to assess the “unprecedented circumstances” of Trump’s election, the inauguration, and how to move forward per the Department of Justice’s policy. [1] In November  2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel on two cases. [2] One case involves Trump’s handling of classified documents, and the other case involves Trump’s federal election interference. These cases were progressing quickly before the Election Day, but now require a reassessment.

The Federal appeals court granted Smith's request to pause his appeal of President-elect Trump’s classified documents case until December 2. [3] Smith’s request came days after he asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. for a pause in the criminal case charging Trump with crimes relating to his attempt to reverse the election results of the 2020 presidential election. [4] In his request, Smith wanted to hold the appeal in abeyance and push the next filing deadline to “afford the government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with the Department of Justice policy.” [5]

The Department of Justice has a policy that prohibits a sitting president from facing criminal prosecution while in office. [6] This policy has two purposes. Firstly, to allow the executive branch to carry out its constitutional duties without undermining its abilities. [7] Secondly, the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion, meaning that the president has authority over whether to indict themselves once inaugurated. [8] Trump, once president, could have his appointed attorney general toss out both cases. Thus, Smith must now wind down the proceedings of these cases so as not to conflict with policy.

Jack Smith and his team are planning to resign before Trump’s inauguration. Trump disclosed in a radio interview that he would fire Smith immediately when he is reelected, saying, “It’s so easy I would fire him within two seconds.” [9] The final question about the case will be whether Smith’s final report, which contains his charging decision, will be publicly available before Inauguration Day. [10] The Department of Justice requires the special counsel’s office to provide a confidential report to Attorney General Merrick Garland. [11] Garland decides if it will be publicized. If not publicized by Inauguration Day, the next attorney general could not release Smith’s final report.

The Department of Justice seems to intend to drop both cases before Inauguration Day, as suggested by these recent legal moves. However, Trump’s New York criminal conviction still stands, and prosecutors are urging the judge overseeing the sentence to consider options other than dismissal. One of the possibilities will be to hold off the guilty verdict until Trump leaves office in 2029. [12] Time will give a clearer indication of the next moves in the president-elect’s cases, but as of now, it appears that Trump will remain free of prosecution during his presidential term.

Notes:

1. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

2. “Department of Justice | Special Counsel Jack Smith.” United States Department of Justice, 21 Nov. 2022, https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith.

3. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

4. Mangan, Dan. “Trump Documents Case: Special Counsel Jack Smith Seeks Pause.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/trump-classified-documents-special-counsel-jack-smh-appeal-pause.html. 

5. Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story? id=115935246.

6. “Office of Legal Counsel | A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution | United States Department of Justice.” Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice, 9 July 2014, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictmnt-and-criminal-prosecution. 

7. Ibid. 

8. “Indictment of Presidents | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/indictment_of_presidents. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

9. Jarrett, Laura, et al. “Special Counsel Jack Smith and Team to Resign before Trump Takes Office.” NBC News, NBC News, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/special-counsel-jack-smith-team-rsign-trump-takes-office-rcna179928. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid.   

12. Epstein, Kayla. “Prosecutors Back Delaying Trump Sentence until He Leaves White House.” BBC Home - Breaking News, World News, US News, Sports, Business, Innovation, Climate, Culture, Travel, Video & Audio, BBC News, 19 Nov. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo.

Bibliography:

Charalambous, Peter, and Katherine Faulders. “Court Pauses Appeal of Trump’s Classified Documents Case - ABC News.” ABC News, ABC News, 16 Nov. 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-pauses-appeal-trumps-classified-documents-case/story?id=115935246. 

“Department of Justice | Special Counsel Jack Smith.” United States Department of Justice, 21 Nov. 2022, https://www.justice.gov/sco-smith.

Epstein, Kayla. “Prosecutors Back Delaying Trump Sentence until He Leaves White House.” BBC Home - Breaking News, World News, US News, Sports, Business, Innovation, Climate, Culture, Travel, Video & Audio, BBC News, 19 Nov. 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czr72m57e1jo.

“Indictment of Presidents | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/indictment_of_presidents. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

Jarrett, Laura, et al. “Special Counsel Jack Smith and Team to Resign before Trump Takes Office.” NBC News, NBC News, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/special-counsel-jack-smith-team-resign-trump-takes-office-rcna179928. 

Mangan, Dan. “Trump Documents Case: Special Counsel Jack Smith Seeks Pause.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 Nov. 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/trump-classified-documents-special-counsel-jack-smith-appeal-pause.html. 

“Office of Legal Counsel | A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution | United States Department of Justice.” Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice, 9 July 2014, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution. 

The War on Children: The Future of Trans Rights in America

By: Oscar Guzzino

edited by: Chloe Shah and Anne Godlin

Transgender rights in America are severely lacking at present, and are subject to further assault in the future. Millions of Americans identify as transgender and are victims of harassment and discrimination not only from society, but from the law itself. Primarily, transgender individuals face challenges with their access to healthcare and the validity of their identity’s legal status. These challenges are much worse for youth, who are more strictly subject to such legislation. Furthermore, it seems that these struggles will only get worse when considering the outcome of the 2024 elections.

 A major point of concern for transgender rights is the attack on healthcare. Firstly, legislators have been targeting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults. According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, over a third of transgender youth live in a state that has banned gender-affirming care, and over three-quarters live in a state that has pending bans on gender-affirming services. [1]  This is incredibly dangerous as a lack of gender-affirming care can cause serious problems ranging from gender dysphoria to severe depression or suicide. These issues are faced by nearly all transgender individuals, but can be exacerbated in youth who lack strong support systems.

 Furthermore, the status of general healthcare for transgender people is in jeopardy. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the lack of a federal non-discrimination law regarding gender identity creates problems that include, but are not limited to, healthcare discrimination. Over a quarter of trans adults have been refused health care solely due to their gender identity. [2] This is a serious human rights infraction, as it regards the denial of basic healthcare services according to gender identity, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

The past two years have seen a drastic increase in anti-trans legislation, especially in regard to healthcare. 2022 saw 37 total anti-trans healthcare bills. In 2023, the number jumped to 188 anti-trans healthcare bills, introduced in national and state legislatures, comprising 31 percent of total anti-trans legislation. Furthermore, 2024 has seen 184 anti-trans healthcare bills, making up 28 percent of total anti-trans legislation for that year. [3] This dramatic change suggests an increasing concern with trans rights within Congress, specifically with respect to their limitations. This is much worse for minor transgender individuals as well, as many of these healthcare bills prevent access to care for minors. The current state of healthcare for transgender individuals is one rife with unconstitutional discrimination and under constant assault. Furthermore, these concerns have only been increasing in present times, leading to serious inequalities in healthcare access for transgender youth and adults.

 Most importantly, however, is the diminishing status of transgender as a valid legal status. In many states, there is increasing difficulty regarding the changing of gender or maintenance of a non-assigned-at-birth gender on legal documents. For example, many states prohibit the changing of gender identity on identification documents. This is a law that strictly targets transgender people. [4] Furthermore, bills have been passed that create strict definitions or distinctions between sexes, excluding trans people and refusing to consider the validity of their identity. For example, Louisiana House Bill 608 enforces the distinction of sexes within governmental institutions. [5] Additionally, bills such as Oklahoma House Bill 1449 create definitions of men and women that exclude transgender people. [6] Both of these bills have been passed in their respective states, restricting the legality of trans people as a population. Restrictions on the legal validity of an identity are incredibly dangerous. These restrictions can lead to social dissolution of that identity, as people further reject the identity’s validity over time. As transgenderism is less recognized within the law, people will reject it socially, leading to greater levels of discrimination, harassment, and violence. The lack of legal recognition for trans people may exacerbate these crimes as well. A weak legal identity for trans people can deter them from speaking up about violence. [7] It can also prevent some crimes from being classified as hate crimes, making it less likely that their perpetrators are charged or convicted.

 Additionally, the legal dissolution of a transgender identity occurs much more often within the guise of education reform. Over 120,000 transgender youth live in states that have banned or restricted the use of gender-affirming pronouns in schools and state institutions. [8] Furthermore, a number of state bills have been passed that restrict the teaching of transgender identity or prevent teachers from using a student’s preferred name. [9] This further dissolves the social recognition of transgender identity. While this dissolution has all the effects of increased persecution, it also inflames the dysphoria and depression that transgender children often face. Reducing the recognition and acceptance of transgenderism in schools shrinks a student’s support network, creating a feeling of isolation and despair that can lead to severe depression and suicide.

 These pieces of legislation are almost always being proposed and passed by members of the Republican party. Unfortunately, the Republican party made incredible gains in the 2024 election, winning the presidency, Senate, and keeping hold of the House of Representatives. These gains, in combination with a supermajority of conservative justices in the Supreme Court, have sinister implications for the future of trans rights in America. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly made dismissive or inflammatory remarks regarding trans rights. For example, he has said that public schools will not receive funding if they continue to promote sex or gender transitioning as an idea. [10] He has also promised to take action and cease funding for healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care. [11] Both of these actions would create difficulties for transgender adults and youth to develop support systems that help them combat the mental health struggles that are common for trans people.

 Beyond the presidency, a more serious concern is the potential actions of a unified Republican Congress with a historically conservative Supreme Court to support it. One such concern lies in Project 2025, a political manifesto developed by Trump loyalists. Project 2025 argues for the abandonment of transgenderism as a valid identity, suggesting that its promotion “threatens American’s fundamental liberties as well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike.” [12] A national agenda that pushes this notion will implement policies that seek to dissolve trans identity, creating serious concerns for trans individuals and hastening the production of harmful legislation such as those described previously.

 Transgender people currently face serious challenges to their acquisition of healthcare and the validity of their identity. These struggles exacerbate mental health problems faced by trans people, such as gender dysphoria and depression. They also reduce the availability of strong support systems that are necessary for young people to help reduce the severity of mental health challenges. The shift in administration towards conservatism in 2024 does not bode well for these issues, marking an acceleration of anti-trans legislation and state mandates to dissolve transgender identity legally. To combat this, the law must develop strict and unchanging protections and anti-discrimination laws for transgender people. However, the consideration of transgender rights as a political issue makes this objective difficult and its achievement transient.

Notes:

1. Elana Redfield, Keith Conron, and Christy Mallory, “The Impact of 2024 Anti-Transgender Legislation on Youth,” UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, April 2024, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/2024-anti-trans-legislation/.

2. HRC Foundation, “Understanding the Transgender Community,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed November 17, 2024, https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community.

3. Trans Legislation Tracker, “Tracking the Rise of Anti-Trans Bills in the US,” Trans Legislation Tracker, accessed November 17, 2024, https://translegislation.com/learn.

4. HRC Foundation, “Understanding the Transgender Community.”

5. Roger Wilder III, “Women’s Safety and Protection Act,” Pub. L. No. HB608, accessed November 17, 2024, https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=246414.

6. Toni Hasenbeck, “Women’s Bill of Rights,” Pub. L. No. HB1449 (2024), http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb1449&Session=2400.

7. James Paterson, “Hate Crimes Against Transgender People,” Family Therapy Magazine, 2021, https://ftm.aamft.org/hate-crimes-against-transgender-people/. 

8. Redfield, Conron, and Mallory, “The Impact of 2024 Anti-Transgender Legislation on Youth.”

9. Trans Legislation Tracker, “Trans Legislation Tracker.”

10. Michael Martin and Mansee Khurana, “What Trump’s Win Could Mean for Transgender Health Access, Athletes,” NPR, November 16, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/11/15/nx-s1-5181967/what-trumps-reelection-could-mean-for-transgender-health-care-access.

11. Ibid.

12. Roger Severino, “Department of Health and Human Services,” Project 2025, accessed November 17, 2024, https://www.project2025.org/policy/.

Bibliography:

Elana Redfield, Keith Conron, and Christy Mallory, “The Impact of 2024 Anti-Transgender Legislation on Youth,” UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, April 2024, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/2024-anti-trans-legislation/.

HRC Foundation, “Understanding the Transgender Community,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed November 17, 2024, https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community.

Trans Legislation Tracker, “Tracking the Rise of Anti-Trans Bills in the US,” Trans Legislation Tracker, accessed November 17, 2024, https://translegislation.com/learn.

Michael Martin and Mansee Khurana, “What Trump’s Win Could Mean for Transgender Health Access, Athletes,” NPR, November 16, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/11/15/nx-s1-5181967/what-trumps-reelection-could-mean-for-transgender-health-care-access.

Roger Severino, “Department of Health and Human Services,” Project 2025, accessed November 17, 2024, https://www.project2025.org/policy/.

James Paterson, “Hate Crimes Against Transgender People,” Family Therapy Magazine, 2021, https://ftm.aamft.org/hate-crimes-against-transgender-people/. 

Should The Great Lakes Have Legal Standing?

By: Jack Baker

Edited by: Valerie Chu and William Liu

“Should Trees Have Standing?” This provocative question, first posed by Professor Christopher Stone in 1972, challenges conventional legal paradigms by suggesting that nature should have rights. Stone’s essay was published at the height of the American environmental movement and coincided with the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA), formally known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, a landmark federal statute designed to protect the nation’s water resources. [1] Despite the promise of such reforms, more than 50 years later, the Midwest still faces environmental degradation, and Indigenous rights are routinely ignored. These persistent problems demand an innovative solution.

Granting personhood to nature would empower vulnerable ecosystems to defend their rights through legal action. The United States federal government should grant legal personhood to the Great Lakes to advance Indigenous rights, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism.

Currently, crimes against the environment are typically prosecuted in one of two ways. Residents may file class-action lawsuits on behalf of nature, but this approach is frequently unsuccessful as citizens struggle to demonstrate a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. Thus, regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are primarily responsible for managing and preserving the Great Lakes. [2] However, these agencies remain underfunded and understaffed, and laws like the CWA limit their ability to address pollution that does not directly contaminate waterways. Environmental personhood would provide a legal avenue for the Great Lakes to advocate for their own protection and reduce their reliance on individuals and underfunded agencies.

In order to effectively demonstrate the liberatory potential of environmental personhood, we turn to Duluth, Minnesota, where the St. Louis River flows into Lake Superior. Known as Gichigami-ziibi in Ojibwe, this river has been classified as one of the “most widely contaminated Superfund sites in the Rust Belt.” [3] Indigenous leaders have granted legal personhood to wild rice, the tribe’s primary food source, to block the construction of an oil pipeline through the Great Lakes ecosystem. [4] While the rice now has standing in tribal courtrooms, the Ojibwe still face legal challenges protecting access to the clean water necessary for its cultivation. This underscores the urgent need for federal intervention.

Blackfeet journalist Abaki Beck defines food sovereignty as “efforts to re-create local, sustainable, and traditional food systems” and an important goal of tribes seeking to combat the negative impacts of settler colonialism. [5] A loss of traditional food sources has been directly linked to an array of mental and physical health issues, including increased rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer within Indigenous communities. Furthermore, some scholars argue that “displacement and spiritual disconnection from the land” across the Midwest have created intergenerational trauma among Indigenous people. [6] Environmental personhood offers a path for Indigenous communities seeking to establish food sovereignty to “assume a more active role in advocating and promoting their land-related rights.” [7]

Additionally, the cosmology of Anishinaabe tribes like the Ojibwe emphasizes “reciprocity between humans and nature, rather than a hierarchy that places humans above nature—and some humans above other humans.” [8] Throughout much of the twentieth century, the European imposition of Western religious ideologies in the Americas portrayed Indigenous reverence for nature as uncivilized, significantly contributing to the exploitation of the natural world. [9] Just as the discrediting of tribal knowledge paralleled the rise of ecological destruction, adopting environmental personhood will foster greater respect for Native people and nature alike.

Many Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about using legal reform to combat settler colonialism because they view it as a perpetuation of the very systems that have historically undermined Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Despite this, others acknowledge that leveraging Western legal and philosophical frameworks, including a rights-based model, is a necessary but undesirable strategy for addressing issues within the United States’ existing legal system. [10]

Five hundred miles away from Duluth, in Toledo, Ohio, citizens living on the coast of Lake Erie have taken a similar approach. Lake Erie comprises nearly ten thousand square miles of surface freshwater and regularly provides eleven million people with their daily drinking water. [11] In the summer of 2014, a toxic algae bloom spread throughout the lake, primarily caused by agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. [12] Harmful algae blooms have long been prevalent in the western part of Lake Erie and have adversely affected “recreation, tourism, fishing, lakefront property values, and aquatic life” throughout the region. [13] Further inland, unregulated centralized animal feeding operations (CAFOS) in northwestern Ohio have significantly increased the amount of phosphorus in the region’s waterways which, combined with warm weather, often leads to dangerous algae growth. In 2014, algae blooms quickly contaminated the city’s water supply, leaving five hundred thousand residents without access to clean drinking water for multiple days. [14]

In response, a group known as Toledoans for Safe Water pursued the passage of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), which recognized the “irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve” as well as the “right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo.” The initiative also sought to “elevate the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.” [15] In 2019, the measure was put to a vote and passed.

Later that year, just months after Toledo residents voted in favor of granting legal personhood to Lake Erie, Ohio’s state government passed a law prohibiting the LEBOR’s implementation. [16] Additionally, a local farm quickly sued the city in an attempt, claiming that Toledo’s new ordinance was unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, a federal judge agreed, writing that the policy “sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.” [17] Hidden inside of his eight-page opinion, however, lies an opportunity for the federal government to take action: even though the LEBOR is terminally unenforceable, Congress should respond by granting legal personhood to the Great Lakes.

Finally, environmental personhood would represent a large shift away from existing anthropocentric legal paradigms. Extractive values, which justify the exploitation of nature, are deeply embedded within Western legal and political institutions and exasperate climate change.  [18] These values treat nature as separate and apart from humanity, justifying eco-managerialism, and even when the EPA regulates human activity, its application of existing environmental laws actively legitimizes harm to vital ecosystems. Essentially, the EPA’s role involves the performative conservation of certain ecosystems alongside the desultory legalization of exploitative practices deemed acceptable or necessary for human development. [19]

Time and time again, however, granting rights to nature has reshaped how Western societies understand the environment. As legal scholars have asserted, the “adoption of a rights discourse [is] essential to ensure the protection of the environment because until an entity receives rights, humans fail to see it as anything but a ‘thing’ to be exploited.” [20] In short, to ensure a sustainable future, it is crucial to recognize and implement ecocentric political tools like environmental personhood.

Environmental personhood has already been successfully implemented in various countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, and Bangladesh. In 2017, after extensive negotiations between community members, tribal leaders, and New Zealand’s government, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood. [21] Similarly, Ecuador amended its constitution to guarantee legal rights to the environment in response to pollution caused by American oil companies. [22]

While some argue that the expansion of legal personhood for the environment would be unprecedented, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, during Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court wrote that standing can and should be conferred upon vulnerable ecosystems. [23] Justice Douglas’ dissenting opinion clearly provides a “workable mechanism to identify a proxy for nature’s legal personhood” and could serve as the basis for environmental personhood in the United States. [24] Additionally, extending rights to those previously deemed undeserving of them has been an important part of American jurisprudence. Personhood has been extended to enslaved Africans and women, and notably, the Supreme Court expanded rights to corporations in 1886, setting a legal precedent for the expansion of rights to nonhuman entities. [25]

Granting personhood to the Great Lakes would not just be a legal reform—it would be a profound recognition of nature’s intrinsic value. This reform would simultaneously combat settler colonialism, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism. In elevating ecosystems to the status of rights-bearers, policymakers can and should acknowledge that the Great Lakes are not a resource to be exploited, but a sacred life force that deserves protection. In short, the future of our entire planet—and the generations that will inherit it—depends on our willingness to reimagine environmental law.

Notes: 

1. Chistopher D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.

2. Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.

3. Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.

4. Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.

5. Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.

6. Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.

7. Sequoia L. Butler, “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources,” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.

8. Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.

9. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

10. Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.

11. Daniel McGraw, “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie,” The Guardian, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/19/lake-erie-pollution-personhood-status-toledo/

12. Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.

13. Kenneth Kilbert, “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important,” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org/commentary/2019/03/kenneth-kilbert-lebor-important/.

14. Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.

15. Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.

16. Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.

17. Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.

18. Justine Townsend, et al, “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It,” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com/rights-for-nature-how-granting-a-river-personhood-could-help-protect-it-157117.

19. Simon Davis-Cohen and Kai Huschke, “The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void,” In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024, inthesetimes.com/article/trump-epa-covid-19-environmental-law-rights-of-nature-air-water-pollution.

20. Nicola Pain and Rachel Pepper, “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature,” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.

21. Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.

22. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

23. Caroline McDonough, “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature,” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.

24. Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.

25. Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

Bibliography:

Beck, Abaki. “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change.” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Butler, Sequoia L. “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.

Daley, Jason. “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Davis-Cohen, Simon, and Kai Huschke. "The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void," In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024.

Galeano, Eduardo. "Nature is Not Mute." The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.

Kilbert, Kenneth. “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important.” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Levang, Emily. “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

McDonough, Caroline. “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature.” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.

McGraw, Daniel. “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Pain, Nicola, and Rachel Pepper. “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature.” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.

Pallotta, Nicole. “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights'.” Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, adlf.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Russell, Ruby. “Rights of Nature: Can Indigenous Traditions Shape Environmental Law?” DW.com, Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Shaefer, Stacy J. “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy.” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, pp. 70–86.

Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.

Townsend, Justine, et al. “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It.” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Zartner, Dana. “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie.” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.