Throughout human existence, society, the economy and the environment have been fundamental components for our survival.  It is widely accepted that these three components are interlinked, impacting on, and dependent on one another.  In simple terms, this interconnectedness highlights that there is a close relationship and dependence between humans and the environment.  Whilst this forms a clear principle, there is controversy with regard to how to achieve a balance and harmony between humans and the environment. The extent the dependency should impact on our lifestyle and where priorities lie are still heavily debated issues.  Some may argue wild law and sustainable development demonstrate this controversy. The former prioritising the environment, whilst the latter focuses on development.  The following discussion considers whether these two doctrines are as polarised as they first appear or whether they are two paths leading to the same destination, even colliding along the way.

Wild Law

Wild law is a radical and bold theory, developed by Cormac Cullinan, in his book ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice’. (1) At the heart of Cullinan’s theory is the concept of Earth Jurisprudence, an individual and specific jurisprudence relating to the ‘reciprocal relationship between humans and the rest of nature’.(2) The concept was given great force by Ian Mason and Begonia Filgueira who emphasise that Earth Jurisprudence respects nature for its inherent and intrinsic worth.(3) Thus, essentially seeing nature in a new light, having its own independent worth, not gained through exploitation and human use. Cullinan argues that Earth Jurisprudence is consistent with Great Jurisprudence.(4) Great Jurisprudence being principles which are timeless and unified as they have a consistent and permanent source,(5) the universe.(6)  Therefore, according to Cullinan, the independent value of nature is an outright quality, not a principle or law open to human dispute.  Given this inherent value, there is a call for humans to show respect and act with regard to nature.

With this theoretical backdrop Cullinan suggests law must be built on different foundations, (7) reflecting the current scientific understanding that earth is not an external object to be analysed formulaically in component parts.  In fact, we are neither superior nor separate from it.(8) Thus, it is proposed that law should protect nature right from the outset, not merely be a reaction to environmental problems.(9) Hence, Cullinan’s term wild law reflects its target of preserving nature in its pure and original state.(10) Wild law places ‘rights and responsibilities on humans both in relation to one another, and in relation to other organisms’,(11) enforcing Earth Jurisprudence in black and white terms.  In this respect, Cullinan’s ideas correlate closely with Christopher Stone’s suggestion that nature should simply have its own rights.  The extent and novelty of this proposal is illustrated by Stone’s example that trees should have legal standing, essentially allowing humans to act directly on behalf of the environment.(12) KM Chinnappa v Union of India demonstrates how this may be applied in practice.  The victim in the case was considered to be flora and fauna in and around Kudremukh National Park, the destruction of which would be committing matricide.(13) Nature rights have not been welcomed with open arms, but nevertheless arguably feature in wild law, with both doctrines giving nature outright recognition and protection.  Cullinan’s proposed ‘fundamental river right’, granting all rivers the right to flow, reveals the presence of Stone’s ideas in wild law.(14) However, Culllinan effectively dresses up nature rights using more diplomatic words, placing emphasis on the relationship between humans and the environment and mutual benefits resulting from this relationship.

More than just a Law

Wild law takes a step beyond black letter law, it requires humans to think and act differently.  Cullinan goes as far as stating that wild law would ‘re-imbue our governance systems with wisdom and soul’.(15) By this, he appears to be referring to a hidden depth to the law, a law driven by ‘desires and emotions’.(16) Cullinan aspires to a law based on a combination of heart and mind, rather than reason, determined by material realism.(17) Clearly, what these ‘desires’ are is important in shaping the future; hence Cullinan also claims that governance must guide human thinking and behaviour.(18) Encouraging a shift from focusing on human rights and consumption to a much broader and more holistic approach, recognising our personal connection with nature.  In turn, improving our relationship and breaking our long-standing ‘ownership’ mind set.(19) This adds something extra to Cullinan’s wild law, making it more than a legal approach. Some may claim this ‘extra ingredient’ is romanticised.  Additionally, there is potentially a ‘chicken and egg’ situation; must the human species way of thinking change before wild law can be implemented with the required ‘emotion’ or, is it wild law which triggers this ‘emotion and desire’?  Nevertheless, Cullinan certainly sends a powerful and inspiring message.

Hierarchy

Whilst wild law emphasises the interconnectedness between humans and the environment, existing together in a ‘mutually-enhancing relationship’, the equity of each element may not be how it first appears. (20) Turning to the theoretical root of wild law, Earth Jurisprudence acknowledges Earth itself as the primary source of law, placing human law in a secondary position, applied with regard to the primary source.(21) Thomas Berry, who played an imperative role in the development of Earth Jurisprudence, expressed this clearly and with persuasion, stating ‘the well-being of the integral world community is primary, and human well-being is derivative – an Earth Jurisprudence’.(22) The implications of this order, rather significantly, place nature above humans in a hierarchy.  KM Chinnappa v Union of India illustrates this in practice, as it was decided that the biodiversity of the Kudremukh National Park was more important than the repercussions of closing a mining company.(23)

Cullinan implies the hierarchy benefits the environment and humans equally, as it is in our interest to preserve the environment we depend on.  However, this is arguably an attempt to place a positive spin on what is actually ‘a conflict of interests with an ethical twist’.(24)

Robert Lee considers practical problems with enforcing such a clear-cut hierarchy between human and nature rights and the questions it leaves unanswered.(25) Firstly, it is difficult to define the boundaries of each set of rights.  When do human actions constitute an interference with nature rights?  Some water may be abstracted from a river as part of riverhood, but at what point does this become too much?(26) Such boundaries will always be virtually impossible to define because there are so many factors to take into account, each changing over time and space.  Secondly, the hierarchy assumes the new way of thinking and desire to improve our relationship with nature, discussed above, are established, accepted and given ultimate priority.  In reality this is clearly a big ask and likely to lack support, as individuals would struggle to choose nature over and above their own survival.(27)  Cullinan’s proposed ‘fundamental river right’, granting rivers a right to flow, exemplifies this conflict.(28) Applied strictly, the river’s right would prevent damming; in turn individuals may go thirsty or without crops.(29) In the short-term humans would struggle to see this as a mutual benefit.  Albeit a potential long-term benefit, we are renown for prioritising self-interest. Lynda Warren even goes as far as stating that we are ‘biologically programmed to behave in ways that increase our likelihood of survival and the survival of our family’.(30)

Finally, the hierarchy formed by Cullinan’s wild law theory is arguably too simplistic.  Referring back to the river example, a river might be dammed by a beaver, creating a conflict of interests within the same level of the hierarchy.(31)These issues highlight the complexity of both the human and natural environment and the relationship between the two.

The following section considers how sustainable development approaches these complex issues.

Sustainable Development

Foundations

Sustainable development has been given different interpretations over the years and its practical implications have often been adapted to fit the interests and perceptions of different individuals.  Indeed, some believe the concept is vague and confusing and, Cullinan himself describes it as ‘superficial and ambiguous’. (32) Nevertheless, sustainable development has a long history,(33) and following ‘Our Common Future’ has taken centre stage in the political arena.  Hence, it is not a concept that be readily dismissed and requires further attention.

‘Our Common Future’ was the report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development, established in 1983 by the United Nations General Assembly.  Gro Harlem Brundland chaired the Commission, hence the report being informally referred to as the ‘Brundland Report’. The Report famously defined sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.(34) Drawing from this definition, the overall and ultimate objectives of sustainable development and wild law are primarily the same.  As highlighted by Ben Pontin, both aim to improve the quality of life.(35) Additionally, both approaches have been built on the same foundations, recognising that the fundamental elements, society, the environment and the economy are interlinked. This principle is acknowledged recurrently in the Brundland Report, particularly in the section ‘From One Earth to One World’, where the title speaks for itself.(36) The Report stresses that humans need to reconnect with the environment physically and mentally.  Community spirit is encouraged and individuals are urged to participate in ‘decisions that affect the environment’.(37) Importantly, this attitude constitutes a new positive mentality to the human, environment relationship within the sustainable development approach.  Contradicting Cullinan’s claim that sustainable development lacks the ambition contained in wild law.(38)

Development

Wild law and sustainable development appear to build on the same principles and have the same goal, but the route from the start to the finish seem to part, in other words, the way the common principles are applied differ.  Whilst wild law focuses on the importance of nature, placing it at the top of a hierarchy, sustainable development concentrates on development, specifically human development. Terms such as exploitation and infrastructure may spring to mind in relation to development.  For this reason, Redclift is not alone in thinking sustainable development is an oxymoron.(39)However, the Brundland Report puts forward very convincing reasons supporting that development is in the best interests of both humans and the environment. The thrust of the argument is that poverty and environmental degradation go hand-in-hand, a connection acknowledged by Peter Bartelmus, who refers to the phrase ‘pollution poverty’.(40)Those living in poverty rely on natural resources for personal use, as they have no alternative sources, and also as a means of income. Thus, they have little option but to turn to overuse of vulnerable and natural resources for survival. Allowing economic growth could alleviate this poverty and in turn improve the environment, potentially enhancing society, the economy and the environment all at the same time.(41)

Whilst this paints a rosy picture, it is important to highlight that the Brundland Report does not suggest development will solve all our problems.  Complexity of the interactions between humans and the environment, between humans themselves, and the term development mean the solution is not this simple. The Report itself states that ‘linkages…are complex and, in many cases, poorly understood’.(42) Approach and attitude to development will influence the extent that it positively impacts on society and the environment.  At present, the development of developed and developing countries is unequal, the former effectively progressing at the expense of the latter.  This inequality is becoming more exaggerated with developing countries earning less but exploiting more.(43) Essentially the current approach to development is increasing poverty and subsequent environmental degradation. Therefore, continuing development suggested in the Brundland Report requires a change in tact, involving a ‘strengthening in the bargaining posture’ of developing countries.(44)

Controlling the scale and extent of development is also crucial in ensuring there is a balance between the positive effects on humans and the environment. Although, underdevelopment causes environmental degradation, as outlined clearly in the Brundland Report, so to does over development, an issue given little, if any, attention in the Report. Over development effectively tips the scale too far in favour of humans.

Desirable development would therefore distribute benefits evenly across the Earth and remain at a constant threshold, keeping everyone above the poverty line, but content, not aspiring to greater things materialistically, increasing the pressure on the environment.  An ambitious and new form of development.

A new way of thinking?

Wild law brings with it a new way of thinking.  Cullinan argues that sustainable development lacks this deeper meaning, amounting purely to a black letter practical concept, driven by economic prosperity rather than emotion and passion.  There is some truth in this as the concept is built wholly around development, as outlined above, with no mention of nature’s intrinsic value.  Whilst the Brundland Report respects the environment, it does so from an anthropocentric perspective, stating that the ‘human family’ would suffer from its disappearance.(45) Additionally, the Report allows technological innovation to continue and goes as far as saying that environmental considerations should account for such technology and likely substitutes.(46)

Although, Cullinan disapproves of sustainable development continuing an anthropocentric approach, it could achieve the same result.  People may wish to prevent climate change because they are worried about the impact on aspects of the environment such as ice caps, or alternatively because they are concerned about the threat to economy. Either motive stimulates action aimed at climate change prevention.  In reality, the latter motivates those who have the power to act, such as politicians and large companies.  There are many who would react to Sir Nicholas Stern report stating that climate change will be damaging to the economy.(47) Therefore as powerfully argued by Ben Pontin, Cullinan should not completely dismiss sustainable development, but introduce people to deeper morals and values within its framework.(48) Thus, despite the discrepancy between prioritising nature and development, there is potential for wild law and sustainable development achieve the same goal and even aid one another in achieving it.

Practical Application

The current approach to sustainable development recognises there is a relationship between humans and the environment. In turn, it aims to reconnect the two and maintain development at a level which allows them to exist in harmony. The following sections examine whether this is reflected in practice and whether wild law has any influence.

Multinational Corporations

The fact the Brundland Report fails to acknowledge that there should be an upper limit to development is a rather fundamental error. Allowing excessive development prevents the desired balance between society, the economy and the environment being achieved, as the economy plays a more dominating role. Like making a cake, to be a success the correct amount of each ingredient, or in this case element, is needed.  Too much of one ingredient or element creates problems.

When the report was presented to the Commission in 1987, excessive development may not have been considered a threat. However, with the rapid increase in multinational corporations (MNC) it has since become a reality.  The number of MNC’s leapt from 7,000 in 1970 to 40,000 in 1995, enhancing their economic power on a global scale.(49) A significant change not accounted for in the Brundland Report.  MNC’s are a hindrance to the Brundland Reports concept of sustainable development for a number of reasons.

No common mindset

As the formal title ‘Our Common Future’ suggests, it is hoped that all individuals have a common aim of improving quality of life, both now and in the future. MNC’s are an anomaly to this common mindset, focusing on financial gain, maximising profits and shareholders wealth.(50) A narrow focus, ignoring impacts on society and the environment.   Additionally, this rapid financial gain is achieved by concentrating only on the short-term benefits, dealing with problems as they arise using ‘quick fix’ solutions.(51) Tom Cannon describes the attitude of MNC’s as revolving around ‘competitiveness rather than harmony, rivalry not sharing and investing to increase yields and adding rather than merely replenishing’.(52)Overall, MNC’s lack the holistic, long-term and community spirit approach which is central to sustainable development.

The range and quantity of goods, which can be produced as a result of MNC’s presence, also make it difficult to enforce a common mindset between consumers. Whilst we may support sustainable development in theory, in reality, many would struggle to change their consumer habits and materialistic outlook.  Quality and value for money have become important determinants of purchasing behaviour.(53) As Newman stated, we can either have capitalism or a habitable planet, but not both.(54) Currently, we appear to be allowing and supporting the former, a mentality which does not sit comfortably with sustainable development or wild law.

Distance

Obtaining food and other products through MNC’s creates a long and complex commodity chain, a barrier to sustainable development and wild law for two key reasons.  Firstly, individuals have no concept of the social and environmental ramifications of their consumer habits.(55) Thus the principle that society, the economy and the environment are interlinked and impact on one another is not readily apparent.  An issue, which came to light several years ago, involved extensive forest clearance in Central and South America to provide cheap land for fast food chains to rear cattle.(56) There was a long period when consumers were completely unaware of this environmental impact. However, even now the impact is known, the distance between the consumer and the problem facilitates an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude.

Secondly, the long supply chains formed by MNC’s and the convenience of being able to purchase products means we have lost our physical and personal connection with the environment as well as our sense of community spirit. This connection cannot be fulfilled by the MNC’s themselves given they are ‘fictional individuals…incapable of forming an intimate relationship with the land’.(57)

Global Scale

Previous considerations show MNC’s conflict with sustainable development and wild law through preventing the desired way of thinking. Along side these problems, MNC’s transcend national boundaries, increasing both their size and the area they cover. This growth is likely to increase, as corporations get larger, other corporations instinctively grow and merge in order to compete.(58) Thus development is essentially out of control and in a very dominant position, particularly as the ‘corporate veil’ makes accountability difficult.(59) A concerning scale and form of development not accounted for in the Brundland Report.

 The probable source of the problem is that the Report did not foresee the extreme effect which emanated from the change in corporate regulation. During the 1960’s and 1970’s corporations were subject to mandatory domestic and international regulation, based on a nationalist and protectionist approach.(60) However, in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a shift to voluntary self-regulation.  MNC’s can now enforce regulations according to their own agenda and financial motives, often lowering standards of social and environmental responsibility.  Recent social pressures have aimed to increase these standards, but corporate response has simply attempted to improve public relations. New regulations implemented portray a caring image but in reality lack substance, applied partially and selectively as a ‘bolt-on’ to operations rather than ‘built-in’.(61) Current self-regulation of MNC’s allows them to legally damage society and the environment, against all the core values of sustainable development and wild law.

The North-South divide

Finally, MNC’s impede the alleviation of poverty; an important objective of the Brundland Report believed to be central in ending environmental degradation. In fact, poverty is enhanced as the difference between developed and developing countries is exaggerated. Contrary to the Brundland Report’s suggestion that the bargaining power of developing countries should be improved,(62) MNC’s cause their bargaining power to be reduced as they are permanently in a weaker position. This creates a destructive situation.  Developing countries want to stimulate their economy through attracting MNC’s, but in order to compete with other developing countries they are forced to demonstrate that operations will be cheap, in line with MNC’s goal of increasing profit.  Subsequently, the environment suffers, as does society, through the abuse of human rights.

The circumstances surrounding the Chad-Cameroon Oil and Pipeline project, discussed by Edwin Mujih, illustrate the extent of this problem.(63) The project involved building an underground pipeline to carry crude oil from Chad, across Cameroon, to Kribi. Oil companies concerned were able to contract out of virtually all responsibility for environmental damage, including responsibilities which would normally arise under national law.(64) Indeed the environment was affected, with the impact on fish particularly severe.  Additionally, their societies did not reap any benefits and were actually left worse off.  The financial gain was used to pay foreign debts but was considered by the World Bank to count towards Chad and Camroon’ poverty quota.(65)

MNC’s conflict with both sustainable development and wild law, due to their mentality, the mentality they inflict on others, their focus on profit and their domination. The determination to increase profits regardless of any environmental and social destruction shows wild law has no influence.  Arguably the opposite of Earth Jurisprudence is present, with human gain taking priority.

National Trust Approach

The discussion with regard to MNC’s leaves a rather bleak outlook on the success of applying sustainable development in practice and the inclusion of wild law. Nevertheless the recent strategy and approach put forward by the National Trust provides a glimmer of hope.

The new National Trust strategy takes a very holistic approach and, promisingly appears to combine elements of both sustainable development and wild law thinking. Equal recognition is given to finance, people and conservation in what the Trust refers to as a ‘triple bottom line methodology’.(66) For example, when deciding how to use a particular piece of land, the Trust proposes we select a use which respects humans and the environment.(67) Based upon its experience in agriculture, heritage, conservation and public access it believes an ‘integrated and holistic’ approach can be applied to land management, allowing it to be multifunctional.(68)

Aside from its traditional conservation role focusing on the environment, the National Trust acknowledges society.  Public participation and reconnection of people with the environment are encouraged, as suggested in the Brundland Report.  In light of this, activities such as a Somerset Sea Angling Competition are planned to take place over the coming years.  The Trust is also aiding the use of allotments, as it believes people have become ‘emotionally and practically disconnected from food’.(69)

As well as bringing society and the environment together, the National Trust integrates a financial and business element.  In addition to its manor houses, it now owns and manages over 150 tearooms and restaurants, forming one of the largest catering businesses in the country.(70) Importantly, the Trust runs these individual enterprises in a manner which respects the connection between humans and the environment. Products and supplies are obtained locally and,(71) the income generated is invested in conservation.(72)

Finally, the particular way of thinking, forming the foundations of the National Trust strategy, arguably gives Cullinan’s wild law some presence.  The Trust believes the natural and human environment should be conserved and, people should cherish them because they have a unique spirit. Every property and landscape being individual and distinctive.  Thus we should appreciate both not just for their existence, but for their deeper value, their quirkiness and the history and stories they bring to life.(73)

Conclusion

Prima facie wild law and sustainable development appear to be quite unique and separate concepts.  Given that the former prioritises and stresses the importance of nature whilst the latter promotes human development, it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming the two concepts conflict. Indeed Cullinan himself treats sustainable development with caution and suspicion. Despite this, there is potential for wild law and sustainable development to complement one another with wild law injecting a new way of thinking into sustainable development.  The National Trust strategy illustrates how this could work in practice and the positive results it would achieve, allowing the economy, society and the environment to exist in harmony based upon a new mentality.  The question is, will the human species change their way of thinking and behaviour in order for this strategy to transpire or, is it a vision which will always remain a vision?  Only time will tell.

Table of Cases

KM Chinnappa v Union of India WP 202/1995, (2003) 51 BLJR

 

Bibliography

Textbooks

W.M. Adams, Green Development (3rd edn Routledge, London 2009)

P Bartelmus, Environment and Development (Allen and Unwin Publishers Ltd, London 1986)

P Bartelmus, Environment, growth and development (Routledge, London 1994)

Blair and Hitchcock, Environment and Business (Routledge, London 2001) 22

S Coyle and K Morrow, Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Law (Hart, Oxford 2003)

  1. Chambers, C Simmons and M Wackernagel, Sharing Nature’s Interest (Earthscan Publications Ltd, London 2000)

C Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, Totnes Devon 2003)

T Cannon, Corporate responsibility, A textbook on Business Ethics, Governance, Environment: Roles and Responsibilities (Pitman Publishing, London 1994)

  1. Kutting, Globalisation and the Environment (State University of New York Press, Albany 2004)

E.F. Moran, People and Nature (Blackwell Publishing, London 2006)

 

 

Journals

N Baker, ‘ Rebalancing the system: an agenda for change’ (2007) 19 ELM 77

K Bosselmann, ‘Poverty Alleviation and Environmental Sustainability through improved regimes of Technology Transfer’ (2006) 2(1) Environment and Development Journal 19

K Conca, ‘Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy’ (2001) 1(3) Global Environmental Politics 53

C Cullinan, ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice – A Summary’ (2006) 18(1) Environmental Law and Management 5

C Cullinan, ‘Finding our way to a viable future: A response to Professors Warren and Lee’ (2006) 18 ELM 18

C Cullinan, ‘Sowing Wild Law’ (2007) 19 ELM 71

M Doupe, ‘Publication Review, The Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Law – Property Rights and Nature’ (2005) 17(3) J. Env. L 461

S Fazio, ‘Corporate governance, accountability and emerging economies’ (2008) 29(4) Comp. Law. 105

B Filgueira, ‘How wild did it get?’ (2006) 18 ELM 24

S Kumar, ‘Economics and Ecology – which comes first?’ (2007) 19 ELM 82

R Lee, ‘A walk on the wild side: wild law in practice’ (2006) 18 ELM 6

I Mason and B Filgueira, ‘Wild Law: is Earth Jurisprudence a practical philosophy of law?’ (2009) 21 ELM 260

E Mujih, ‘Co-deregulation of multinational companies operating in developing countries: partnering against corporate social responsibility?’ (2008) 16(2) A.J.I.C.L 249

E Mujih, ‘The regulation of multinational companies operating in developing countries: a case study of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project (2008) 16(1) A.J.I.C.L 83

J Parkinson, ‘Disclosure and Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: Competitiveness and Enterprise in a broader Social Frame’ (2003) 3(1) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 3

C Pedamon, ‘Corporate social responsibility: a new approach to promoting integrity and responsibility’ (2010) 31(6) Comp. Law 172

B Pontin, ‘Wild Law: sustainable development and beyond?’ (2007) 19 ELM 59

A Ross-Robertson, ‘Is the Environment getting squeezed out of sustainable development?’ (2003) Public Law 249

M Stallworthy, ‘Sustainability, the environment and the role of UK corporations’ (2006) 17(6) I.C.C.L.R 155

C Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? – Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450

M.R Stone, ‘Sustainable Development (1987-2005) – an oxymoron comes of age’ (2005) 13 Sustainable Development 212

J Trochon, ‘New challenges facing multinational corporations, a legal perspective’ (2003) 8 I.B.L.J 847

L Warren, ‘Wild Law – the theory’ (2006) 18 ELM 11

Newspaper Articles

  1. Newman, ‘It’s Capitalism or a Habitable Planet- You Can’t Have Both’ The Guardian (London 2 February 2006) 33

 

Websites

The Gaia Foundation ‘Earth Jurisprudence – Earth Law’ <http://www.gaiafoundation.org/content/earth-jurisprudence-earth-law> accessed 17 April 2011

HM Treasury ‘Stern Review: The economics of climate change’ < http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm > accessed 17 April 2011

National Trust ‘Appetite for change’  <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/appetite_for_change_report-2.pdf > 4 accessed 17 April 2011

National Trust ‘Green Spaces – Measuring the Benefits’  <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-green-_lungs.pdf > accessed 17 April 2011

National Trust ‘National Trust Annual Report 2009/10’ < http://92.52.118.192/w-annualreport.pdf > accessed 17 April 2011

National Trust ‘Our land: for ever, for everyone’ < http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-our-land.pdf > accessed 17 April 2011

UN Documents ‘Our Common Future’ < http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm > accessed 17 April 2011

[1] C Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, Totnes Devon 2003)

[2] I Mason and B Filgueira, ‘Wild Law: is Earth Jurisprudence a practical philosophy of law?’ (2009) 21 ELM 260, 260

[3] ibid 262

[4] C Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, Totnes Devon 2003) 84

[5] ibid

[6] L Warren, ‘Wild Law – the theory’ (2006) 18 ELM 11, 13

[7] N Baker, ‘ Rebalancing the system: an agenda for change’ (2007) 19 ELM 77, 78

[8] C Cullinan, ‘Sowing Wild Law’ (2007) 19 ELM 71, 72

[9] M Doupe, ‘Publication Review, The Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Law – Property Rights and Nature’ (2005) 17(3) J. Env. L 461, 461

[10] I Mason and B Filgueira, ‘Wild Law: is Earth Jurisprudence a practical philosophy of law?’ (2009) 21 ELM 260, 260

[11] B Pontin, ‘Wild Law: sustainable development and beyond?’ (2007) 19 ELM 59, 59

[12] C Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? – Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450

[13] KM Chinnappa v Union of India WP 202/1995, (2003) 51 BLJR

[14] C Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, Totnes Devon 2003) 117

[15] C Cullinan, ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice – A Summary’ (2006) 18(1) Environmental Law and Management 5, 5

[16] C Cullinan, ‘Sowing Wild Law’ (2007) 19 ELM 71, 73

[17] ibid

[18] N Baker, ‘Rebalancing the system: an agenda for change’ (2007) 19 ELM 77, 80

[19] S Kumar, ‘Economics and Ecology – which comes first?’ (2007) 19 ELM 82, 82

[20] I Mason and B Filgueira, ‘Wild Law: is Earth Jurisprudence a practical philosophy of law?’ (2009) 21 ELM 260, 260

[21] The Gaia Foundation ‘Earth Jurisprudence – Earth Law’ <http://www.gaiafoundation.org/content/earth-jurisprudence-earth-law> accessed 17 April 2011

[22] ibid

[23] KM Chinnappa v Union of India WP 202/1995, (2003) 51 BLJR and I Mason and B Filgueira, ‘Wild Law: is Earth Jurisprudence a practical philosophy of law?’ (2009) 21 ELM 260, 263

[24] B Filgueira, ‘How wild did it get?’ (2006) 18 ELM 24, 25

[25] R Lee, ‘A walk on the wild side: wild law in practice’ (2006) 18 ELM 6

[26] ibid 7

[27] ibid 9

[28] C Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, Totnes Devon 2003) 117

[29] B Filgueira, ‘How wild did it get?’ (2006) 18 ELM 24, 25

[30] L Warren, ‘Wild Law – the theory’ (2006) 18 ELM 11, 15

[31] B Filgueira, ‘How wild did it get?’ (2006) 18 ELM 24, 25

[32] C Cullinan, ‘Finding our way to a viable future: A response to Professors Warren and Lee’ (2006) 18 ELM 18, 23

[33] S Coyle and K Morrow, Philosophical Foundations of Environmental Law (Hart, Oxford 2003)

[34] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm> 1 accessed 17 April 2011

[35] B Pontin, ‘Wild law: sustainable development and beyond?’ (2007) 19 ELM 59, 61

[36] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, From One Earth to One World’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm> accessed 17 April 2011

[37] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm> 77 accessed 17 April 2011

[38] C Cullinan, ‘Finding our way to a viable future: A response to Professors Warren and Lee’ (2006) 18 ELM 18, 23

[39] M.R Stone, ‘Sustainable Development (1987-2005) – an oxymoron comes of age’ (2005) 13 Sustainable Development 212

[40] P Bartelmus, Environment and Development (Allen and Unwin Publishers Ltd, London 1986) 11 and P Bartelmus, Environment, growth and development (Routledge, London 1994) 6

[41] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm> 32 accessed 17 April 2011

[42] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 3, Chapter 11: Peace, Security, Development, and the Environment’ < http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-11.htm > 4 accessed 17 April 2011

[43] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 3: The Role of the International Economy’ < http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-03.htm> 44 accessed 17 April 2011

[44] ibid 61

[45] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, From One Earth to One World’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm> 103 accessed 17 April 2011

[46] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development’ <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm> 12 accessed 17 April 2011

[47] N Baker, ‘ Rebalancing the system: an agenda for change’ (2007) 19 ELM 77, 80 and HM Treasury ‘Stern Review: The economics of climate change’ < http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm > accessed 17 April 2011

[48] B Pontin, ‘Wild law: sustainable development and beyond?’ (2007) 19 ELM 59, 62

[49] S Fazio, ‘Corporate governance, accountability and emerging economies’ (2008) 29(4) Comp. Law. 105, 105

[50] M Stallworthy, ‘Sustainability, the environment and the role of UK corporations’ (2006) 17(6) I.C.C.L.R 155, 159 and J Trochon, ‘New challenges facing multinational corporations, a legal perspective’ (2003) 8 I.B.L.J 847, 853

[51] T Cannon, Corporate responsibility, A textbook on Business Ethics, Governance, Environment: Roles and Responsibilities (Pitman Publishing, London 1994) 210

[52] ibid 208

[53] J Parkinson, ‘Disclosure and Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: Competitiveness and Enterprise in a broader Social Frame’ (2003) 3(1) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 3, 12

[54] R. Newman, ‘It’s Capitalism or a Habitable Planet- You Can’t Have Both’ The Guardian (London 2 February 2006) 33

[55] K Conca, ‘Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy’ (2001) 1(3) Global Environmental Politics 53, 63

[56] Blair and Hitchcock, Environment and Business (Routledge, London 2001) 22

[57] B Pontin, ‘Wild law: sustainable development and beyond?’ (2007) 19 ELM 59, 60

[58] S Fazio, ‘Corporate governance, accountability and emerging economies’ (2008) 29(4) Comp. Law. 105, 105

[59] M Stallworthy, ‘Sustainability, the environment and the role of UK corporations’ (2006) 17(6) I.C.C.L.R 155, 158

[60] C Pedamon, ‘Corporate social responsibility: a new approach to promoting integrity and responsibility’ (2010) 31(6) Comp. Law 172, 173 and E Mujih, ‘Co-deregulation of multinational companies operating in developing countries: partnering against corporate social responsibility?’ (2008) 16(2) A.J.I.C.L 249, 249

[61] C Pedamon, ‘Corporate social responsibility: a new approach to promoting integrity and responsibility’ (2010) 31(6) Comp. Law 172, 177-178 and E Mujih, ‘Co-deregulation of multinational companies operating in developing countries: partnering against corporate social responsibility?’ (2008) 16(2) A.J.I.C.L 249, 256

[62] UN Documents ‘Our Common Future, Part 1, Chapter 3: The Role of the International Economy’ < http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-03.htm> 44 accessed 17 April 2011

[63] E Mujih, ‘The regulation of multinational companies operating in developing countries: a case study of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project (2008) 16(1) A.J.I.C.L 83

[64] ibid 84 and 92

[65] ibid 86

[66] National Trust ‘National Trust Annual Report 2009/10’ < http://92.52.118.192/w-annualreport.pdf > 32 accessed 17 April 2011

[67] National Trust ‘Our land: for ever, for everyone’ < http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-our-land.pdf > accessed 17 April 2011

[68] National Trust ‘Green Spaces – Measuring the Benefits’  <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-green-_lungs.pdf > 2 accessed 17 April 2011

[69] National Trust ‘Appetite for change’  <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/appetite_for_change_report-2.pdf > 4 accessed 17 April 2011

[70] ibid 19

[71] ibid 18

[72] National Trust ‘National Trust Annual Report 2009/10’ < http://92.52.118.192/w-annualreport.pdf > 34 accessed 17 April 2011

[73] National Trust ‘National Trust Annual Report 2009/10’ < http://92.52.118.192/w-annualreport.pdf > 2 and 3 accessed 17 April 2011

Leave a Reply