Relational personhood: a conception of legal personhood with insights from disability rights and environmental law

Primary legal sources

Cases

• Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social ‘Tierra Digna’ and Others v the President of the Republic and Others [2016] Corte Constituciónal [Constitutional Court], Sala Sexta de Revision [Sixth Chamber] (Colombia) No T-622 of 2016 (10 November 2016), translations from Spanish as per Macpherson and Clavijo Ospina (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Drewes Farm Partnership v. City of Toledo Ohio 441 F. Supp. 3d 551 (N.D. Ohio 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Government of Bangladesh and others [2016] HCD (Writ Petition No. 13989 of 2016, judgement declared on 3 February 2019, 283 translations from Bangla as per Islam and O’Donnell (2020).
   Google Scholar
• Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand & others, WPPIL 140/2015 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Mohd. Salim v State of Uttarakhand & others WPPIL 126/2014 (High Court of Uttarakhand) 2017 (India).
   Google Scholar
• Sierra Club v Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler v Director de la Procuraduria General Del Estado de Loja, Juicio No. 11121-2011-0010, translations from Spanish as per Daly (2012).
   Google Scholar

Statute

• Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (New Zealand).
   Google Scholar
• Te Urewera Act 2014 (New Zealand).
   Google Scholar

Other

• United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
   Google Scholar

Secondary sources

• L Appell-Warren (2014) Personhood: An Examination of the History and Use of an Anthropological Concept, Edwin Mellen Press.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (ed) (2016) Disability Human Rights Law, MDPI.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (2017a) Restoring Voice to People with Cognitive Disabilities, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (ed) (2017b) Disability Human Rights Law, MDPI.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (ed) (2018) Disability Human Rights Law, MDPI.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (2019) ‘Gendered Denials: Vulnerability Created by Barriers to Legal Capacity for Women and Disabled women’ 66 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 101501. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake (2021) Legal Capacity & Gender: Realising the Human Right to Legal Personhood and Agency of Women, Disabled Women, and Gender Minorities, Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake and E Flynn (2016a) ‘The General Comment on Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Roadmap for Equality Before the Law’ 20(4) The International Journal of Human Rights 471–490. doi:10.1080/13642987.2015.1107052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake and E Flynn (2016b) ‘Legislating Consent: Creating an Empowering Definition of Consent to Sex That Is Inclusive of People With Cognitive Disabilities’ 25(2) Social & Legal Studies 225–248. doi:10.1177/0964663915599051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake and E Flynn (2017) ‘The Right to Legal Agency: Domination, Disability and the Protections of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ 13(1) International Journal of Law in Context 22–38. doi:10.1017/S1744552316000458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A Arstein-Kerslake, P Gooding, L Andrews and B McSherry (2017) ‘Human Rights and Unfitness to Plead: The Demands of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ 17(3) Human Rights Law Review 399–419. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngx025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce Pascoe (2018) Dark Emu. Magabala Books.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Burdon (2010) ‘The Rights of Nature: Reconsidered’ 49 Australian Humanities Review 69–89.
   Google Scholar
• FK Campbell (2009) Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9780230245181.
   Google Scholar
• AE Carlson (1998) ‘Standing for the Environment’ 45 UCLA Law Review 931-1004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H Chan (2004) ‘Informed Consent Hong Kong Style: An Instance of Moderate Familism’ 29 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 195-206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillaume Chapron, Yaffa Epstein and José Vicente López-Bao (2019) ‘A Rights Revolution for Nature’ 363 Science 1392-1393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J Christman (2004) ‘Relational Autonomy, Liberal Individualism, and the Social Constitution of Selves’ 117(1–2) Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 143–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MV Costa (2009) ‘Neo-republicanism, Freedom as non-Domination, and Citizen Virtue’ 8(4) Politics, Philosophy & Economics 401–419. doi:10.1177/1470594X09343079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M V Costa (2019) ‘Freedom as Non-Domination and Widespread Prejudice’ 50(4) Metaphilosophy 441–458. doi:10.1111/meta.12367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erin Daly (2012) ‘The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindication of Constitutional Rights of Nature’ 21 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 63-66.
   Google Scholar
• M Davidson (2019) Invalid Modernism: Disability and the Missing Body of the Aesthetic. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• LJ Davis (2014) The End of Normal. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• A Dhanda (2006) ‘Legal Capacity in the Disability Rights Convention: Stranglehold of the Past or Lodestar for the Future Symposium: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ 2 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 429–462.
   Google Scholar
• S E Evans (2016) Hitler’s Forgotten Victims: The Holocaust and the Disabled. The History Press.
   Google Scholar
• M Fioranelli, M G Roccia, M Rovesti, F Satolli, P Petrelli and T Lotti (2017) ‘The Holocaust of the Disabled’ 167(1) Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift 54–55. doi:10.1007/s10354-017-0572-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erin Fitz-Henry (2014) ‘Decolonizing personhood’ in Michelle Maloney and Peter Burdon (eds) Wild Law – In Practice, Routledge, 133–148.
   Google Scholar
• E Flynn and A Arstein-Kerslake (2014) ‘Legislating Personhood: Realising the Right to Support in Exercising Legal Capacity’ 10(1) International Journal of Law in Context 81–104. doi:10.1017/S1744552313000384
   Google Scholar
• L Godden (1998) ‘Preserving Natural Heritage: Nature as Other.’ 22(3) Melbourne University Law Review 719-742.
   Google Scholar
• FL Ganshof (1996) Feudalism. University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• C Geertz (1984) ‘“From the Natives’ Point of View”: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding’ in Richard A Shweder and Robert A LeVine (eds) Culture Theory, Cambridge University Press, 123–136.
   Google Scholar
• P Gooding and C O’Mahony (2016) ‘Laws on Unfitness to Stand Trial and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Comparing Reform in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Australia’ 44 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 122–145. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2015.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D Goodley (2014) Dis/Ability Studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism : Theorising Disablism and Ableism. Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Mary Graham (2008) ‘Some Thoughts about the Philosophical Underpinnings of Aboriginal Worldviews’ 45 Australian Humanities Review 181–194.
   Google Scholar
• Anna Grear (2013) ‘Law’s Entities: Complexity, Plasticity and Justice’ 4 Jurisprudence 76-101.
   Google Scholar
• EV de Haar (2018) Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• PH Hawley (1999) ‘The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance: A Strategy-Based Evolutionary Perspective’ 19(1) Developmental Review 97–132. doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D Herzog (2018) Unlearning Eugenics: Sexuality, Reproduction, and Disability in Post-Nazi Europe, University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• B Hughes (2012) ‘Civilising Modernity and the Ontological Invalidation of Disabled People’ in B Hughes, D Goodley and LJ Davis (eds) Disability and Social Theory, Springer, 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• B Hughes (2019) A Historical Sociology of Disability: Human Validity and Invalidity from Antiquity to Early Modernity. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• B Hughes and K Paterson (1997) ‘The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a Sociology of impairment’ 12(3) Disability & Society 325–340. doi:10.1080/09687599727209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammad Sohidul Islam and Erin O’Donnell (2020) ‘Legal Rights for the Turag: Rivers as Living Entities in Bangladesh’ 23 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 160–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S Iyengar and M Lepper (1999) ‘Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on Intrinsic motivation’ 76(3) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 349-366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PS Karlan and DR Ortiz (1992) ‘In a Diffident Voice: Relational Feminism, Abortion Rights, and the Feminist Legal Agenda’ 87(3) Northwestern University Law Review 858–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig M Kauffman and Pamela L Martin (2017) ‘Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian Lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail’ 92 World Development 130–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Kitchin and R Law (2001) ‘The Socio-Spatial Construction of (In)accessible Public Toilets’ 38(2) Urban Studies 287–298. doi:10.1080/00420980124395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SC Knittel (2014) The Historical Uncanny: Disability, Ethnicity, and the Politics of Holocaust Memory. Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• SR Krause (2013) ‘Beyond non-Domination: Agency, Inequality and the Meaning of Freedom’ 39(2) Philosophy & Social Criticism 187–208. doi:10.1177/0191453712470360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VA Kurki (2019) A Theory of Legal Personhood. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• C Levis, FRC Costa, F Bongers, M Peña-Claros, CR Clement, AB Junqueira, EG Neves, et al. (2017) ‘Persistent Effects of Pre-columbian Plant Domestication on Amazonian Forest Composition’, 355 Science 925-931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PA Lombardo (2008) ‘Disability, Eugenics, and the Culture Wars Disability, Reproduction & Parenting’ 2(1) Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy 57–80.
   Google Scholar
• F Lovett (2009) ‘Domination and Distributive Justice’ 71(3) The Journal of Politics 817–830. doi:10.1017/S0022381609090732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F Lovett (2010) A General Theory of Domination and Justice. A General Theory of Domination and Justice, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• C Mackenzie (ed) (2014) Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• C Mackenzie and N Stoljar (2000) Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elizabeth Macpherson and Felipe Clavijo Ospina (2018) ‘The Pluralism of River Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand and Colombia’ 25 Journal of Water Law 283–293.
   Google Scholar
• Virginia Marshall (2020) ‘Removing the Veil from the “Rights of Nature”: The Dichotomy Between First Nations Customary Rights and Environmental Legal Personhood’ 45(2) Australian Feminist Law Journal 233–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martuwarra River Of Life, A. Pelizzon, A. Poelina, A. Akhtar-Khavari, C. Clark, S. Laborde, E. Macpherson, K. O’Bryan, E. O’Donnell and J. Page (2021). “Yoongoorrookoo: The emergence of ancestral personhood.” Griffith Law Review in press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LC McClain (1991) ‘Atomistic Man Revisited: Liberalism, Connection, and Feminist Jurisprudence’ 65(3) Southern California Law Review 1171–1264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JE McConnell (1996) ‘Relational and Liberal Feminism: The Ethic of Care, Fetal Personhood and Autonomy Symposium: Farley v. Sartin and Fetal Personhood’ 99(2) West Virginia Law Review 291–310.
   Google Scholar
• G Millward (2014) ‘Invalid Definitions, Invalid Responses: Disability and the Welfare State, 1965–1995’ (PhD thesis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine).
   Google Scholar
• T Minkowitz (2006) ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Right to Be Free from Nonconsensual Psychiatric Interventions Symposium: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ 2 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 405–428.
   Google Scholar
• Ngaire Naffine (2009) Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person, Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• K O’Bryan (2019) ‘The Changing Face of River Management in Victoria: The Yarra River Protection (Wilip-Gin Birrarung Murron) Act 2017 (Vic)’ Water International. doi:10.1080/02508060.2019.1616370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E O’Donnell (2018a). Legal Rights for Rivers: Competition, Collaboration and Water Governance, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Erin O’Donnell and Julia Talbot-Jones (2018) ‘Creating Legal Rights for Rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India’ 23 Ecology and Society 7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erin O’Donnell, Anna Arstein-Kerslake, Philippa Duell-Piening, Siane Richardson, Ashleigh Best and Jade Roberts (2019) Recognising Personhood: An Examination of the Evolving Relationship Between the Legal Person and the State, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Erin O’Donnell, Anne Poelina, Alessandro Pelizzon and Cristy Clark (2020) ‘Stop Burying the Lede: The Essential Role of Indigenous Law(s) in Creating Rights for Nature’ 9 Transnational Environmental Law 403-427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erin O’Donnell (2018b) ‘At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India’ 30 Journal of Environmental Law 135-144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erin O’Donnell (2021) ‘Rivers as Living Beings: Rights in Law, but No Rights to Water?’ 29(4) Griffith Law Review 643-668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M Palynchuk (forthcoming) ‘The Dependency Challenge to (Dispositional) Theories of Domination’ Social Theory and Practice.
   Google Scholar
• P Pettit (1999) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• D Pfeiffer (1994) ‘Eugenics and Disability Discrimination’ 9(4) Disability & Society 481–499. doi:10.1080/09687599466780471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zygmunt JB Plater (1994) ‘From the Beginning, a Fundamental Shift of Paradigms: A Theory and Short History of Environmental Law’ 27 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 981-1008.
   Google Scholar
• MJ Radin (1982) ‘Property and Personhood’ 34(5) Stanford Law Review 957–1015. doi:10.2307/1228541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M Rehbinder (1970) ‘Status, Contract, and the Welfare State’ 23(5) Stanford Law Review 941–955.
   Google Scholar
• Jacinta Ruru (2014) ‘Tūhoe-Crown Settlement – Te Urewera Act 2014’ Maori Law Review, (online): https://maorilawreview.co.nz.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/2014/10/tuhoe-crown-settlement-te-urewera-act-14/.
   Google Scholar
• F Schuppert (2015) ‘Non-Domination, Non-Alienation and Social Equality: Towards a Republican Understanding of Equality’ 18(4) Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 440–455. doi:10.1080/13698230.2015.1033863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SM Schweik (2009) The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public, NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• L Series (2013) ‘The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Institutional Domination of People with Learning Disabilities’ (PhD thesis, University of Exeter).
   Google Scholar
• L Series (2015) ‘Mental Capacity and the Control of Sexuality of People with Intellectual Disabilities in England and Wales’ in T Shakespeare (ed) Disability Research Today: International Perspectives, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• T Shakespeare (1998) ‘Choices and Rights: Eugenics, Genetics and Disability equality’ 13(5) Disability & Society 665–681. doi:10.1080/09687599826452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T Shakespeare (2016) ‘The Social Model of Disability’ in LJ Davis (ed) The Disability Studies Reader, Taylor & Francis, 195–203.
   Google Scholar
• Linda Sheehan (2019) ‘Implementing Nature’s Rights Through Regulatory Standards’ 20 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 227-242.
   Google Scholar
• NJ Shklar (1998) Political Thought and Political Thinkers. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• J Sidanius, S Cotterill, J Sheehy-Skeffington, N Kteily and H Carvacho (2017) ‘Social Dominance Theory: Explorations in the Psychology of Oppression’ in CG Sibley and FK Barlow (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice, 149–187, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• J Sidanius, S Levin, CM Federico and F Pratto (2001) ‘Legitimizing Ideologies: The Social Dominance Approach’ in JT Jost and B Major (eds) The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, 307–331.
   Google Scholar
• SL Snyder and DT Mitchell (2010) Cultural Locations of Disability, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• EM Suh (2000). ‘Self, the Hyphen between culture and subjective well-being’ in E Diener & E M Suh (eds), Culture and subjective well-being, 63–86, MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christopher D Stone (1972) ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ 45 Southern California Law Review 450-501.
   Google Scholar
• H Tajfel (1974) ‘Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour’ 13(2) Social Science Information 65–93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihnea Tănăsescu (2020) ‘Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies’ 9 Transnational Environmental Law 429–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linda Te Aho (2009) ‘Indigenous Challenges to Enhance Freshwater Governance and Management in Aotearoa New Zealand – the Waikato River Settlement’ 20 Journal of Water Law 285–292.
   Google Scholar
• MJ Thompson (2013) ‘Reconstructing Republican Freedom: A Critique of the neo-Republican Concept of Freedom as non-domination’ 39(3) Philosophy & Social Criticism 277–298. doi:10.1177/0191453712473081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Traustadóttir (2009) ‘Disability Studies, The Social Model and Legal Developments’ in The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives 1–16. Brill.
   Google Scholar
• AF Tredgold (2009) ‘The Feeble-Minded – a Social Danger’ 1(2) The Eugenics Review 97–104.
   Google Scholar
• J Walmsley (2005) ‘Institutionalisation: An Historical Perspective’ in K Johnson and R Traustadóttir (eds) Deinstitutionalisation and People with Intellectual Disabilities: In and Out of Institutions, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 50–65.
   Google Scholar
• J Watson, E Wilson and N Hagiliassis (2017) ‘Supporting end of Life Decision Making: Case Studies of Relational Closeness in Supported Decision Making for People with Severe or Profound Intellectual disability’ 30(6) Journal of Applied Research on Intellectual Disabilities 1022-1034. doi:10.1111/jar.12393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J Watson (2016) ‘The Right to Supported Decision Making for People Rarely Heard’ (PhD thesis, Deakin University).
   Google Scholar
• J Watson and R Joseph (2015) People with Severe to Profound Intellectual Disabilities Leading Lives They Prefer Through Supported Decision Making: Listening to Those Rarely Heard. A Guide for Supporters. A Training Package, 2nd ed, Scope.
   Google Scholar
• Vanessa Watts (2013) ‘Indigenous Place-Thought & Agency Amongst Humans and non-Humans (First Woman and Sky Woman Go on a European World Tour!)’ 2 Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 20-34.
   Google Scholar
• BF Waxman (1994) ‘Up Against Eugenics: Disabled Women’s Challenge to Receive Reproductive Health services’ 12(2) Sexuality and Disability 155–171. doi:10.1007/BF02547889.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J Woodhouse (1982) ‘Eugenics and the Feeble-Minded: The Parliamentary Debates of 1912–14’ 11(2) History of Education 127–137. doi:10.1080/0046760820110205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar