Abstract
Recent work on legal personhood and corporations has pointed out the problematic character of such “artificial” legal personality, either because it gives legal protection to “in-human” behavior on the part of corporations, or because it unduly employs legal personhood to graft “human” rights protection onto corporations. In both cases, though, the “natural” legal person is employed as standard to criticize the “artificial” legal person. Other legal theorists, on the contrary, have defended the plasticity of legal personhood claiming that it responds better to an on-going process of de-naturalizing the “human” person, as well as allowing, via “artificial” legal personhood, the application of human rights to nonhuman beings, like rivers, forests and the like. In this chapter I want to bring back a distinction between corporation and trust, according to which the corporations endow groups of actors with one personality “by fiction” whereas the latter refer to a “real personality” of groups. I shall first discuss the crucial consequences that follow from this distinction with respect to: (a) the power relations within a group; (b) the relation between use and ownership; and (c) self vs other-directed purpose of corporations and trusts. I shall then make an argument as to why the idea of a trust may work better as a vehicle for the ascription of legal personality as well as human rights to nonhuman things than the ideas of fictional legal personality and corporate personhood.
An earlier version of this chapter was given at the “Brave New Law” Workshop, hosted by the Biopolitics of Science Research Network at the University of Sydney, August 27–28, 2018. I wish to thank Professor Brad Sherman for his very helpful commentary to my chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Agamben, G 2008, Signatura Rerum. Sul metodo, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.
Agamben, G 2013, The highest poverty: Monastic rules and form-of-life, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Berry, T 1999, The great work: our way into the future, Bell Tower, New York.
Bosselmann, K 2011, ‘Property rights and sustainability: can they be reconciled?’ in D Grinlinton & P Taylor (eds), Property rights and sustainability: the evolution of property rights to meet ecological challenges, Brill, Leiden, pp. 23–42.
Bosselmann, K 2015, Earth governance: trusteeship of the global commons, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Bosselmann, K 2017, The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance, Routledge, London.
Burdon, P (eds) 2011, Exploring wild law: the philosophy of earth jurisprudence, Wakefield Press, Adelaide.
Canning, J 1987, The political thought of Baldus de Ubaldis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Charpleix, L 2018, ‘The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: place-based law in a legally pluralistic society’, The Geographic Journal, vol. 184, pp. 19–30.
Coleman, J 2005, ‘Pre-modern property and self-ownership before and after Locke: or, when did common decency become a private rather than a public virtue?’ European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 125–145.
Criddle, EJ & Fox-Decent, E 2009, ‘A fiduciary theory of Jus Cogens’, Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 34, pp. 331–387.
Cullinan, C 2003, Wild law: a manifesto for earth justice, Green Books, Devon.
Descola, P 2014, Beyond nature and culture, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Dewey, J 1926, ‘The historic background of corporate legal personality’, Yale Law Journal, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 655–673.
Esposito, R 2002, Immunitas, Einaudi, Turin.
Esposito, R 2008, Bios: biopolitics and philosophy, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Esposito, R 2010, Communitas: the origin and destiny of community, trans. T Campbell, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Esposito, R 2011. Immunitas, the protection and negation of life, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Esposito, R 2012, The third person, Polity Press, London.
Esposito, R 2015, Persons and things: from the body’s point of view, Polity Press, London.
Gierke, O von 2002, Community in historical perspective, ed. A Black, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Good, M 2013, ‘The river as a legal person: evaluating nature rights-based approaches to environmental protection in Australia’, National Environmental Law Review, vol. 1, pp. 34–42.
Grear, A (ed.) 2012, Should trees have standing? 40 years on, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Grear, A 2013, ‘Law’s entities: complexity, plasticity, justice’, Jurisprudence, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 76–101.
Hardt, M 2009, ‘Politics of the common’, Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by Z Communications, Boston, 6.
Hardt, M & Antonio, N 2009, Commonwealth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hayles, NK 2017, Unthought, the power of the cognitive nonconscious, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Helfrich, S (ed.) 2014, Commons, Für eine neue Politik jenseits von Markt und Staat, Heinrich-Böll Stiftung, Bonn.
Kohn, E 2013, How forests think: toward an anthropology beyond the human, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Latour, B 2004, Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
List, C & Pettit, P 2006, ‘Group agency and supervenience’, Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 44, pp. 85–105.
Maitland, FW 2003, State, trust and corporation, ed. D Runciman & R Magnus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McGee, K 2014, Bruno Latour, the normativity of networks, Nomikoi, critical legal thinkers, Routledge, London.
Naffine, N 2009, Law’s meaning of life, philosophy, religion, darwin and the legal person, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
O’Donnell, E 2018, Legal rights for rivers: competition, collaboration, and water governance, Routledge, London.
O’Donnell, E & Talbot-Jones, J 2018, ‘Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India’, Ecology and Society, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 7.
Parsley, C & Mussawir, E 2017, ‘The law of persons today: at the margins of jurisprudence’, Law and Humanities, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 44–63.
Pettit, P 2003, ‘Groups with minds of their own’, in F Schmitt (eds), Socializing metaphysics, Rowman & Littlefield, New York, pp. 167–193.
Runciman, D 2005, Pluralism and the personality of the state, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, L 2012, ‘The re-imagined trust’, in L Smith (ed.), Re-imagining the trust: trusts in civil law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 258–273.
Taylor, P & Grinlinton, D 2011, ‘Property rights and sustainability: toward a new vision of property’, in D Grinlinton (ed.), Property rights and sustainability: the evolution of property rights and sustainability, Brill, Leiden, pp. 1–20.
Teubner, G 2006, ‘Rights of non-humans? electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 497–521.
Thomas, N 2011, ‘Maori concepts of Rangatiratanga, Kaitiakitanga, the environment, and property rights’, in D Grinlinton & P Taylor (eds) Property rights and sustainability: the evolution of property rights to meet ecological challenges, Brill, Leiden, pp. 219–248.
Tierney, B 1983, Religion, law, and the growth of constitutional thought 1150–1650, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tierney, B 1997, The idea of natural rights, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI.
Van Beers, B 2017, ‘The changing nature of law’s natural person: the impact of emerging technologies on the legal concept of the person’, German Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 560–593.
Vatter, M 2013, ‘Il-limitato e s-corporato. Dalla corporazione al comune passando per il trust’, Filosofia Politica, vol. 3, pp. 3–26.
Vatter, M 2016, ‘Law and life beyond incorporation, Agamben, highest poverty and the papal legal revolution’, in D McLoughlin (ed.), Agamben and radical politics, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 234–262.
Vatter, M 2017, ‘Community, life, and subjectivity in Italian biopolitics’, in S Prozorov & S Rentea (eds), The Routledge handbook of biopolitics, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 123–140.
Vatter, M & Lemm, V (eds) 2014, The government of life: Foucault, biopolitics, and neoliberalism, Fordham University Press, New York.
Whittemore, ME 2011, ‘The problem of enforcing nature’s rights under Ecuador’s constitution: why the 2008 environmental amendments have no bite’, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 659–691.
Wolfe, C 2012, Before the law, humans and other animals in a biopolitical frame, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wood, C 2013, Nature’s trust: environmental law for a new ecological age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wood, C 2017, ‘The nature’s trust paradigm for a sustaining economy’, in MK Scanlan (ed.), Law and policy for a new economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 97–115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vatter, M. (2020). Nature’s Law or Law’s Law? Community of Life, Legal Personhood, and Trusts. In: de Leeuw, M., van Wichelen, S. (eds) Personhood in the Age of Biolegality. Biolegalities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27847-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27848-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)