Nature’s rights as Indigenous rights? Mis/recognition through personhood for Te Urewera

Abstract

In Aotearoa New Zealand, person rights for nature have been added to the suite of resolution mechanisms for Treaty of Waitangi claims. New laws for two national parks personify landscapes and Maori relations with them to encourage greater appreciation and care, and similar arrangements will follow for other parks. However, it is uncertain whether recognizing Indigenous rights by tying them to the rights of nature will be enforceable and effective. In Te Urewera, Treaty claims emerged more from land loss than disrespect for biocultural values, but the granting of person rights was intended to avoid return of ancestral land to the local tribe, Ngai Tuhoe. Personhood will realize only some of Tuhoe’s interests because retention of preservationist conservation means that few will ever live or work on their homelands. Rather than resolving the false inclusion, repressive authenticity and delimited recognition observed in overseas processes for claims settlement, granting personhood to nature for the purported benefit of Maori is an act of mis/recognition. Disingenuously, it conflates Indigenous with environmental, development with preservation and human with natural values.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.