著者

関根 孝道

出版者

関西学院大学

雑誌

総合政策研究 (ISSN:1341996X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.20, pp.117-156, 2005-09-20

---

The Amami lawsuit for "the rights of nature" was filed in 1995 at Kagoshima District Court. Since Amami's black rabbit population and other 3 birds' species were named as co-plaintiffs together with humanbeings, the case was so well-publicized that the notion of rights of nature has come to attract a wide range of public attention. In societies where the proposition that nature should have its own rights is often seriously advocated, co-existence between humanbeings and nature is more vigorously sought for the sake of nature. Although the part of complaint in which the animals' species are designated as co-plaintiffs was ordered to delete and the case itself was dismissed for the lack of standing, the court decision implied the defect of the modern civil law's dichotomy that only humanbeings were allowed to enjoy the status of right-holders. Also the court shared the view that such a legal system as enabled those who were acquainted with the nature and motivated for its protection to file a lawsuit for the environment need to be contemplated given the seriousness of environmental destruction in this century. This article points out the court decision's significance together with its limitations as well. First, the case's factual settings are introduced and analyzed. Secondly, the plaintiff's assertions are examined according to the decision's summary of assertions in contrast with the complaint and other legal briefs submitted. Then the court' judgement are explained and commented with the emphasis on environmental standing issues. Finally, this article raises the queries with regard to the right of nature and pinpoints the unsolved legal issues that the decision left for us as a homework.