Introduction
The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court’s Los Cedros ruling, widely regarded as one of the most significant environmental cases of the twenty-first century, exemplifies a global trend towards the protection of the rights of nature. Indeed, Los Cedros is one of the most solid and promising legal cases among the 493 (as of 1 January 2024) initiatives on the rights of nature pursued in forty-four nations and international venues such as the United Nations, according to Eco Jurisprudence Monitor[1].
In 2021, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court made the decision (case No. 1149-19-JP/20) prohibiting extracting activities in the Los Cedros Forest, a cloud forest of great biodiversity, as a violation of fundamental human rights and constitutional rights. This ruling cancelled previously issued environmental permits that had been granted by the Ministry of Mining to Empresa Nacional Minera (from now on, ENAMI EP), and its Canadian partner, Cornerstone Capital Resources to explore the metallic mineral mining concessions named “Río Magdalena 01” and “Río Magdalena 02”.
Considering this, the case law will explore the Constitutional Court’s forward-thinking and transformative impact on the Ecuadorian and International communities. Part 1 provides the factual, legal, and procedural background to the legal dispute, Part 2 examines the rationale of the Court decision, and Part 3 pivots to the critical assessment of the case.
1. Factual, Legal and Procedural
In 1994, 6400 hectares of the property Los Cedros, located in García Moreno parish, Imbabura province, Cotacachi canton, were designated as a “Protected Forest and Vegetated Area” through Ministerial Agreement No. 57 of Ecuadorian Institute of Forestry, Natural Areas and Wildlife (from now on, INEFAN). “This ministerial agreement states in its preamble that according to the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soils studied, as well as their agrology, it is determined that the vegetive cover of these lands should be permanently conserved for the purpose of protection, and in its Article 2 sets forth: The prohibition of all activities that are not compatible with the purposes of the area, which as of the signing of this Resolution will be subject to the forestry regulatory framework, whose administration is the exclusive responsibility of this Institute, through the National Forestry Directorate (…)”[2].
The conversation of legalizing the Rights of Nature in Ecuador dates back at least to the 1990s when Ecuadorian citizens sued Texaco (Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.) in the U.S. government court for oil contamination in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. Amid the claim, Indigenous groups, and environmental NGOs like Acción Ecológica talked about codifying for Western legal purposes the Indigenous cosmovision that nature is sacrosanct, possesses rights, and is a portion of a living community in which people exist. Amid the 2000s, these discourses were connected to the worldwide talk on RoN through transnational systems of activist organizations like Oilwatch. Ecuador’s protected RoN arrangements resulted from changes in the political opportunity structure created when Rafael Correa was chosen president in 2006. After a decade of extraordinary political and financial precariousness, Correa rose to power on the guarantee to change Ecuador’s political and economic systems. A key step was rewriting the country’s constitution in 2007. Crucially, Correa incorporated many opponents of oil extraction into his coalition[3].
In 2008 Ecuador included in its Constitution the RoN representing a shift in perspective from seeing nature as a resource humans use to one where there is a more harmonious and balanced interaction. This change contradicts the prevailing anthropocentric perspective, which places humans above nature by advancing the idea that they are an essential component of it to ensure long-term coexistence, particularly with Articles 71-74 that acknowledge nature as a subject of law with rights rather than a thing that could be taken. It allows civil society to speak about nature and shields ecosystems from deterioration and extinction.
ENAMI EP, in 2017, received from the Ministry of Mining and Ministry of Environment the necessary mining concessions and environmental permits to carry out extracting activities on two-thirds of the Los Cedros reserve. After that, ENAMI EP signed several contracts with private companies, which started looking for minerals in the region.
Through the export of minerals, mining is essential to the Ecuadorian government´s financial support. “The mining sector created 180,000 jobs and contributed $590 million in taxes and royalties to the Ecuadorian government in 2022. Analysts forecast that mining could become the third biggest export by 2025 generating over $4 billion in annual export revenues and comprising 15 percent of exports (…)”[4].
On November 5, 2018, concerned about the impact of mining in Los Cedros, the mayor of Cotacachi and the legal representative of the Municipality of Cotacachi filed an action for injunctive relief against the Minister of the Environment and the General Manager of ENAMI EP. “The action for injunctive relief challenged (…) specifically the environmental registration and the environmental management plan, because, according to the petitioners, they would have affected the rights of nature by allowing mining activity within the Los Cedros Protected Forest. The petitioners also alleged that neither the constitutional requirements for an environmental consultation nor those related to the consultation of Indigenous peoples and communities were observed”[5].
The Multijurisdictional Judicial Chamber of Cotacachi judge dismissed the action on November 13, 2018, stating that no constitutional rights had been infringed in line with Article 40 of Ley Orgánica de Garantías Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional (LOGJCC)[6]. The judge believed that the case was solely administrative and that judges with expertise in administrative law would be more fitted to analyse the matter at hand.
The Cotacachi GAD representatives filed an appeal against the lower court decision. The action for injunctive relief was partially accepted by the Multijurisdictional Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Imbabura on June 19, 2019, and it was determined to constitute a transgression of the right to participation as envisioned by the Constitution’s Article 61(4)[7].
Following the progression through the lower court, the “plaintiffs for the LCPF[8]filed a constitutional protective action, a judicial guarantee under Ecuadorian constitutional law that ensures the fulfilment of constitutional rights when there is a perceived violation”[9]. Arguing “the violation of the rights of nature or Pachamama, on whose behalf it appeared. Specifically, in its complaint it cites Article 73 of the Constitution regarding the application of precautionary measures and the restriction of activities that may lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems, or the permanent alteration of natural cycles”[10]. The fundamental tenet of the constitutional protective action rested on the environmental consultation guidelines prescribed by the Constitution.
In 2019, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador chose this case to establish legally enforceable precedents for the application of the constitutional RoN clauses to endangered species and ecosystems.
The pushback against the traditional economic model reminds us of the urgent need to ensure that economic policies are aligned with a sustainable and socially responsible framework for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Rationale of the Court
To reach a decision the Constitutional Court analysed: (A) The Rights of Nature; (B) The right to water and a healthy environment; and (C) Environmental Consultation.
Rights of Nature
The GAD argued that the permits to extract activities violated the constitutional RoN or Pachamama by damaging the species and the ecosystem. It specifically cited Article 73 (precautionary principle) of the Constitution, which addresses the use of preventive actions and the restriction of activities that may have an environmental impact.
The respondents claimed that since the mining exploration was still in its early stages, there hadn’t been any environmental damage, consequently proving that the alleged violation of RoN hadn’t happened and that also the precautionary principle shouldn’t be applied because it was observed when grating the environmental registration, making applicable the prevention principle.
The Court remarked that the constitution’s understanding of nature, which acknowledges humans as an integral part of the natural world, was based on both traditional wisdom and Western science. The Court further observed that nature has intrinsic value, which is demonstrated by the recognition of its rights, independent of any potential benefits to humans[11]. This means “the precautionary principle must be applied where there is potential risk of species extinctions, destruction of ecosystems, permanent alternation of natural cycles (Rights of Nature, Constitution Article 71), threats to maintenance and regeneration of life cycles, structure, function and evolutionary processes (Rights of Nature, Constitution Article 73)”[12]. Effectively grating reason to the petitioners.
The precautionary principle is different from the prevention principle in that the latter applies when there is scientific certainty about the impact or harm, i.e., the effects and probabilities are known ahead of time. Per Article 396 of the Constitution, “The State shall adopt appropriate policies and measures to avoid negative environmental impacts, when there is certainty of damage”.
Thus, Article 73 of the Constitution, addressing precaution in the fact of the risk of species extinction and destruction or major disturbance of ecosystems, reflects a principle of application of the RoN, which is complemented by Article 396 of the Constitution[13].
Article 73 also mandates that the State “shall apply precautionary and restrictive measures”. “This is not a conditional power or option, but a constitutional obligation derived from the intrinsic value that the Constitution places on the existence of species and ecosystems through the rights of nature”[14].
“The essential idea of the precautionary principle is that, even in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, it is better not to assume certain risks when these could result in serious damage, which may be irreversible”[15].
To apply the precautionary principle, courts must evaluate the following factors in each instance: (1) A product or action may cause irreparable harm to nature, water, the environment, or health. “In order to apply the precautionary principle, it is not enough that a risk simply exists; it is necessary that this risk refers to serious and irreversible damage”. (2) Scientific uncertainty concerning detrimental implications due to ongoing dispute, lack of understanding, or complexity of the factors involved. “Scientific uncertainty for the purposes of the precautionary principle consists of: lack of scientific certainty, which refers to relatively clear or possible effects of an activity or product, but without adequate evidence to assign probabilities, or ignorance, which refers to the lack of knowledge both of these probabilities and some of the possible damages or effects.” (3) The implementation of effective and timely protected measures by the State. “When there is a risk of serious and irreversible damage, but also a corresponding uncertainty surrounding scientific knowledge, it is precisely due to this uncertainty that the State must not assume the risk and instead take certain measures in a timely and effective manner to avoid these possible negative effects”. (…). It should be clarified that the prohibition of a product of process is not the only Protected measure[16] that may be adopted, although such prohibition may be justified if the potential harm is very serious and irreversible”[17].
Application of this principle by constitutional judges must be done on a case-by-case basis, considering individual characteristics, risk of permanent and serious damage, and scientific uncertainty.
The right to water and a healthy environment
In the action for injunction relief, the GAD of Cotacachi claimed that the mining concession affected the right to a healthy environment and the water right: “it is the duty of the State to protect the environment, so as to ensure the conservation and protection of protected areas that are the habitat of many animal and plant species. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystems must be a priority in this case”.
“The Constitution, in addition to recognizing the rights of nature, also recognizes the right of individuals, communities, peoples and nationalities to a healthy environment and the right to water, rights which are interrelated”[18].
As regards the water rights, the petitioner also stated that mining activity requires lots of water and that water contamination would be a primary environmental result.
The respondent, ENAMI EP, said that in virtue of holding a water use permit granted before the exploration by an administrative act, the authorities observe the precautionary and prevention principle, to ensure the right to water and a healthy environment was not violated.
Water is one of the elements required to sustain life. Water is recognised as a fundamental right in both international conventions and the Ecuadorian Constitution, recognising its significance and global relevance.
Article 12 of the Constitution declares it as follows:
“The human right to water is fundamental and inalienable. Water constitutes national strategic patrimony for the public use, being inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable and essential for life”.
This court has noted in earlier cases that the right “water is recognized both as a right and as a strategic resource, without prejudice to the rights that the Constitution itself recognizes for nature”. “This right that articulates human rights and the rights of nature, since its condition is an essential element, thereby converting it into a necessary aspect for the existence of all living beings on the planet and the sustainability of ecosystems. Hence, a specific constitutional recognition is appropriate”[19].
Water is also recognised as a human right through the development of international instruments by the United Nations and the InterAmerican Human Rights System.
The Court also considers the elements developed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ESCR’)[20]:
- “Availability: continuous and sufficient supply of water for personal and domestic uses (…), as well as additional water resources for health, climate and working conditions.
- Quality: safe water, free of microorganisms or chemical or radioactive substances, with colour, odour and taste acceptable for use.
- Accessibility: water and its facilities should be accessible to all without discrimination, comprising the following overlapping dimensions:
- Physical accessibility: sufficient physical extension of water, facilities, and services to all sectors of the population and locations.
- Economic accessibility: the costs of supplying water must be affordable and must not compromise or jeopardise the exercise of other rights.
- Non-discrimination: water, its facilities and services must be accessible to all in-fact and in-law, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalised sectors of the population, without any discrimination whatsoever.
- Access to information: the right to request, receive and disseminate information on water issues is established.”
In addition to the parameters established by the international instruments the Constitution also assigns explicit responsibility to the State to ensure the water right. Among these responsibilities is “guaranteeing without discrimination (…) water for its inhabitants” (Article 3, para. 1). This commitment translates into obligations that the public services (Article 122) must guarantee, such as: ensuring access to water for peasant farmers (Article 281, para. 4), managing irrigation water appropriately (Article 282), and using it in an ecosystemic approach (Article 412)[21].
Consequently, the water right is closely tied to the management of water resources in the Los Cedros Protected Forest, since it impacts both human life and the ecosystem. “Article 411 of the Constitution, in relation to the management of ecological flows linked to the cycles of nature, establishes:
The State shall guarantee the conservation, recovery and integral management of water resources, drainage basis and environmental flows associated with the hydrological cycle. Any activity that may affect the quality and quantity of water, and the balance of ecosystems, especially sources of water and recharge zones, shall be regulated. The sustainability of ecosystems and human consumption will be a priority in the use and utilisation of water”[22].
According to the normative framework here mentioned it’s safe to say that human consumption and sustainability of the ecosystems are two aspects that the Constitution protects and considers top priority for the use of water.
The Court decided that the community’s right to water was in peril due to the significant impact on water supplies, as demonstrated by the Amicus Curiae[23].
The water right is linked to the right to a healthy environment and the rights of nature, as it sustains life on the globe. The precautionary principle[24] was violated if it had been applied the only logical conclusion was to not go forward with the mining activity.
Concerning the right to a healthy environment, the Ecuadorian constitutional framework and international agreements recognise this right, which includes guaranteeing acceptable environmental conditions for humans. The biocentric approach safeguards the aspects of nature while maintaining their importance as a human right. Environmental authorities must implement policies and laws that promote a harmonious interaction between human activities and the environment. This right applies to both individuals and collectives.
To address this issue, the Court believed it was necessary to consider the constitutional norms that expressly refer to forests. “Thus, within the section referring to ecosystems and natural heritage, the Constitution provides in Article 406:
The State shall regulate the conservation, management and sustainable use, recovery, and access rights of fragile and threatened ecosystems; among others, páramos, wetlands, cloud forests, dry and humid tropical forests and mangroves, marine and coastal-marine ecosystems.[25]”
In compliance with the preceding article, in the section on the biosphere, urban ecology and alternative energies, Article 414 of the Constitution obligates the State to take “measures for the conservation of forests and vegetation, and to protect at-risk populations”. According to this constitutional norm, mining and other activities can only be carried out by strictly adhering to Protected measures that adhere to constitutional principles. This safeguards both the population and the environment from the various ways that they are threatened globally, such as climate change and deforestation[26].
Although there is no explicit constitutional restriction on the conduct of specific types of activities in these ecosystems, the Los Cedros Protected Forest is one example of an ecosystem that may require a level of protection and the strengthening of public policies for its conservation, management, sustainable use, and the promotion of a harmonious relation between the population and the ecosystem.
To this end, a public policy for management must be developed in accordance with the characteristics of the ecosystem, which in this case was not done by the Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transación Ecológica ‘MAAE’. This significant flaw affected the right to a healthy environment since the environmental registration was issued without the required safeguards.
Environmental Consultation
The GAD of Cotacachi, in its action for injunction relief and its appeal, stated that: “no prior consultation was carried out with the population of the affected area, nor with the communes” [referring to the environmental consultation established in Article 398 of the Constitution][27]. Respondents confirmed compliance with public involvement mechanisms outlined in the Constitution and laws.
The Constitutional Court considered if the claimed lack of environmental consultation before granting the environmental permits violated constitutional rights.
The Court determined that environmental consultation applies to all impacted regions and must be completed before the Environmental Registration phase of mining operations, effectively giving the petitioners a grating reason.
Environmental consultation should follow the following parameters: “(i) the decision of the consulted entity shall be the broadest and most democratic possible. In the event of doubt about a possible environmental impact, the State must consult the community(ies) potentially affected, (ii) the consultation is a non-delegable obligation of the State and must be carried out with the support of the Ombudsman’s Office and local government authorities, (iii) in the case of mining activities, the environmental consultation must be carried out a minimum prior to the issuance of the environmental registration and prior to the environmental licence, and (b) according to the provisions of article 89 of the Mining Law, prior to all phases of the mining activity, (iv) the environmental consultation must comply, in all applicable respects, with the parameters of prior, free and informed consultation, (v) the lack of environmental consultation results in the unenforceability of the State decision or authorization, (vi) an action for injunctive relief is the proper tool to allege and vindicate the violation of the right to be consulted on State decision or authorizations that may affect the environment”[28].
“It follows that environmental consultation, in addition to being a formal requirement, is a substantial mechanism for making public decisions that may affect the environment. Failure to comply with it results in the unenforceability of all those decisions or unconsulted authorizations that may affected the environment”[29].
3. Critical Assessment of the case
The case sets a defining legal precedent on the RoN. From this perspective, known as “biocentrism”, nature is a subject with fundamental rights, including the right to exist, survive, and regenerate vital cycles, rather than an object to be protected. This recognition implies that Humans have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce nature’s rights, which are crucial for the sustainability and survival of human societies. Emphasizing the importance of living within ecological limits, rather than viewing humans as the sole focus of environmental protection, as the ‘anthropocentric’ approach does. Humans are trustees of the Earth, not merely stewards[30].
Under many legal frameworks only when environmental degradation is connected to human well-being can it be a basis for a legal complaint.
“The first broad provisions to focus on the protection of the environment appeared in the Constitutions of Switzerland (1971), Greece (1975), and Papua New Guinea (1975). Portugal (1976) and Spain (1978) were the first countries to recognize the right to live in a healthy environment. (…). The Portuguese Constitution of 1976 became the first to adopt a constitutional right ‘to a healthy and ecologically balanced human environment’. Article 9 provides for the duty of the state to protect fundamental rights (…). Article 66 of the Constitution expressly recognizes, among fundamental economic, social and cultural rights, the right to a ‘healthy and ecologically balanced’ environment and the corresponding duty to protect it. Moreover, the Portuguese Constitution recognizes the right of natural and legal persons to receive compensation for damage caused to the environment, and guarantees the right to information on environmental issues and the right to participate in making administrative decisions. This constitutional framework has been strengthened by the enactment of the Basic Environment Act of 1987 and the Law on Associations of Environmental Defence, which aim to develop in practice the constitutionally recognized right to the environment[31].”
In other countries that do not have such explicit constitutional right to the environment, its enforceability is usually in connection with other legal ideals, such as the right to dignity, health or life.
In general, environmental protection in constitutional provisions is a relatively new development. The right to a healthy environment is still becoming more widely acknowledged. “New constitutions incorporating the right to a healthy environment were enacted in Kenya and the Dominican Republic in 2010 and in Jamaica, Morocco and South Sudan in 2011”[32].
The problem with these provisions is that they still regard nature as ‘property’ which can be exploited and degraded. As a result, domestic environmental protection laws and regulations effectively legalise environmental harm by limiting the amount of pollution or natural destruction that can occur. Accordingly, environmental protection cannot be guaranteed simply by acknowledging a human right to the environment.
In the opinion of Bosselmann:
“In the long term the existence of an environmental human right could be seen as self-contradictory. A better option is the development of all human rights in a manner which demonstrates that humanity is an integral part of the biosphere, that nature has an intrinsic value and that humanity has obligations toward nature. In short, ecological limitations, together with corollary obligations, should be part of the rights discourse”[33].
The ’biocentric’ viewpoint is undoubtedly a response to the dire state of the environment and the numerous dangers facing natural ecosystems. It is predicated on the notion that since we are part of nature, it is our primary responsibility to preserve it. This argument holds that all life is essential to maintain the natural equilibrium. This idea that nature can have inalienable rights, as do humans is a concept that undoubtedly has its detractors and critics[34].
However, as shown by this case the application of RoN is not as straightforward as it may seem: several challenges remain in understanding the scope of its application.
Following, a strict precautionary approach: the Court concluded unequivocally that it was impossible to predict what harm may have occurred from mining activities in Los Cedros, independent of the project’s specific environmental impact assessments. However, this approach implies that in the future, any economic project involving a complex ecosystem will be required to provide an environmental impact statement for the specific project and overwhelming scientific evidence that the industry will not cause environmental damage. In practice, this may be tough to achieve[35].
Furthermore, by adopting such an approach, the Court unintentionally positioned itself as the ultimate defender of scientific environmental realities. Suppose a lack of complete scientific certainty about the negative effects of an entire economic industry becomes a cornerstone of its legal standard. In that case, it follows that in future cases, the Court, and no other branch of government, including state environment bodies, will be responsible for making financial comprehensive environmental assessments. This indicates that the judges must expand their competence and devote significant resources to validating the highly technical material necessary to achieve total scientific certainty[36].
Finally, the judgment remains uncertain on the legal status of private economic actors, including locals and foreigners, who have conducted economic activity in Los Cedros or comparable woods throughout Ecuador[37].
Conclusion
Ecuador’s Constitutional Court ruling in the Los Cedros Case set a global legal precedent in the domain of RoN and provides a framework that can be used in similar cases[38]; however, the Court will need to clarify the scope of its standard in the future.
As Susana Borràs puts it:
“Although there are practical difficulties, as seen in Ecuador (…), the legal enactments emerging out of the biocentric approach at least raise awareness of the need to change the way in which humans treat nature. The already established debate over the rights of nature is facilitating a dialogue between the Andeans traditions and Westerns alternative discourses (…).
Ultimately, the goal is not the imposition of the biocentric view, but a global change in the way we conceive of environmental protection: it is important to protect nature, but not under the blanket of protecting human interests. Social movements and even academic efforts should be made to invest in this (r)evolution in favour of the rights of nature. But what makes the difference between ‘evolution’ and ‘revolution’ of the law is just a letter: the ’r’ in responsibility by humans to protect nature, which must no longer be considered as ‘our environment’. This means standing up for nature[39].”
At the centre of this debate was indirectly the concept of “Just Transition”, which calls for a sustainable future, as follows: (1) the Court recognized the RoN and its interconnectedness between human activities and the ecosystem, (2) uphold the rights of Indigenous communities, including the constitutional rights to water, healthy environment and prior consultation, and (3) put attention on the need for different economic practices that do not jeopardize the present and future generations.
Finally, we must be hopeful that the case will inspire others to reimagine economic development in the face of increasing environmental threats and economic pressures while moving towards a more equitable and sustainable planet as it is our duty to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.
[1] The NYU More than Human Life (MOTH) Project, et al., The Impact of the Rights of Nature. Assessing the Implementation of the Los Cedros Ruling in Ecuador (June 2024), p. 7.
[2] Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 9.
[3] Kauffman, Craig M., and Pamela L. Martin. ‘Constructing Rights of Nature Norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand’. Global Environmental Politics 18, no. 4 (November 2018): 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00481.
[4] International Trade Administration. ‘Ecuador – Mining’, 8 February 2024. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/ecuador-mining. Accessed 24 April 2024.
[5] Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 17.
[6] Ibid. Para. 19.
[7] Ibid. Para.20.
[8] Los Cedros Protected Forest.
[9] Peck, M. R., M. Desselas, S. Bonilla-Bedoya, G. Redín, and J. Durango-Cordero. ‘The Conflict between Rights of Nature and Mining in Ecuador: Implications of the Los Cedros Cloud Forest Case for Biodiversity Conservation’. People and Nature. Accessed 26 April 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10615.
[10] Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 23.
[11] Flora Curtis. ‘Litigating to Protect the Rights of Nature: Case Studies from around the World’ Accessed 26 April 2024. https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/elblog/view/litigating-to-protect-the-rights-of-nature-case-studies-from-around-the-world.
[12] Peck, M. R., M. Desselas, S. Bonilla-Bedoya, G. Redín, and J. Durango-Cordero. ‘The Conflict between Rights of Nature and Mining in Ecuador: Implications of the Los Cedros Cloud Forest Case for Biodiversity Conservation’. People and Nature. Accessed 26 April 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10615.
[13] Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 64.
[14] Ibid. Para. 65.
[15] Ibid. Para. 55.
[16] E.g., suspension, providing information about the risk, etc.
[17] Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 62.
[18] Ibid. Para. 166.
[19] Ibid. Para. 171.
[20] Ibid. Para. 176.
[21] Ibid. Para. 177.
[22] Ibid. Para. 180.
[23] Allows the intervention of third parties unrelated to the process, to issue an opinion on the cases submitted to judicial review, by their interest in the final resolution.
[24] For the application of the precautionary principle to the water rights, see Ecuador Constitutional Court, Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Nov. 10, 2021), para. 218-234.
[25] Ibid. Para. 248.
[26] Ibid. Para. 249.
[27] Ibid. Para. 254.
[28] Ibid. Para. 340.
[29] Ibid. Para. 334.
[30] Borràs, Susana. ‘New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press (22 January 2016), p. 114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710251500028X.
[31] Ibid. P. 124.
[32] Ibid. P. 126.
[33] K. Bosselmann. ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Redefining Fundamental Principles?’. Governing for the Environment: Global Problems, Ethics and Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan (2001), p. 118–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333977620.
[34] Borràs, Susana. ‘New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press (22 January 2016), p. 129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710251500028X.
[35] Prieto, Gustavo. ‘The Los Cedros Forest Has Rights: The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court Affirms the Rights of Nature’. Verfassungsblog, 10 December 2021. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-los-cedros-forest-has-rights/.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] E.g., Case No. 253-20-JH, “Estrellita Monkey”.
[39] Borràs, Susana. ‘New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press (22 January 2016), p. 143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710251500028X.
