UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Does the Whanganui River Own Itself?

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.70322/ecolciviliz.2026.10016

Auteurs

Campbell Thomas Williams Timothy

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.534509+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:05:44.205916+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Since it was introduced, the legal personhood of Te Awa Tupua (the Whanganui River—located in the North Island of Aotearoa, New Zealand) has often been associated with the broader international discourse on rights of nature. This article focuses on one specific aspect of this association: the extent to which legal personhood can be said to result in ‘self-ownership’ for the Whanganui River. The legal personality of the river has been recognized by the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, which is intended to give effect to a Treaty of Waitangi settlement between Whanganui iwi (a collective terms for Māori tribal groups associated with the river) and the New Zealand Government (or ‘Crown’). The purpose of the Act means that it is necessary to have an understanding of te ao Māori (the Māori world) and tikanga Māori (Māori law and custom), and of the relational values and ontology that provide its foundations, in order to understand the legal personhood of the river. In tikanga Māori, concepts such as whakapapa (ancestral genealogy) and whanaungatanga (a relational ethic of kinship) are fundamental. These concepts encompass more-than-human nature and directly challenge the human/nature dichotomy that sits at the heart of Western property law. To support the inquiry into the extent to which legal personhood can be said to result in self-ownership for the Whanganui River, this article is divided into three parts. In the first part, some key principles of tikanga Māori are introduced, and the relationship of these principles to certain Western jural concepts that are relevant to ownership is discussed. In the second part, ownership of freshwater is discussed. In the third and final part, the question of self-ownership is considered in the light of the preceding discussions.

Identifiants

DOI

10.70322/ecolciviliz.2026.10016

OPENALEX

W7167030529

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Fleuve / rivière

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.70322/ecolciviliz.2026.10016
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7167030529

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1600429647 · CITES
• Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle for inclusion · CITES
• openalex:w2163367984 · CITES
• Legal Rights for Nature: The Wrong Answer to the Right(s) Question · CITES
• ‘Beyond Human Ownership’? Property, Power and Legal Personality for Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand · CITES
• openalex:w2797339575 · CITES
• Nature’s rights as Indigenous rights? Mis/recognition through personhood for Te Urewera · CITES
• Removing the Veil from the ‘Rights of Nature’: The Dichotomy between First Nations Customary Rights and Environmental Legal Personhood · CITES
• openalex:w4250371488 · CITES
• Can Nature Hold Rights? It's Not as Easy as You Think · CITES
• openalex:w4382058143 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Validée documentairement

Bibliothèque