Mariken Lenaerts (M.F.)

Law is a curious something. What is especially extraordinary is its ability to label all kinds of entities, which suddenly enables or disables these entities to something, for which their physical condition is completely irrelevant. The label ‘personhood’ and the interpretation of that particular label can both open and close metaphorical doors. Previously, I looked into the heart wrenching consequences of an ideology that labelled several groups of people differently. My research concerning the influence of National Socialism on marriage and divorce law showed how much influence a certain label can exercise on the lives of people and what the consequences are of labelling people differently.

In my current research, I will look beyond human beings. Humans do not exist in a vacuum, but are part of a bigger world. This bigger world does not only consist of human entities and constructions, such as human individuals, companies and communities, but also includes non-human entities like animals, plants and ecosystems. Law, however, gravitates around humans. Law is made by humans, for humans and all other entities are reduced to a supporting role. Their role increases when they are assigned a role that is (partly) modelled after humans, e.g. companies who are considered legal persons. The bigger the role, the more an entity is legally capable to do. However, without personhood, the options remain limited, which causes the role to remain rather passive.

In my research, I connect this idea to topical subjects, like climate change and loss of biodiversity in particular. Court cases such as the Urgenda-case show that law is considered to be part of the solution, by laymen and lawyers alike. The next question then is in what way law can contribute to a systemic solution, because generally, we still look for solutions within the human-centred legal system. By now, we know of several examples of cases in which rivers or entire ecosystems have been granted legal personhood, which equates them more or less with human beings. Such cases are without a doubt valuable in the battle against climate change, but at the same time confirm humans as the gravitational centre of law.

In my research, therefore, I advocate a paradigm change and I will search for the best way to do this. This new paradigm should start from the idea of the earth as an inherently connected ecosystem. Permaculture, primarily focused on agriculture, but applicable in a wide social perspective, offers such a paradigm. It forms an intrinsically reciprocal system, which by definition assumes humans to be part of a bigger ecosystem. Permaculture starts from three ethical principles: care for the earth, care of people and fair share. My hypothesis is that permaculture ethics could be the start of a more sustainable, more social and more (economically) equal society. In my research, therefore, I primarily focus on the question if and if so, in what way permaculture ethics could form the basis for a re-evaluation of our basic assumptions regarding law.