Rights, Not «To» but «Of» the Nature: Legal Deal with Meal

The dilemma that human-beings are in is that; while they are aware that the sustainment of their own living fully depends on the sustainment of the natural-beings’ living, on the one hand, they also want to use (usus), exploit (fructus), and even abuse (abusus) them, on the other. This dilemma has emerged after the viewing of the natural-beings as «resources» has proved that they are not endless by causing the extinction of many of them. It is an undeniable fact that natural-beings are the only sources for the sustainability of all beings’ life. However; this, by no means, means that they can be used, exploited, and abused as one wishes. For, there is a miraculous circulation in nature that can be summarized as the «butterfly effect»: The planet we live on is like a closed circuit; that is, no being vanishes but just rots, dissolves and transforms into another being. Let’s take a look at the water: it drops from a cloud onto the earth in its pure form; it forms the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans; it is absorbed by the soil; after being absorbed from there by a plant, via the roots thereof, it is mixed up with other chemicals therein and been stored thereby in the form of a fruit appetizing for animals and humanbeings; it turns into the blood after being digested in these beings’ bodies; it travels through the veins within their bodies; it returns back to the nature through the excretion and sweating processes or their burial upon the death of these beings; from where it evaporates to form another cloud. Let’s take a look at the oxygen: it exists in, in addition to the air, all the places mentioned above wherein exists the water, of which it is a component, together with a pair of hydrogens — which is such a miraculous composition: a couple of flammable gas together with a burner gas, instead of creating a fire, creates a fire-extinguisher liquid-; it flies all around along with other gases; as a result of being inhaled by animal and human-beings at all-times and by plants only at night-times, it couples with another oxygen and one carbon and turns into a carbon-dioxide; returns back to its original form as a result of the photosynthesis process of plants during daytime.

Therefore; the soil formed by minerals and organic materials, the Sun, the air, and the water, all together make the living of plants, animals, and human-beings possible. Plants make it possible for almost all animals and humanbeings to live, and animals make it possible for most human-beings and some plants to live. These two naturalliving-beings, besides water, should be consumed as the only source of food for the continuation of human life. The exact same particles in these beings, just in the same way they have been doing so since the beginning of time, do also compose the bodies of human-beings that consume them by eating and drinking; and they will again transform back to their original states in order to form a new corpse that will host a new soul after the death of these human-beings too.

The natural-beings that we now see in their form of the meal are only unvanishable in their particle form as clearly seen in the extinct-natural-living-beings’ case of both plants and animals. This reality brings us to the conclusion that; we must protect them, i.e., stop destroying them, at least for our own sake. The mostly used legal tool for this protection is a punishment-based method, in which the foreseen actions are prohibited as a rule by the legislator, and those who violate them are punished with the penalties prescribed by the courts. Two of the most important shortcomings of this method are to impose sanctions on unforeseen acts and to ensure that the foreseen sanctions serve to compensate the damaged natural-beings. There is an alternative method, that is in use in a few countries, fulfilling the above-mentioned shortcomings: attributing legal personality to natural-beings. According to this; first, an action may be brought for compensation for damage to a natural-being, whether foreseen by the legislator or not; secondly, the court considers the actual damage done to the naturalbeing instead of a predetermined fixed amount as in the case of a fine; thirdly, the compensation determined by the court serves to compensate the damages of the natural-being. Such a change of perspective towards them would make a huge difference in simplifying and effectuating their protection method.

In this paper, we will examine a new legal personality status, which we define as «legal deal with the meal» by analogy with «social contract», under the name of «natural personality», which will enable natural-beings to have their own rights.

1. Akipek JG, Türk Medenî Hukuku, Birinci Cilt: Başlangıç Hükümleri — Şahsın Hukuku, İkinci Cüz: Şahsın Hukuku (Başnur Matbaası 1966).

2. Ancient Law — Its Connection With the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas (2nd edn. Beacon Press 1963).

3. Antalya OG and Topuz M, Marmara Hukuk Yorumu — Cilt: I, Medeni Hukuk, Giriş, Kavramlar, Başlangıç Hükümleri (Seçkin Yayıncılık 2019).

4. Arat S, Ehliyetleri Açısından Dernek ve Vakıf Tüzel Kişilikleri — Medeni Hukuk Tüzel Kişilikleri (Masters thesis, İstanbul University 2007).

5. Ataay A, Şahıslar Hukuku — Birinci Yarım — Giriş — Hakikî Şahıslar (Fakülteler Matbaası 1978).

6. Berros MV, Defending Rivers: Vilcabamba in the South of Ecuador in (eds) Tabios Hillebrecht AL and Berros MV, Can Nature Have Rights? Legal and Political Insights (Rachel Carson Center Perspectives 2017).

7. Blackstone W, A Treatise on the Law of Descents in Fee-Simple (Clarendon Press 1759).

8. Buczek K, Germanic Women in the Eyes of Law (2018) 7 Academic Journal of Modern Philology 55.

9. Clegg DJ, Teratology 1971 11 Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 409.

10. Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, Vol. I, Book I (J. B. Lippincott Company 1893).

11. Çakır AC, Sağ Kalan Eşin Mirasçılığı (On İki Levha Yayıncılık, 2018).

12. Dodd EM, Dogma and Practice in the Law of Associations (1929) 42 Harvard Law Review 977.

13. Doğancı K and Kocakuşak F, Eski Roma Ailesinde «Pater Familias» ve «Patria Potestas» Kavramları (2014) 15 Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 233.

14. Dural M and Öğüz T, Kişiler Hukuku (Filiz Kitabevi 2021).

15. Emiroğlu H, Roma Hukukunda Kadının Durumu (Sözkesen Matbaacılık 2003).

16. Epstein J, The Pregnant Imagination-Fetal Rights, and Women’s Bodies: A Historical Inquiry 1995 7 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 139.

17. Ersoy F, Ersoy M and Yalçın M, Konjenital Malformasyonlara Bir Bakış 1999 3 Türkiye Aile Hekimliği Dergisi 40.

18. Ferry L and Renaut A, French Philosophy of the Sixties — An Essay on Antihumanism (Mary H. Schnackenberg Cattani tr. The University of Massachusetts Press 1990).

19. Foucault M, Madness and Civilization — A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (Richard Howard tr. Vintage Books 1988).

20. Gordon GJ, Environmental Personhood (2018) 43 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 49.

21. Gönenç Fİ, Roma Hukuku’nda Boşanma (Divortium) (2003) 7 Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 645.

22. Gray JC, The Nature and Sources of the Law (The Columbia University Press 1909).

23. Hamilton SN, Impersonations — Troubling the Person in Law and Culture (University of Toronto Press Inc. 2009).

24. Hecker EA, A Short History of Women’s Rights — From the Days of Augustus to the Present Time: With Special Reference to England and United States (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911).

25. Helvacı S, Gerçek Kişiler (Arıkan Basım Yayım 2006).

26. İkizler M, Tüzel Kişilerin İlkeli Kişiliği — Bu Uğurda Ana Statünün Anlamı ve İşlevi (Yetkin Yayıncılık 2012).

27. Jones W, Institutes of Hindu Law-or, the Ordinances of Menu, According to the Gloss of Cullúca — Comprising the Indian System of Duties Religious and Civil (Rivingtons and Cochran 1825).

28. Kauffman CM and Sheehan L, The Rights of Nature — Guiding Our Responsibilities Through Standards in (eds) Turner SJ, Shelton DL, Razzaque J, McIntyre O and May JR, Environmental Rights — The Development of Standards (Cambridge University Press 2019).

29. Kayak S, Roma Hukukunda Aile Kurumu (2018) 8 Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 249.

30. Kohler J, Philosophy of Law (The Boston Book Company 1914).

31. Koschaker P and Ayiter K, Modern Özel Hukuka Giriş Olarak Roma Özel Hukukunun Ana Hatları (Olgaç Matbaası 1983).

32. Kurki VAJ, A Theory of Legal Personhood (Oxford University Press 2019).

33. Lauterpacht H, The Subjects of the Law of Nations (1947) 63 Law Quarterly Review 438.

34. Lupton ML, The Legal Status of the Embryo 1988 1988 Acta Juridica 197.

35. Maine HJS, Dissertations on Early Law and Custom-Chiefly Selected from Oxford University Lecture Notes (John Murray 1883).

36. Maitland FW, Moral Personality and Legal Personality (1905) 6 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 192.

37. Martínez-Torrón J, Anglo-American Law and Canon Law-Canonical Roots of Common Law Tradition (Duncker and Humblot 1998).

38. Mousourakis G, The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law (Routledge 2016).

39. Özsunay E, Gerçek Kişilerin Hukukî Durumu (Sulhi Garan Matbaası 1979).

40. Öztan B, Şahsın Hukuku, Hakikî Şahıslar (Turhan Kitabevi 1994).

41. Paribeni R, Roma Hukukunda Aile Kurumu (1935) 1 İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 79.

42. Political Theories of the Middle Age (Frederic William Maitland tr, Reprint, Cambridge University Press 1913).

43. Sayın Korkmaz BS, Roma Aile Hukukunda Evlat Edinmenin Yeri ve Usulleri (2020) 78 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 49.

44. Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment (Oxford University Press 2010).

45. Slabbert MN, The Fetus and Embryo — Legal Status and Personhood 1997 1997 Journal of South African Law 234.

46. Smith B, Legal Personality (1928) 37 The Yale Law Journal 283.

47. Smith HA, The Law of Associations — Corporate and Unincorporate (Clarendon Press 1914).

48. Söğütlü Erişgin Ö, Roma Toplumunda Kadının Konumu (2013) 4 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1.

49. Stone CD, Should Trees Have Standing? — Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450.

50. Suykens C, Gilissen HK and van Rijswick M, Editors’ Introduction (2019) 44 Water International 641.

51. Sütken E, Roma Aile Hukukunda Patria Potestas (2019) 5 Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 67.

52. The Corporation Sole in (ed) Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, vol. 3 (Cambridge University Press 1911).

53. Trahan JR, The Distinction Between Persons and Things — An Historical Perspective (2008) 1 Journal of Civil Law Studies 9.

54. Von Gierke O, Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht (Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1881).