Property law is increasingly confronted with limits and modifications arising from environmental and social contexts. The objective of this chapter is to highlight how property law can provide answers to environmental challenges, by adapting several of its fundamental concepts to the polymorphism of environmental and social issues. Starting with a study of the theoretical movement of Earth jurisprudence, the chapter suggests that it is possible to consider Nature as a subject of legal interests, allowing it to acquire legal standing. It also suggests that it is necessary to reconceptualise property and its narrative to develop, in both civil and common law, a more limited, relational and functional conception of property. In addition, the polymorphic heritage of property law makes it possible to call upon the civilian concept of patrimony, in its symbolic or technical function, to protect the environment.

The chapter presents the Foucauldian theoretical framework of the book. It presents a snapshot of the different kinds of personhood that can be found in privacy and personal data law today.

In Chapter 6 I examine indigenous water rights in Colombia, specifically, the declaration by Colombia’s highest court that the Atrato River is a ‘legal subject’ in response to indigenous concerns about water management. This watershed case of November 2016 was an action for protection of constitutional rights brought in the Colombian Constitutional Court on behalf of a number of indigenous and afrodescendent communities, in response to serious environmental and humanitarian damage caused by illegal mining in the region of Chocó. I show in this chapter how the legal person model for the Atrato is adopted in recognition of the ‘biocultural rights’ of indigenous communities, but the approach is clearly not a complete answer to indigenous water injustice. Indigenous peoples also need substantive water allocations, in order to have a voice in decision making about river management and use. Yet, because the river is a subject it has representatives from the community, or guardians, and they have a voice on behalf of the river, where previously they had none. The Colombian case is highly significant, in that it underscores the strength of legal person models in creating new jurisdictions for indigenous peoples in which to participate in river sharing, governance and use.

In Chapter 4 I consider the limited recognition of traditional, cultural water rights in Australian law. In the Australian model, property rights in water and water markets accompany government oversight and planning. Australian water law has undergone drastic reforms since the early 1990s, yet little has been done to provide indigenous peoples with the right to use water on their lands for commercial and productive purposes. Native title rights to water have been interpreted narrowly by the courts according to traditional and cultural uses, and are usually accounted for as in-stream cultural and conservation values in water catchments, distinguishing them from the consumptive rights held by other users. Yet indigenous Australians continue to make up the most disadvantaged sector of Australian society and Australian governments have committed to reducing that disadvantage, including by supporting the productive use of indigenous lands. The Australian experience demonstrates the difficulties inherent in recognising historical indigenous rights to land and resources, as indigenous water practices change over time and conflict with other uses. The study highlights the need for an allocative model, enabling both the reservation of water for indigenous allocation and the redistribution of water rights in fully allocated catchments.