SFrom the reading, Should trees have standing, written by professor Christopher Stone in USC, analyzing and challenging the legal premise of nature should be treat as objects in the eyes under the law of rights. In the reading, the author argue the fundamental basis need to be rewritten for the destruction of nature. In the beginning of the reading, the author used the history of law to suggest a parallel development that there never was a pure state of nature. No “right” existed except in the vacant sense of each man’s “right to self-defense. The author used children as example. According to fortiori, the child was less than a person: an object , a thing. Therefore now, the legal rights of children have long since been recognized in principle, and are still expanding in practice.
Although it is only matter in human nature, it has come to be recognized as possessor of rights. The author mention the world of lawyer is peopled with inanimate right-holders. In the case of nature destruction, the lawyer speak for the standing of environment for benefits any property compensation, economy, or health care.Begin with the right of environment, the author started with human beings have rights, but at least as of the time of this writing be executed. The corporations have rights, but they can’t plead the fifth amendment. However, the environment should have right is not to say that it should have the same body of right as human, but the everything in the environment should have an equal rights as every other thing, such as animals, in the environment. Then, the granting of rights dies involve has two sides to it.
The two sides are the legal-operational aspect and psychic and socio-psychic aspects.The term “legal right” in legal-operational aspect can be hold unless some public authoritative body is prepared to give some review to action that inconsistent with “right”. However, holding the legal right need three additional criteria to be satisfied, which could be implicated with benefits, injury, and causation. The environment would not have legal right as author told in passage that it needs a beneficial group to represent as the right-holder.
As the stream case that author mentioned, the stream has none to against the polluters, but the citizens or other interest groups.