The legal concept of the creation of a legal entity is not trailblazingterritory of itself, although introducing and advocating for the legal personalityof a river may be. However, advocating for the rights of nature on grounds thatall humans over-exploit, abuse and contaminate the environment is asmisleading as it is untrue. The Indigenous peoples of Australia have a primary,unique and inherent obligation to‘Care for Country’according to theIndigenous rule of law; exercising the protection and management of theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander environment. The Indigenous rule of lawand the obligation to‘Care for Country’stretches back many millennia yetAustralian domestic laws and policies fail to properly support the exercise ofsuch obligations by Indigenous Australians. In this article I argue, rather thanembracing a‘rights of nature’property paradigm in Australia, we should insteadempower First Nations people to take a pivotal, even primary, role in caring forCountry

Cite the publication as

Virginia Marshall (2020): Removing the Veil from the ‘Rights of Nature’:The Dichotomy between First Nations Customary Rights and Environmental Legal Personhood,Australian Feminist Law Journal, DOI: 10.1080/13200968.2019.1802154

Download/View publication

Attachment	Size
Removing the Veil from the ‘Rights of Nature’:The Dichotomy between First Nations CustomaryRights and Environmental Legal Person	7.95 MB