Representing the Planetary Commons

The Rights of Nature movement is rapidly growing and changing how humans conceive our ethical and legal relationship to the nonhuman natural world. So far, when they have succeeded at the local or national level, Rights of Nature movements have been usually driven by local communities, such as the Māori guardians of the Whanganui River or Ecuadorian defenders of Pachamama. These communities know their ecosystems intimately, are directly affected by them, and tend to care for them—or so the argument goes. But, what if the Rights of Nature movement were scaled up to include planetary commons like Antarctica, the ocean, or the deep seabed? Should these places/spaces beyond national jurisdictions and localized attachments be politically represented in those forums where decisions are made that affect them? And, if so, who should be the representatives and on what grounds? Starting from the case study of Antarctica, in this paper I point to the main similarities and differences between the representation of local and global nature, the political, legal, and institutional challenges that the latter would confront, and the promises of pushing Rights of Nature in this direction.