Dear Athina, I have not moved beyond the article (thanks for posting it, it is a very useful addition to other complex land right issues!) but by reading that it seems like the river has the right of a legal person, not an individual. Is that right? If so, the river can be seen as an organisation, in line with the (and connected to) a group of people (the Whanganui iwi). Or it can be seen as an organisation connected to the two guardians, who will speak on behalf of the legal person (the river).
Can this be seen as similar to, for instance, a trust? Then a lawyer appointed to speak on behalf of the trust would be in line with the two guardians of the river. All the best, Øyvind > On 20 Mar 2017, at 12:57, athinak <athi...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > Dear all, > > relating to the rights triangle P75,P104, P105 we proposed, here is an > interesting case of right holding: > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being. > The approach of the tribe is unique: the river is granted legal rights as > human-being; can we apply this (rights possessed by river?) in the model? is > there a possibility to find an equivalence between human's behavior and a > behavior of a phenomenon and in what way? is there a generalization missing? > think about this, > BRs > > Athina Kritsotaki > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
