Legal Literacy - The word relation comes from the Latin verbreferre, which literally means “to carry back” or “to bring back”. The word is formed from the prefix re- (back) and ferre (“to carry, bear”). In its original sense, relatio refers to an action that always involves two or more parties connected through a bond, whether material, symbolic, or normative. In this case, the relation is not limited to factual interactions, but rather a structure of meaning that influences how those parties view, assess, and treat each other.

The choice of this term is important because humans never relate to nature in a “purely as it is” manner. Nature is always captured through the language, concepts, and categories we use. For example, the term “forest” can be interpreted as an economic resource, spiritual space, or ecosystem. This means that relations are never neutral, because there is always a perspective that filters them. By understanding relations as a network of mutually influencing meanings and powers, we can see how law is born not only from practical needs, but also from the construction of values that determine the position of humans and nature in the social order.

Pre-Literacy Era

In the earliest stages of human civilization—the pre-literacy era—law was not present as text or language, but as a collective experience that lived in customs, myths, and beliefs. Nature was not positioned as an object, but as a living subject, possessing will, and even supernatural powers. Mountains, rivers, forests, and seas were not merely physical landscapes, but sacred entities that governed human life.

In societies like this, law merged with spirituality. Ecological prohibitions—such as taboos against entering certain forests or taking natural resources excessively—were not based on rational calculations, but on beliefs about cosmic consequences. Violations of norms were not only considered social errors, but also as disturbances to the balance of the universe.

This view is in line with Clifford Geertz's thinking, which sees symbols as a framework of meaning that shapes social reality. In archaic societies, religious symbols not only represent truth, but create it. Therefore, law at this stage is an expression of the cosmic order—a system that maintains harmony between humans and nature.

A concrete example can be found in the practices of ancient Mesopotamian society. For them, the Euphrates River was not only a source of life, but also a sacred space guarded by gods such as Enki. Purification rituals before opening land or drawing water were a form of unwritten law that was morally and spiritually binding. Law here is not a product of human rationality, but a manifestation of divine will.

Similarly, in Polynesian society with the concept of tapu, or in the practice of Tana’ Ulen in the Kenyah Dayak community in Kalimantan. Certain forest areas are protected through strict customary norms, not because of modern ecological awareness, but because of spiritual beliefs. But that is precisely where the strength of the law lies, that it effectively maintains sustainability without the need for formal codification.

In Mircea Eliade's view, archaic society understands law as part of the creation myth. Violation of the law means disrupting the order of the cosmos. Thus, law at this stage is ecocentric—placing humans as part of nature, not as its ruler.

Ancient Greco-Roman Era

Entering the era of classical civilization, especially in Greece and Rome, there was a fundamental shift in the paradigm of human relations with nature. Rationality began to replace myth as the basis for legal legitimacy. The concept of nomos (rule) and physis (nature) marked the birth of dualism: the separation between humans as rational subjects and nature as an object that can be understood—and then, controlled.

Philosophers such as Aristotle developed the idea of natural law (jus naturale) which are universal and rational. However, even while discussing the harmony of the cosmos, this thinking gradually placed humans as the center of rationality. Nature was no longer seen as a sacred entity as it was at the beginning of civilization, but rather as a system that could be analyzed and utilized.

This development reached its peak in Roman law. Through the concept of dominium, law began to recognize individual ownership of land and resources. Nature was legally positioned as an object that could be owned, traded, and exploited. This was an important turning point: law no longer maintained harmony with nature, but rather regulated human domination over it.

Thinkers like Cicero still emphasized that positive law must be in harmony with natural law and reason. However, in practice, the rationalization of law actually strengthened the structure of human power. Nature became part of the economic and political system, no longer part of an equal cosmic order.

Law Cloaked in Religion

In religious traditions, the relationship between humans and nature also experienced ambivalence. In the classic interpretation of the Book of Genesis, humans were given a mandate to “subdue the earth”—a theological legitimization for an anthropocentric view. Nature was understood as a gift available for utilization.

However, the same tradition also contains the principle of balance. The concept of land Sabbath in the Book of Leviticus, for example, shows that nature has the right to “rest”. This reflects an awareness that unlimited exploitation will damage the larger order.

In scholastic thought, Thomas Aquinas formulated law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good.” Nature remained positioned within a theological framework, but rationality began to take a dominant role. The world was understood as an orderly creation, which could be explained through reason—and therefore, governed through law.

Meanwhile, the Islamic world in the Middle Ages developed a more balanced synthesis between revelation and reason. Thinkers such as Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina integrated Greek philosophy with Islamic theology, producing a view that humans are part of a cosmic order that is both rational and divine.

Concept khalifah fil ardh places humans as God's representatives on earth—not as absolute rulers, but as guardians. The principle of mizan (balance) and the prohibition of fasad (damage) indicates that the law in Islam has a strong ecological dimension. Nature is a trust, not an object of exploitation.

European Renaissance and Enlightenment

The most radical changes occurred during the Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. This is where the foundations of modern law were formed—and at the same time, the paradigm of human domination over nature achieved its philosophical legitimacy.

Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as a brutal condition (bellum omnium contra omnes), in which humans live in fear and violence. The state and law were born as a solution to create order. In this framework, nature is no longer a space of harmony, but a threat that must be controlled.

John Locke went further with the labor-based ownership theory. Land becomes legitimate property when humans mix their labor into it. This idea provides moral and legal legitimacy for private ownership—and implicitly, for the exploitation of natural resources.

Meanwhile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau tried to criticize this development by emphasizing that humans are fundamentally close to nature. That humans, for JJ Rousseau, remain unable to restore nature's position as a subject. The social contract remains central to the formation of society, not a cosmic relationship with nature.

Industrial Revolution to Post-Modernism

Entering the modern era—especially since the Industrial Revolution—the relationship between humans and nature has not only changed sociologically but has also undergone fundamental juridical reformulation. Nature is no longer placed within a cosmic or moral horizon but is reduced to a legal category as res (thing) that can be owned, transferred, and exploited

In this framework, law plays a role as the normative architecture of mastery. Modern legal rationality—built on certainty, codification, and individualism—creates the construction that property rights are absolute as long as they are legitimized by norms. What was previously an existential relationship between humans and nature is reduced to a juridical relationship between subject and object.

In this perspective, modern law operates through what can be called the logic of exploitation legalization. The state, through public and private legal instruments, not only permits but also facilitates the control of natural resources. Rights to cultivate, mining permits, forest concessions, to water management rights—all are forms of legal entitlement that transform nature into a commodity. The law no longer asks “is exploitation permissible?” but “how is that exploitation legalized?”

This condition becomes increasingly complex when placed in the context of global capitalism. In the logic of capitalism, value is determined by the ability to be extracted and exchanged in the market. Law then presents itself as infrastructure of accumulation, guaranteeing the certainty of transactions and the protection of investments. Thus, law is not merely neutral, but structurally biased towards capital accumulation. Nature, within this framework, loses its ontological dimension as a life system, and is reduced to an economic asset. Law becomes a “cashier” that validates transactions over something that existentially does not belong to humans.

From a legal theory perspective, this situation demonstrates an ontological reduction in the construction of the legal subject. Only entities with economic interests are effectively recognized in the legal system, while nature—which cannot speak in the language of those interests—is excluded from the arena of protection. This explains why, until the mid-20th century, the law did not recognize environmental damage as an independent offense. What was recognized was only harm to humans (anthropocentric harm), not damage to nature itself (ecocentric harm).

Furthermore, the legitimacy of this exploitation is also reinforced by the construction of classical international law. Doctrines such as terra nullius and Doctrine of Discovery are not merely historical concepts, but constitute the normative foundation of colonialism that allows the seizure of land and resources in the name of law. Customary land is considered “unowned” because it does not conform to Western concepts of ownership, and can therefore be legitimately taken over.

The codification of law in Europe, both through the civil system (Napoleonic Code) and common law, further reinforcing this paradigm by placing private property rights as a central institution. Land rights are no longer understood as a socio-ecological relationship, but as an exclusive right that can be used without considering broader ecological impacts, as long as administrative requirements are met. Thus, modern law constructs a property regime that systematically marginalizes the ecological dimension.

This paradigm is then legitimized by the ideology of development. The exploitation of natural resources is seen as an indicator of progress, while environmental protection is often seen as an obstacle. The state, in this case, functions as a facilitator of development by providing a legal framework that guarantees investment stability. As a result, the law undergoes what can be called economic instrumentalization—it loses its normative autonomy and is subject to the logic of growth.

Furthermore, the framework of planetary boundaries shows that human activity has exceeded safe ecological limits. This is not merely an environmental crisis, but a normative crisis. Existing laws are no longer able to regulate the reality they face, because they are built on assumptions that are no longer valid—namely that nature is an unlimited resource.

In this condition, the relationship between law and reality is reversed. It is no longer the law that regulates reality, but ecological reality that forces the law to change. The climate crisis, for example, is giving rise to new forms of litigation such as climate litigation, where the state and corporations are sued for failing to protect the environment. This indicates that the law is beginning to experience pressure from outside itself.

These changes still face structural obstacles. As long as the law continues to operate within an anthropocentric and capitalistic framework, any reform efforts will be partial. Therefore, what is needed is not merely regulatory change, but a transformation of the legal paradigm itself.

This is where the importance of shifting the orientation from law as a tool of exploitation towards law as a mechanism for sustainability lies. This means recognizing that nature is not merely a legal object, but part of a system that determines the sustainability of the law itself. Without a sustainable nature, there is no society; without society, there is no law.

Ultimately, the relationship between humans and nature can no longer be understood as a relationship of domination, but as a relationship of sustainability. Law, if it wants to remain relevant, must be able to move beyond its role as a “cashier” of exploitation and return to being a guardian of balance. At this point, law not only regulates life, but also ensures that life itself remains possible.

List of References

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, Ia-IIae, Q.94. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.).

Aristotle. Politics, Book I, Chapter 8; in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Environmental Ethics.”

Augustine, Saint. The City of God. Book XI. Accessed August 10, 2025. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm

Bacon, Francis. 1620. Novum Organum. Project Gutenberg / Archive. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45988

Bagus, Lorens. 1996. Dictionary of Philosophy. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Bernstein, Henry. 2019. Class Dynamics in Agrarian Change. Yogyakarta: INSISTPress.

Bonazzi, Mauro. “Protagoras.” Dalam The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.

Bosma, Ulbe. 2025. “Labour Mobility and Colonial and Forced Labour Regimes in Indonesia.” Journal of Agrarian Change.

Bracco, Annalisa. 2025. “2024’s Extreme Ocean Heat Breaks Records Again.” Georgia Tech News.

Butler, Judith. 2012. Giving an Account of Oneself. London: Fordham University Press.

Callicott, J.B. 2013. Thinking Like a Planet: The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic. Oxford University Press.

Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. (relevant addition to the modern environmental context)

Cervini, Edward. 2009. “Review of Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice.

Cicero. 1998. The Republic and The Laws. Translated by Niall Rudd. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Copernicus Marine Service. 2025. “Sea Surface and Deeper Water Temperatures Reached a New Record High in 2024.”

Descartes, René. 1641. Meditations on First Philosophy. https://personal.lse.ac.uk

Eghenter, Cristina et al. 2021. Tana Ulen, Indonesia. Territories of Life.

Eliade, Mircea. 1959. The Sacred and the Profane. Harcourt, Brace.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures.

Global Forest Watch. 2025. “Global Forest Watch Dashboards.”

Harper, Douglas. “Etymology of refer.” Online Etymology Dictionary.

Henry, Matthew. 2014. Matthew Henry's Commentary: Book of Genesis. Surabaya: Momentum.

Howard, Alan & Borofsky, Robert. 1989. Developments in Polynesian Ethnology. Hawaii: University Press.

Isom Mudin, M., et al. 2021. “Ecological Principles from an Islamic Theological Perspective.” Fikrah.

Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett.

Karlau, Selsius Amon. 2022. “Penciptaan Manusia sebagai Representatif Allah.” Phronesis.

Kearney, Richard. 2010. On Stories. London: Routledge.

Kelsen, Hans. 1934. Reine Rechtslehre. Wien: Franz Deuticke.

Laoly, Nepho Gerson. “Sabbath Year and Jubilee Year.” Jurnal Immanuel.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. (land ethic)

Liade, Mircea & Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1959. The Sacred and the Profane.

Locke, John. 1690. Two Treatises on Government. Cambridge University Press.

Miller, Robert J. 2018. “Doctrine of Discovery.” Doctrine of Discovery Project.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. “Fourth Global Coral Bleaching Event.”

Olivelle, Patrick. 2005. Manu’s Code of Law. Oxford University Press.

Palmquist, Stephen. 1994. “The Kingdom of God Is at Hand!” History of Philosophy Quarterly.

Pardede, Harold. 2024. “An Ecotheological Study of Genesis 1:29.” Excelsis Deo.

Perdibon, Anna. 2021. “Mesopotamian Cosmology and Religion.” Etnološka Tribina.

Rahardjo, Satjipto. 1982. Jurisprudence. Jakarta: Alumni.

Rasjidi, Lili. “Development of the National Legal System.” In B. Arief Sidharta.

Russell, Bertrand. 2021. History of Western Philosophy. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Sen, Uditi. 2017. “Developing Terra Nullius.” Comparative Studies in Society and History.

Sharratt, M. 1994. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge University Press.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. 2025. “Planetary Boundaries.”

Sunarmi. 2016. Legal History. Jakarta: Kencana.

Susilo, Agus & Sarkowi. 2020. “Cultuurstelsel dan Masyarakat Indonesia.” Jurnal Swadesi.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2024–2025. State of the Global Climate and Global Water Resources.