Paris seeks personhood status for River Seine
In a resolution adopted on Wednesday, the Paris City Council called on parliament to pass a law granting the Seine legal personhood to enable "an independent guardian authority to defend its rights in court".
"The Seine must be able to defend itself, as a subject of law and not as an object, because it will always be under attack," said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.
Conservationists have backed granting fragile ecosystems such as rivers and mountains basic legal rights to better protect them.
In a world first, New Zealand in 2017 recognised the Whanganui River revered by Indigenous people as a living entity, with legislation combining Western legal precedent and Maori beliefs.
In 2022, Spain granted personhood status to the Mar Menor, one of Europe's largest saltwater lagoons, to give its threatened ecosystem better protection.
The Paris Council based its decision on the conclusions of a citizens' convention on the future of the Seine held between March and May.
Fifty citizens chosen at random proposed granting the Seine fundamental rights such as "the right to exist, to flow and to regenerate".
The Seine must be considered an ecosystem that "no one can claim ownership of", where the preservation of life must "take precedence over everything", the convention concluded.
It also noted "positive" change, with the Seine now home to around 40 species of fish, compared to only four in 1970.
French authorities spent $1.5 billion ahead of the 2024 Olympics to clean up the Seine, the 777-kilometre river that flows through Paris past the Louvre, Notre Dame cathedral and other iconic landmarks.
AFP | Anne-Christine POUJOULAT
However, it is threatened by pollution, rising water temperatures and the use of pesticides in agriculture.
The opening of the river to the public for swimming this summer could present "additional risks", warned the convention.
Fulfilling a key legacy promise from the Paris Games, authorities are to allow the public to swim from July 5 at three points in the Seine, which is now deemed safe for a dip.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump hikes India levy as tariff deadline approaches
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered steeper tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil, opening a new front in his trade wars just hours before another wave of duties takes effect. Trump's additional 25-percent tariff on Indian goods, set to come into place in three weeks, stacks atop a separate 25-percent duty entering into force Thursday. This takes the level to 50 percent for many products. Trump's order also threatens potential penalties on other countries for "directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil," a key source of revenue for Moscow's war in Ukraine. But exemptions remain for goods targeted under sector-specific duties such as steel and aluminum, and categories that could be hit later, like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Smartphones are also among this list of exempted products for now, notably shielding Apple from a major hit as the US tech titan shifts production from China to India. India's foreign ministry condemned Trump's tariff announcement Wednesday, calling the move "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." The ministry had previously said that India began importing from Russia as traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. It noted that Washington at that time had "actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy market stability." But Trump recently ramped up pressure on India over its purchases of Russian oil, threatening new tariffs as part of a campaign to force Moscow into ending its devastating invasion of Ukraine. India's national security adviser was in Moscow on Wednesday, media in New Delhi reported, coinciding with a visit by US envoy Steve Witkoff. The latest 25-percent additional tariff is notably lower than a 100-percent level Trump floated last month when he told Russia to end its war in Ukraine within 50 days or face massive new economic sanctions. The Republican said at the time that these would be "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, seeking to impede Moscow's ability to survive already sweeping Western sanctions. - Tariff turmoil - Trump's latest salvo targeting India came after he separately took aim at Brazil over the trial of his right-wing ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro -- who is accused of planning a coup. On Wednesday, US tariffs on various Brazilian goods surged from 10 percent to 50 percent, although broad exemptions including for orange juice and civil aircraft are expected to soften the blow. Come Thursday, a new wave of tariffs on imports from dozens of other economies, ranging from the European Union to Taiwan, is set to kick in. These updated "reciprocal" tariffs, meant to address trade practices Washington deems unfair, go as high as 41 percent for countries like Syria. Other major US trading partners face varying increases from a current 10-percent level, starting at 15 percent for economies like the EU, Japan and South Korea. Countries not targeted by these "reciprocal" tariff hikes continue facing a 10-percent US levy Trump imposed in April. Trump's plans have sparked a rush to avert the steeper duties, with Switzerland's President Karin Keller-Sutter hurrying to Washington this week ahead of the Thursday deadline. Though she secured a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, it was unclear if she would meet Trump or any top economic officials. Her Alpine country faces a 39-percent duty on many of its exports, and while its key pharmaceutical sector has been spared for now, Trump has said a potential separate tariff could eventually rise to 250 percent. Some of Trump's sweeping tariffs face legal challenges over his use of emergency economic powers, with the cases likely to ultimately reach the Supreme Court. By Beiyi Seow
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Turkey arrests youth activist, drawing European protest
Turkey has arrested an LGBTQ+ youth activist over criticism he made abroad at Europe's main rights body about the repression of opponents by President Tayyip Erdogan's government. Enes Hocaogullari, 23, gave a speech in Strasbourg in March criticising police violence and detentions plus democratic backsliding in Turkey, saying: 'The youth has had enough … We are ready to go on the streets to regain our freedoms.' He was detained on Tuesday night on arrival from France at Ankara's Esenboga Airport pending trial on charges of 'publicly disseminating misleading information' and 'inciting hatred and enmity,' according to a court document seen by Reuters. The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office cited his March remarks about detained opposition mayors, including Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, as the basis for the case. Erdogan's main political opponents have faced an unprecedented crackdown that has seen more than 500 detained in nine months. The president says the arrests tackle corruption. The Council of Europe rights body's congress of local authorities said on Wednesday the charges against Hocaogullari were a reprisal for his words and urged his immediate release. 'The Congress has already expressed deep concern about the state of democracy in Turkey and called on the Turkish authorities to stop prosecuting and detaining elected representatives from opposition parties,' Congress President Marc Cools said in a statement. 'This new attack on a youth delegate for having legitimately exercised the right to express their views in a pluralistic public debate, is scandalous and unacceptable.' The Turkish government did not comment on the case. Ankara has previously rejected Western criticism of its rights record, accusing European institutions of bias and interference. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, the continent's leading human rights body.
Mail & Guardian
10 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Trump's tariffs are illegal under international trade law
US President Donald Trump. Photo: Supplied The Trump administration's trade tariffs are illegal and fall outside the legal framework of international trade law. South Africa should call out the US government for violating basic principles of international law South Africa is subject to a 30% US tariff rate, announced during the so-called liberation day tariffs declaration on 2 April, and will take effect from 1 August. The South African economy is likely to be significantly affected by these tariffs, particularly the agricultural sector and vehicle industries. The specific regions that will be affected are the Eastern Cape vehicle corridor and citrus fruit small towns in the Western cape. The tariffs are eroding the rule-based international trade order by unilaterally imposing tariffs to balance American trade deficit with its trading partners. The United States, being one of the chief architects of the international trade system is now questioning the benefits of the rule based global trade order. The first assault of the global trade order was in 2017, when the US, under Trump, started blocking all new appointments to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appellate body as the terms of its Judges were expiring. Trump started his trade war with China in early 2018, when he started setting tariffs and other trade barriers against China. Breach of the WTO rules Trade within the auspices of the WTO is rules-based and has been a source of international economic stability and success in many of the world's economies. Established through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1948 and subsequently the WTO in 1994, the rules-based international trade law has been founded on what is known as diffuse reciprocity. Diffuse reciprocity essentially negates formal numerical equality in tariffs within the context of the global trade system. This is because reciprocal tariffs are a fundamental rejection of the WTO rules. Throughout the years, the international trade system has been based on the principle of non-discrimination amongst the member countries of the WTO. Non-discrimination principle promotes universal equal treatment between the WTO member countries. This trade without discrimination is known as the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Treatment. The MFN is the first article of the GATT agreement, which regulates trade in goods. It requires a nation providing a trade concession to one trading partner to extend the same treatment to all. Therefore, countries cannot discriminate between their trading partners. For example, if country A offers a lower custom duty rate to country B, it has to extend the same treatment to others. Similarly, if a country imposes additional restrictions on the WTO member nation, it must do the same to all the other trading partners. A Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), Free Trade Agreements and Customs Union are some carve outs and exceptions to the MFN principle. For instance, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) is an exception to the MFN rule under the WTO legal Framework. But it should be noted that although South Africa's membership in Agoa gives preferential access to the US market, economists have said that only 20% of our exports constitute the Agoa export. Therefore, most of the country's exports are not under the Agoa preferential access. Beginning on 1 August 2025, the US will continue to violate Article I of the GATT by unilaterally imposing 30% reciprocal tariffs on the South African government. For example, while the Indian exporters will now face 20% US tariffs, South Africa's exporters will face 30% tariffs on the same products. The US is also in breach of its commitment under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement, which deals primarily with the schedule of concessions. This provision details the tariffs commitments the WTO member states have made to other countries. It mandates the WTO member countries to provide treatment not less favourable than the one provided under its schedule of concessions, including adhering to bound tariffs that a country has committed itself to. By unilaterally imposing reciprocal tariffs that are not agreed to by other member states of the WTO, the US violates its legal commitment that it has made under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement. While the US is permitted under Article XX VIII of the GATT to unilaterally modify its tariff commitment under international trade law, this approach requires a negotiated compensation with the affected member states. The Trump administration has not adopted this approach. Furthermore, the reciprocal actions also undermine the WTO law principle of special and differential treatment accorded to least developed and developing countries, to which South Africa is one of them. The rationale behind the special and differential treatment principle is to allow least developed countries and developing countries to provide less than full reciprocity in their tariff obligations to developed countries. Criticism of the US reciprocal tariffs Many countries have criticised the US reciprocal tariffs for violating basic principles of international trade. China has openly criticised the US government saying that the US move disregards the balance of interest reached in multilateral trade negotiations over the years and the fact that it has long benefited greatly from international trade. China has instituted a WTO case against the US for breaching of its WTO obligations. The second critic of Trump is the Singaporean government. The country's prime minister recently remarked that the US appears to be withdrawing from the global leadership to a less predictable international trade system and the messier world. He said the era of rule- based globalisation and free trade is over. He has labelled the US new tariff regime as a repudiation of the MFN principle. Likewise, the Canadian government has challenged the legality of the US tariffs. It has retaliated to the US tariffs by imposing 25% tariffs on $30 billion of US imports and has plans to expand to $155 billion after consultation. In addition to this, Canada has filed a legal claim against the US by requesting WTO dispute consultations with the US concerning the imposition by the US of import duties on certain steel and aluminium products from Canada. The initiation of this dispute has been circulated to all the WTO member countries. The actions by these countries are justified. The US government should be held accountable for its erosion of international trade rules. The South African government has not condemned the Trump administration for its violation of international law; it has instead insisted on one-sided attempts to negotiate trade deals with the US government. South Africa's position therefore does not explicitly express its discontent with the US illegal tariffs, but it is hoping that its negotiation will yield some trade deals with the US. One wonders if the results of that trade deal itself will be compliant with the WTO trade rules, but this will be seen once the US tariffs decision on South Africa has taken effect. The South African strategy On 7 July, the South African president issued a statement attempting to push back on Trump's imposition of 30% tariffs, saying that they are an inaccurate view of US-South Africa's trade relations. He has argued that these tariffs are not an accurate representation of available trade data. But this is not enough. South Africa appears to be hesitant to publicly call out the illegal tariffs of the US government, possibly because such public condemnation of Trump tariffs would not be in the interests of South Africa. According to the joint statement by the ministers of international relations and trade, industry and competition, South Africa is seeking to secure favourable quota agreements and additional exemptions by ensuring that its industries still maintain access to the US market including sectoral cooperation. The joint statement has reiterated that the country is committed to the mutual beneficial trade relationship between the US and South Africa. Instead of calling the tariffs illegal and against international trade law, the joint statement expresses concerns over shared prosperity between the two nations and it acknowledges these tariffs as constituting barriers to trade. Other countries have continued to negotiate with the US government on this tariff issue while taking it to the WTO dispute settlement system. If South Africa were to take a similar approach, it would continue to negotiate with the US government while reminding it of its commitment to the global trade rules. Perhaps the South African government might argue that this will not yield any results, given that the WTO settlement body is dysfunctional. The other impediment is that the appellate body of the WTO is not currently functional, because the US has blocked the appointment and reappointment of its judges. But China and Canada have continued to file legal claims against the US government. They understand the use of the global trade rules to enforce their claims against the violator of the trade system. As it did with the International Court of Justice case against Israel, history should remember South Africa as a country that fought for the stability of the multilateral trade system, a fair system of international trade and revitalisation of the WTO dispute settlement system. Mmiselo Freedom Qumba is a lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa.
