Body and land as sites of struggle
Imagine a rural community, somewhere in a village in the Global South where a multinational mining company is granted legal permission to extract valuable minerals from the land. The project displaces local people, weakens community ties and destroys vital ecosystems. This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern where the logic of property rights underpins both environmental destruction and social oppression. The legal frameworks that allow such projects often treat the land as a commodity to be exploited for profit, while those who resist these projects —especially women and Indigenous communities— face legal persecution, violence, and dispossession. Land is therefore systematically exploited in ways that harm both the environment and social systems.
In this context, gender, race, and class inequalities intersect with environmental injustice. Indeed, the climate emergency and social inequalities are inextricably linked. Gender, race, and class not only determine who bears the greatest burdens of environmental harm, but also influence how bodies and territories are controlled by structures that perpetuate patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalism. Environmental damage is not just a matter of resource depletion —it is a lived, embodied experience, shaped by intersecting systems of oppression.
Nor is the interconnection between climate emergency, social inequality and its surrounding legal systems a coincidence. Law, far from being a neutral framework, has historically played a key role in reproducing and legitimising these power structures. Modern legal systems were built upon a conception of the legal subject —the Andros— as an independent, self-sufficient individual, disconnected from both community and nature. Until now, this abstraction has allowed law to systematically ignore care work, environmental stewardship, and the eco- and interdependence of all living beings. The result is a legal system that still prioritises economic growth over social and ecological well-being.
Law as a tool of patriarchal, colonial and capitalist accumulation
Legal systems have traditionally played a crucial role in maintaining structures of domination. For instance, the consolidation of private property, the control of women’s reproductive labour, and the exclusion of Indigenous governance systems are all legal processes that have facilitated the expansion of heteropatriarchy, capitalism and colonialism. Silvia Federici has extensively documented how, during the European witch hunts, law was used to criminalise women’s autonomy, particularly concerning reproduction and subsistence economies. In part, this period contributed to the creation of a legal order that reinforced the division between productive and reproductive labour —placing women’s work outside the economic sphere while securing male control over property and economic resources.
The same logic extends to environmental law, where modern legal frameworks largely operate within the boundaries of neoliberal rationality —an economic logic that prioritizes market-driven approaches, treating natural resources as commodities to be bought, sold, and exploited for profit, often overlooking their intrinsic value and ecological significance— framing nature as an asset rather than a living, interconnected system. Land, water, and forests are treated as objects of ownership, rather than as commons that require collective stewardship. This has led to a legal infrastructure that facilitates large-scale exploitation of natural resources while criminalising those who resist. Women in environmental movements have often been at the forefront of these struggles, facing legal persecution, intimidation, and violence for defending their lands.
Property law has also reinforced the domination of both women and nature. In many parts of the world, women remain legally or socially excluded from land ownership, limiting their access to credit, resources, and political influence. In Kenya, for example, women are often excluded from land inheritance, undermining their ability to manage resources sustainably. In the United States, racialised women have historically faced barriers to land ownership due to discriminatory practices like redlining. These exclusions not only reinforce economic inequalities but also undermine environmental resilience, as women often bring valuable knowledge, skills, and perspectives to land and resource management, contributing to more sustainable practices.
Extractivism and violence: the parallel exploitation of women and nature
The logic of dispossession and control is central to both environmental exploitation and the regulation of bodies, particularly those of women and racialised communities. Large-scale mining, logging, and agribusiness projects displace local populations, deplete ecosystems, and generate socio-environmental conflicts. These industries disproportionately affect women, not only because they rely on ecosystems for subsistence but also because extractive projects are often accompanied by gender-based violence, including sexual exploitation and trafficking.
Just as land is enclosed and exploited for profit, women’s bodies are subjected to socio-legal frameworks that limit their autonomy. The legal system often fails to recognise the connection between environmental harm and gender violence, treating them as separate issues rather than mutually reinforcing forms of oppression. In response, women-led movements challenge these legal structures, advocating for an alternative legal paradigm that integrates gender, environment, and justice.
The resistance of women-led movements challenges these legal frameworks, asserting that land and bodies are not disposable commodities but living entities that must be protected. From Latin American Indigenous communities fighting against oil extraction to African women resisting land grabs, these movements emphasise the need for an alternative legal paradigm —one that acknowledges the intersection of gender, environment and justice.
Rethinking legal alternatives through an ecofeminist lens
From an ecofeminist perspective, a key critique of law should be its foundational conception of property. The modern legal system treats ownership as an absolute right —the right to exclude others, to exploit resources, and to accumulate wealth. This conception has led to widespread environmental destruction, reinforcing the idea that nature exists primarily for human use. Instead of defining land and resources as private commodities, ecofeminist views align with commons-based approaches that emphasise stewardship, interdependence, and shared responsibility. They call for a shift in how we understand law, advocating for a legal framework based on care and sustainability, where the well-being of all forms of life is prioritised.
There are already examples of legal frameworks that move in this direction. Ecuador and Bolivia, for instance, recognise the rights of nature in their constitutions, granting ecosystems legal standing. While the implementation of these frameworks remains contested, they signal a shift away from the anthropocentric, extractivist logic of mainstream, Western legal systems. Similarly, Indigenous legal traditions, which often emphasise relationality and reciprocity rather than ownership, offer important insights for rethinking legal structures.
Incorporating these perspectives into legal practice requires more than just symbolic recognition. It demands a transformation of legal institutions to prioritise ecological sustainability and social justice. This includes ensuring women’s access to land, recognising the labour of environmental caretaking, and integrating intersectional perspectives into environmental governance.
Toward a legal system based on care and interdependence
In this context, ecofeminist theories and daily practices around the world provide essential perspectives for challenging these structures. By exposing the links between body oppression and environmental destruction, they call for a paradigm shift —one that moves away from dominance and control toward care, reciprocity, and justice. This shift is not just theoretical; it has profound implications for law: how we define ownership, how we govern natural resources, and how we build a legal system that protects both human beings and the planet.
For law to respond meaningfully to the interconnected crises of climate change, gender oppression, and economic inequality, it must move beyond its current foundations. An ecofeminist legal framework would centre care as a legal principle —not as a moral or secondary concern but as a fundamental pillar of justice. Care is not just about interpersonal relationships; it is about recognising our dependence on ecosystems, community, and future generations. This means moving away from a legal system that prioritises economic growth at all costs and instead developing policies that support regenerative economies, sustainable land use, and the redistribution of power. Shifting toward a care-based legal system requires concrete changes, such as ensuring community-led environmental governance, redefining the legal subject to reflect interdependence rather than individual autonomy, and integrating feminist and decolonial perspectives into legal education and practice. It also requires a recognition that law is not static; it is a contested space that can and must be transformed through collective action; from below.
Reclaiming law for environmental justice
Law has historically served the interests of those in power, structuring societies in ways that enable both environmental destruction and social oppression. However, it also holds the potential for transformation. If law is to be an instrument for justice rather than a mechanism of dispossession, it must be reimagined from the ground up. Ecofeminism(s) offer a powerful framework for this transformation. This shift is not only necessary but urgent. The crises we face require radical legal reinvention —one that does not merely mitigate harm but fundamentally alters the systems that produce it. A legal system for the future must recognise that justice is not about securing rights for the privileged few but about building a world where all beings —human and non-human— can thrive. This is not a utopian vision; it is a necessary step toward survival. And the time to act is now.
Clara Esteve-Jordà is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB). Her research focuses on the commons and their eco-social function, with particular interest in environmental justice, property rights, environmental movements, and ecofeminist theory and practice.