The Law's Critical Role in Developing Human-Environment Relationships after COVID-19 Pandemic (A Study of Ecofeminism)

These relationships are significantly influenced by the human mind. Descartes describes the mind as being non-extended, undivided, and distinct from the human body. While discouragement prevents a person from understanding what they are seeing or hearing, imagination enables them to describe their experiences [1]. For Descartes, the phrase Cogito Ergo Sum (I believe I exist) represents the second perspective of connecting people and something external to themselves. Only humans have the ability to think, and everything else is merely a machine that serves no purpose [2]. From Descartes' premise, human nature and the distinction between body and mind are deduced, as each is a "substantial union," a unified creature composed of both body and mind. [3]. It is widely accepted that Descartes had a tremendous impact, particularly in developing the anthropocentric worldview that shaped contemporary science [4]. One may see the effect of anthropocentrism in legal philosophy in numerous schools, such as legal positivism [5]. When it comes to legal positivism, Hans Kelsen's teachings are infused with anthropocentrism, a feature of legal positivism. Unscientific moral problems, such as those involving our ethical responsibilities for the environment or other people, must be kept apart from the law and considered vital [6]. As a result of this knowledge, people begin to form opinions on the distinction between legal and non-legal matters. As long as humans have the power to make laws, everyone else is only an object under human control with no legal protections. As stated by Gumplowics, "The law is an arrangement of definitions constructed by powerful parties to protect their authority, in this instance, humans," and this phenomenon is coherent with this belief [7].

Human-to-thing relationships are governed by such laws, which are viewed as normative bodies of rules or, at the very least, in legal parlance, the context is somewhat more complex. [8]. Law's objects include everything in the environment except people. Examples include animals and plants. The environment is considered to have no rights because it can be owned, exploited, destroyed, or preserved by humans [9]. Subjective rights are reserved for individuals, organizations, and economic actors under this framework. Legal subjects that are restricted to individuals, legal entities, or economic players have implications for environmental issues, particularly environmental law.

Human-to-things relationships and limited legal subjects that cause environmental problems can be seen in various human actions that harm or damage the environment while emphasizing their own profit. Based on the carbon emissions alone, human activities produce more than 36 gigatonnes of CO₂ (2018 and 2019). Those data reflect human activities that are highly dependent on non-renewable energy, which is obtained from the dredging of natural resources (fossil fuels). Strangely, global carbon emissions fell to 34.2 gigatons in 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic that led to restrictions on a variety of activities, but rose to 36.3 gigatons the year after. Carbon emissions provide a clear indication of how much people value their connections to things outside of themselves.

Essentially, this is the actual charge against Ecofeminism. In Ecofeminism, the relationship between human oppression of the environment is examined and practised as a basis for analysis and practice [10]. In his 1974 book "Le Feminisme ou la Mort," Francoise d'Eaubonne [11], a French writer, invented the word "ecofeminism." An ecofeminist does not place women in positions of power but instead demands an equitable and collaborative society in which a dominating group is established [12]. Ecofeminist analysis focuses on the relationship between women and natural resources and between women's oppression and the oppression of nature. It is not just about seeing women and nature as property, men as curators of culture, women as nature, and how males dominate women and people dominate nature. Ecofeminism stresses the importance of both women and nature [13]. All and all, ecofeminism resists all forms of dominance, including human dominance over the natural world.

The dominance of humans over nature is the result of a dualistic relationship between humans and nature, which is also the primary target of ecofeminism's criticism [14, 15]. Up until now, scientific experiments on animals have been supported and influenced by the masculine rationalistic paradigm, which has contributed to some of humanity's most heinous crimes against nature. People have been inspired by humanist ideas throughout history, which do not always imply humanitarianism or behaving humanely. In the seventeenth century.

Concerning environmental degradation, Indonesia is among the most worrisome nations. Indonesia has contributed at least 1,800 million tons of CO₂ over the past four years, with the energy and forestry sectors being the primary contributors. Despite the fact that carbon emissions tend to decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic, this decrease is temporary. As a result of Indonesia's degradation of the environment, laws governing human and environmental relations, such as Law 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, were selected. Protection and administration are thus required and taken seriously and consistently by all parties involved in the environment. The legal politics of this legislation does not extend to all aspects of life and still place people in a superior position to the environment. Environmental destruction is a certainty and even causes harm to humans, such as in the present situation, specifically the COVID-19 Pandemic [16].

An animal sickness that spreads to people is zoonosis, a disease that affects both animals and humans. Due to years of cultural influences, religion, and economic systems, human ties with our environment must be reconciled with the harm that has been done for ages [17]. The COVID-19 epidemic alters human-nature connections at multiple levels and in different circumstances [18]. A worldwide pandemic necessitates a new understanding of its effect because of the scope of its impact and the social distancing methods that have been adopted to combat it. Many individuals have noticed the reduction in air pollution that may come from a pandemic throughout the globe [19].

There has also been an increase in public involvement and usage of local green spaces, particularly in densely populated regions, due to changes in transportation patterns and a lack of alternative social activities. On a personal level, however, health and cleanliness concerns have pushed conservation to the back burner favoring more urgent issues.

The COVID-19 epidemic can impact attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and environmental priorities on a societal and individual level [20]. Empirical theorists will be better able to comprehend nature's significance and management of the COVID-19 disruption by having a better understanding of human-environment interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. All parties will be able to learn about the various distinctive values people uphold and how they interact with the environment by using this perspective as a guide [21]. These changes and their future effects on environmental laws are considered when re-establishing human-environment connections, which may help people adopt thoughtful and successful solutions as a pandemic develops. Planning for a longer physical, emotional, economic and environmental recovery is now more critical than ever [22].

A pandemic could lead to a wide range of changes, including changes in behavior, demographic changes, the risk of choosing which law to use (including environmental law), changes in value (including the value instilled by humans regarding its relationship with the environment so far), and changes in resources (such as environmental resource). As a result of these developments, environmental laws in the future will be able to properly govern the environment and how people interact with the environment in the coming decades, which is why these changes are so significant.

Why are we interested in environmental law's history, and how has it regulated the connection between human beings and their environment? After the COVID-19 Pandemic, how can Ecofeminism be analyzed in terms of the urgency of the law in forging interactions between people and the environment? Based on these issues, this study aims to explore the history of environmental law in regulating the human-environment relationship and ecofeminism studies related to the urgency of environmental law in building relationships between humans and the environment following the COVID-19 Pandemic.

3.1 History of environmental law in managing the relationship between humans and the environment

Environmental law has evolved significantly in the past forty years while environmental danger has increased. No one felt that ecosystems and other essential natural resources should be protected by law until the late 19th century. Prior to the 1960s, there was no difference between national and international environmental law. In the 1970s, there were merely a few global agreements on environmental law, and most nations did not even have environmental laws [23].

There will be a considerable increase in public health and resource conservation and legal action to combat pollution harm due to the entrance of the environmental preservation century [24]. Environmental accords and conventions abound nowadays, and environmental legislation may be found in every nation. There is a new idea in environmental law that is entirely distinct from anything we have seen before. Heterogeneous systems, in which natural ecosystems and human progress may coexist without interfering, are being designed to redefine human-nature interactions.

It is only through redefining our connection with nature that environmental legislation may be enacted. It is based on the notion of inspiring individuals to do good deeds for the world around them and to honour Mother Nature in the process. Encouraging a sustainable development is at the heart of environmental law's mission [25]. Using environmental law, people and the natural systems they live in can establish a mutually beneficial relationship that benefits both. Long-term neglect of natural resources has led to significant depletion and overexploitation, which environmental laws seek to rectify. Without a single thought of reducing this abuse, humanity has always taken advantage of and exploited Mother Nature and her resources. As a result, environmental law is viewed as a response to environmental exploitation and destruction. It is obvious that environmental regulations are required in order to stop the long history of unchecked material growth that has resulted in environmental degradation. Three distinct time periods—from 1900 to 1972, from 1972 to 1992, and since 1992 (1992-2012)—can be used to examine traditional, modern, and post-modern environmental legislation. The foundations of environmental law were being laid for a brief period of time. The foundation for creating and implementing environmental legislation was laid during this time [23].

With his Ordonnance et forest, Jean-Baptiste Colbert may be a pioneer of modern environmental legislation in the traditional period (1900-1972). As a result, international law has been concerned with managing natural resources for over five hundred years, beginning with the formation of the Traditional Period. In this age, bilateral agreements between countries to handle shared natural resource concerns became an integral part of International Law. During this period, no special environmental regulations were formed since the idea of reciprocity between nations did everything. The principle of territorial sovereignty applies to all environmental accords. The Bering Fur Seal case in 1893 and the Lake Lanoux case in 1957 are the most often cited cases. Green Policy for environmental protection originated as an agreement between several regimes during this period. Article 22 of the 1856 Bayonne Border Agreement between France and Spain to protect fisheries in the Bidassoa River, which led to a change in domestic legislation in tributary control, is an example of such a strategy [26].

Because the original intent of this law was purely utilitarian and self-serving, it lacked much in the way of legal character. Animal species in Africa that benefit humans may be protected under the London Convention 1900, designed to ensure the conservation of wild animal species, or the Paris Convention to Protect Birds for Agriculture in 1902 [27]. The introduction of international environmental legislation into conservation ethics only occurred in the twentieth century to avert global environmental concerns. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to convene an International Conservation Conference in The Hague, which was ultimately cancelled. Then the London Convention Concerning the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in its Natural State in 1933 and the Washington Convention on the Protection of Nature and Conservation of Wildlife in the Western Hemisphere in 1940 were milestones for environmental legislation. The non-governmental International Union for the Protection of Nature, created in 1948 (later known as the International Union for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources), became a significant source for subsequent International Environmental Law advances. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, signed in 1971 due to a joint UNESCO-UNEP effort, is exceptionally substantial for waterfowl habitats. Protocol to Protect the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of Paris in 1972. As a result of these events, a solid Environmental Law has been established and is now ready for development and crystallization [28].

The United Nations Conference on Stockholm's Human Environment, which began on June 5, 1972, marked the beginning of modern environmental legislation. Several events occurred before the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. During the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, governments from across the globe joined together for the first time to identify and solve environmental challenges. In the evolution of international environmental law, this event had a lasting impact. The idea of Sustainable Progress was conceived during this conference, which focused on the core problem of conflict between economic development and environmental conservation. Founex met in Switzerland before the conference, which was held in Zurich. The government subsequently acknowledged at the Rio Conference on Environment and Growth that environmental conservation and economic development must go hand in hand to establish the basis for the notion of sustainable development. International environmental law has progressed since the Stockholm Conference adopted the Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment. Countries formed the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya, which was not a United Nations specialized agency due to the Stockholm Conference [29].

Stockholm Conference-related multilateral agreements include the Convention on Marine Pollution Prevention, the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in 1973. In conjunction with the United Nations Conference, it is a foundational piece informing international environmental law [30].

Since then, more than 1,100 international legal instruments focused on environmental protection were drafted during the next two decades. During this time, governments learned how to negotiate new accords in less than two months, making it easier for them to do so. During this period, monitoring and reporting of particular environmental concerns and distinct facilities to help nations execute the accords were established under international environmental agreements. The worldwide environmental accords of 1972-1992 experienced a shift in their emphasis and issue. The accord's scope is also broadened to include global environmental problems, such as depleting the ozone layer and protecting ecosystems, addressed in the agreement.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 kicked off the post-modern period, which lasted for the next two decades. When nations gathered in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference in 1972, it was the beginning [31]. This historic event will have enormous ramifications for future international environmental legislation and policy since the location communicated an important message that the environment and development are the priority of all nations, regardless of their economic growth. During the United Nations General Assembly's Rio Conference, the Brundtland Commission (a body established by the General Assembly) produced a report that found the idea of sustainable development as a cornerstone of international environmental law. The notion of sustainable development is widely accepted, although not all countries agree on what it means. Climate Change Convention; Convention on Biological Diversity; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which laid the groundwork for new principles of international environmental law; and Agenda 21, which lays out a comprehensive list of actions countries should take in environmental disaster cases all produced at Rio.

International environmental law and policy have evolved significantly since the Rio Conference. As time goes on, it grows in size and scope. Since its establishment, it has built close links to the areas of human rights and commerce [32]. Old laws and ideas have been rethought in light of the new ones. Since then, the emphasis has moved from domestic concerns to global ones. Public-private partnerships were encouraged at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 to advance Sustainability. Since the Rio Conference, it has been a critical component of sustainable development [33].

In the 1980s, environmental law in Indonesia started to take shape in response to public demand that pro-environment official state policies be codified into legislation that all relevant parties could enforce. As in every other country, Indonesia must create a policy that may be implemented in specific legislation governing the environment.

When it came time to write the country's first law on environmental management in 1982, the Third Development Cabinet had already established a distinct ministry office to oversee environmental protection. This was the first legislative result to emerge from that effort. Dr Emil Salim, the first State Minister for Environmental Affairs, laid the foundations of environmental policy and placed it in the form of legislation in 1982 when he retired.

March 11, 1982, is recognized as the beginning of the national environmental law's birth and expansion. A variety of environmental and natural resource laws and regulations before establishing the Environmental Act in 1982. These laws were considered to be typical national legal frameworks. There are provisions in the traditional environmental law framework that safeguard the interests of different sectors. On the other hand, environmental issues are becoming more and more complicated. When it comes to environmental issues, traditional law cannot foresee and address them comprehensively, while the Environmental Act established the present environmental legal system in 1982.

Modern environmental law in Indonesia began with the 1982 Environmental Act, the country's first statutory legislation on the subject. A new area of law, environmental law, was born in the Environmental Act of 1982 because these rules include previously unheard-of notions in law. In addition, environmental management regulations are based on the Environmental Act 1982.

As a result, after eleven years, environmentalists and policymakers began to see the Environmental Act 1982 as an ineffectual tool for environmental management policy. Indonesia's environment has not improved since Environmental Act was passed in 1982, and many environmental law lawsuits are still pending. In light of this, it is required to amend the Environmental Act 1982 after two years of preparation, specifically from the academic script to the draft legislation, which was passed on September 19, 1997 (Environmental Management Act 1997) [34].

In addition, on October 3, 2009, the government published Law No. 32 of 2009, which governs Environmental Protection and Management. Environmental degradation has put human life and the lives of other living organisms at risk. Consequently, all stakeholders must take environmental protection and management seriously and consistently, exacerbated by rising global temperatures and climate change, which further deteriorates the quality of the environment.

Environmental Management Act 1997 should be replaced by the new legislation for at least four reasons. A first amendment to the 1945 Constitution says explicitly that national economic development is conducted by the principles of sustainable and ecologically sound growth. As a second effect, Indonesia's new policy of regional autonomy has altered government-to-regional-government interactions and authority dynamics, notably in environmental matters. Third, the worsening quality of the environment has been brought on by climate change due to growing global warming. In Environmental Management Act 1997, the third reason is accommodated. Environmental Protection and Management Act 2009, on the other hand, has a new colour and is different from the previous law because of the weakness of the Ministry of Environment's administrative law enforcement agency and the investigative authority investigating civil service officials, which need strengthening to enact a new law to improve law enforcement.

Environmental problems, such as climate change, resource depletion, species extinction, ecosystem damage, air, water, and soil pollution, persist despite the efforts of governments to implement different legislative measures [35]. The fact is that environmental problems endure and may even become worse, despite the widespread knowledge and acknowledgement of significant environmental challenges and the expanding number of legislations aimed to address these difficulties. It is not uncommon for environmental legislation to fail [36]. To safeguard the interests and advantages of people, rather than the environment in which they exist, it frequently encompasses certain qualities, such as anthropocentricity. Human superiority and exceptions to nature are perpetuated through environmental legislation. Assuming that people are superior and insulated from nature, laws are founded on the assumption that humans are not constrained by nature. In addition, this legislation employs an unrealistic concept of human motivation based on the homo economic model utilized by conventional economic traditions. A romantic picture of nature, in which nature is likewise considered as simple, non-working, self-regulating, and straightforward, is used by the law. As a complex adaptive system, nature is not consistent with this belief.

3.2 Review of ecofeminism related to the urgency of environmental law in building relations between humans and the environment post -COVID-19 pandemic

In response to feminist thinking, Susan Bordo [37] said. Cartesian philosophy is the most forward-thinking male philosophy. This thinking is "anthropocentrism" since it devalues everything beyond the human body and views everything involved as a cog in nature.

Go further than Ecofeminism to understand better how environmental issues affect women and how women affect the environment. Ecofeminism may address environmental problems, including altering legislative instruments that discriminate against women and nature [38]. Even in the Western intellectual tradition, where women and nature have been conceptualized, it has resulted in the devaluation of any devaluation of women's emotions or animals or disposition of the body while simultaneously raising the value of men, people's culture and minds [39]. Ecofeminism aims to reveal this dichotomy, which has become a reason for reforming and destroying all kinds of dominance by women, animals, and the environment [40].

The link between ecofeminism and environmental issues is formed through recording the environmental repercussions of pollution and deterioration of women's lives and the environment [41]. According to several writers, toxic pesticides, chemical waste, acid rain, radiation, and other pollutants that harm the reproductive system and children are often the first to strike. To begin with, the toxicity of these potentially harmful substances is evaluated in studies using animals. Animal oppression is linked to environmental deterioration as livestock, and meat-eating practices become more popular worldwide (speciesism). Because creating coalitions is essential to oppression and control, Ecofeminism holds that all oppressed groups' emancipation must be addressed simultaneously [42]. Women alone cannot rescue the environment, but they also need the cooperation of males.

An ethic of care should guide the development of rules that control the connection between people and nature (ethics of care). Ecofeminist specialists created a feminist method focused on care and communication connecting life components with environmental moral status difficulties in the 1980s [43]. Carol Gilligan [44], author of "A Different Voice," argues that the human-environment interaction is built on an ethic of care. For Gilligan, a woman's morality is more closely tied to her work as a reporter than the abstract concepts and rights that she advocates. The ethical concern method in law provides a more flexible, situational, and specific practice. It thus displays care by keeping a link to sustain the interaction between people and everything outside of themselves.

Every legislator must consider these notions about the human-environment interaction and do so from a position of caring and situational responsibility informed by an ethical concern for the environment. While the notion of natural rights has played an essential role in developing environmental legislation, ecofeminists say that there are still many bad things that cannot be applied to the environment when applying the ethics of environmental care [45]. There are several issues, such as the fact that the environment is independent and has an intellect comparable to human beings, which necessitates a claim for legal rights. Although the environment has a growing purpose, it is not easy to compare the environment in general to a logical and ethical human person since it is the original right holder. As a result, a new ethic is needed in law that recognizes that the environment is distinct from people yet is nevertheless entitled to moral consideration. Those who believe in caring ethics believe that no matter how different the environment is from people; humans have a moral obligation to care for all living things they may interact with.

On the other hand, Ecofeminism views the law as more than simply a set of rules; instead, it sees it as a tool for solving social, economic, and environmental issues. Nature may be seen as an item or commodity that the legal system may quantify [46]. It is also possible to put a legal subject in nature and give it a subjective right to settle ecological issues [47]. Human-made rules only apply to people since they are not binding on the natural world. There are no laws that dictate how the environment should treat humans, but there are laws that dictate how people should treat the environment. In the case of a pandemic caused by a specific virus, for example, humans can restrict the building of homes in preparation for earthquakes. However, they cannot control the movement of plates in the Earth's crust to prevent earthquakes from occurring. On the other hand, the law cannot stop the pandemic virus from evolving.

Because of the strong interaction between people and their environment, the law must emphasize empathy to be implemented. Keeping in mind that the law serves as a social and reactive instrument, such laws will help steer humanity toward ethical use of the environment. If the Theory of Evolution may be used to establish rules that control the connection between people and the environment, then the laws produced by humans must recognize the goal.

Using the analogy of the tale "The Dead Fish" as an example, Ecofeminism's approach to regulating human-environment connections is similar. The monarch had a special affection for a fish, and he wanted to make sure the fish was as happy as possible. Wealth and prosperity filled the king's life. Gold was plentiful in the palace, so the monarch wore nothing but gold-plated clothing. One day, the king had an epiphany and realized that to make the fish genuinely happy and affluent, they would need to be surrounded by gold. The monarch had the fish removed from the pond and placed on a gold plate at his command. When the monarch returned to check on the fish the following day, he found that his delight had been short-lived [48].

The monarch is portrayed in the narrative as a human legislator who makes erroneous decisions about which laws are best for controlling the connection between people and the environment to ensure everyone's pleasure and well-being. We have an issue since our notions of wealth and well-being differ significantly from location to place, individual to individual, and from one culture to another. Because Ecofeminism considers that development or empowerment can only be encouraged rather than imposed, it arises as an ecofeminist jurisprudence in legal science to defend and establish laws to control the creation of human-environment connections via preservation when it comes to innovation and making an effort to make sure that the law progresses for all living things, even if some of those living things might damage people.

Many of Indonesian society's laws reflect the values of Ecofeminism. The Hindu idea of Tri Hita Karana, for example, is prevalent in Balinese culture. The Tri Hita Karana cosmology is based on the tenets of a problematic existence. This ideology offers an answer to preserving cultural variety and the environment [49]. The crux of the Tri Hita Karana teachings emphasizes the three ways in which people relate to one another in the world we live in today. Relationships with God, other people, and the natural world are all intertwined in this set of three. Every connection has a way of life in which it honours the people, places, and things it touches. Implementation principles are meant to be in balance with one another. Humans will be able to thrive by avoiding all erroneous acts after the delicate balance has been achieved. Everything in his life will be in its proper place [50].

Tri Hita Karana incorporates aspects of "palemahan", "pawongan", and "parhyangan". In its realization, "Parhyangan," or the relationship between humans and God, can be understood as a state of mind, idea, or value. "Pawongan," which refers to human interactions, is synonymous with social elements. In addition, "Palemahan" describes how people interact with their surroundings and shares the same meaning as the artifact element. In their execution, the ceremonies or rituals emphasize the "Palemahan" concept, which maintains a harmonious relationship with the natural surroundings and the surrounding environment in order to preserve the earth's equilibrium.

The Tri Hita Karana concept places a strong emphasis on balance and harmony. In this concept, the three mentioned elements—God, humans, and nature—have an irreplaceable role, and domination is thought to be an act that can primarily affect the balance and harmony of these three elements, so neither entity tends to dominate the other entity (especially humans over nature). The environment, including plants, animals, and "sekala or niskala" things, determines the relationship between humans and nature (shaped or not). Humans are required to uphold the balance of these relationships. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tri Hita Karana concept emphasizes the need for people to be able to respect for nature appropriately in the language of "mulat sarira" or introspection, specifically by engaging in introspection as mentioned in Lontar Rogha Sanghara Bumi, one source that contains numerous ceremonies and offerings to mitigate natural disasters on earth. The intent is for people to practice introspection once more in order to preserve the harmony of the natural world. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a catalyst for change in environmental law by elevating harmony and opposing human dominance of nature.

Essentially, the basis of the three pillars of Tri Hita Karana is that human well-being is founded on the harmony between people and their Gods, their natural environment, and the rest of humanity. Applying this ideology should replace a stylish way of life based on individualism and consumerism. Consumption, conflict, and upheaval can be eliminated by cultivating Tri Hita Karana.