With no higher order than man's evolving brain, secular law will always border--in layman's terms--on anarchy and subjectivity. This view of law applies even in democracies, unless you can call the mob "rational" (In fact, you cannot call the mob anything, you can only observe it). Hitler, after all was democratically elected and, if they have their way, Iraq--to the chagrin of the USA--could evolve democratically into a Shia Muslim theocracy ala Iran.

Current international law--as a result of current Occidental world dominance--evolved from the 17-18th Century Western concept of "nation-states." Monarchies or nation-states were created in an attempt to bring order to the messy relations that existed between sovereign entities in Europe. The irrationality of this concept applied to non-Western entities is evident in the nation-states of Iraq.

Today's manifestations of international law is represented in such bodies as the World Court and the United Nations (UN). These entities attempt to bring the legitimacy of law to a globalized world. Not only do these global entities face the same issues of inherent irrationality mentioned above, but they have to contend with the issue of perspective. As an example, for the USA it was not unlawful to invade Iraq. Yet America's bellicose action was not legitimized by the UN let alone the Iraqis.

In terms of trade law, organizing bodies such as the World Trade Organization try to bring legitimacy to global trade issues. These entities, however, are not democratically elected bringing immediate doubt on the legitimacy of their jurisdiction.

The same analysis can be applied to religious law which, in the final analysis, is also irrational (at least for impartial observers). Religion can be seen as a response to a primitive an essential quality of humans-- spirituality or our unique ability amongst all animals to question creation. Even the atheist understands the unbearable lightness of being.

Religious law can be argued to be more visceral than secular law. Evidence pointing to this is that "morality," our most ancestral arbiter of right and wrong, derives its premises in most societies from religious and not secular law.

A hint at the uneasiness of human secular law with its own legitimacy is observed in the fact that, even in the courts of modern, Western America, we put one hand on top of the Bible before swearing to tell the whole truth (and, of course, the ubiquitous "In God we trust" and the Pledge of Allegiances "under God").

The question of course that is being begged in this discussion is: Acutely aware (in the "enlightened" West, at least since the time of Milton) that Homo Sapiens have been banished (forever?) from the Garden of Eden of pure rationality by our Original Sin of self-consciousness, is it possible to find global legitimacy exclusively in secular law? If not, what should be our goal?

My guess is that we need to construct "laws" in such a way that they foremost address the neglected Epicurean equilibrium that is possible between Pacha Mama and our global collective consciousness (otherwise known as the Law of Thermodynamic Equilibrium).

Steps in this direction include reexamining our laws in the light of such Biological principles as diversity, sustainability and natural history. We need a declaration of Universal Human Rights that is based on a collective definition of what it means to be human--are we spiritual individual capable of love or simply consumers? Reaffirming man's essence will help protect the world's less fortunate citizens from tyrannical memes (ideologies) that arise from perverse self-love (the "misguided" cancer gene). Lastly, we need to encourage grass roots democracy (a statistical buffer to illegitimacy tied to the biological principal of "habitat" as a limiting or defining factor). This implies an educated and participatory constituency thinking globally but acting locally.

Sadly, we live in a day and age when the self-proclaimed steward of the "free" and secular world is a born again Christian who believes he is doing the work of the Almighty. To my chagrin, this person even has the nerve to questions the validity of our most powerful scientific concept--Evolution . Further, this freedom "crusader" hypocritically si,ultaneously appeases right-wing extremist Zionists and misogynist Wahabi Saudi dictators. All this faux religiosity, however, is nothing more than a cover for the imperialistic intentions of neoliberal capitalism accomplished through military might and petrodollars.

Adding to the mayhem, the supposed "free" world's #1 nemesis is a brand of terrorism carried out by another group of religious extremists--Al Qaeda. For them, martyrdom and murder in the name of Allah provides them with powerful legitimacy in the face of the encroaching infidels.

Alas, human hubris and human nature have doomed our global society to the same fate as the adolescents stranded on that small island in Golding's novel "The Lord of the Flies"-- to be all alone and susceptible to the Law of the Jungle.

Amazon Lawsuit: The Value of Nature & Culture

As we have just seen, "money" is a subjective concept bordering on the irrational (i.e. its value cannot be predicted or measured with scientific accuracy). Nowhere is this view of "money" as subjective more evidenced than in lawsuits for personal damage including "pain and suffering," whether it be for the polluting of water reserves of an indigenous people or the birth of a damaged baby. How much "money" is the pain and suffering caused by a third party worth to the person incurring the injury? A million dollars? A hundred million? A billion?

Getting back to the case against TexacoChevron-- yes, the Huaroni lawsuit is about "money." However, it is about a different construction of money than the one Hurtado snidely insinuates. It is not about the "money" that allows one to buy tasteless consumer goods (such as condominiums in Miami). Money, in this case, serves as an international language in which the Huaronis can communicate the "value" they place on preserving their culture and habitat (Nature).

Culture and Nature are equal to "money" for the indigenous people of the Amazon whose lives are intensely intertwined with Nature. For the West, the importance of culture to "money" has already been discerned (look at the hip-hop revolution and its marketing potential). Nature should be just as appreciated, but, for some reason, we cannot readily acknowledge its importance.

Thanks to economists, when it comes to Nature, we literally do not see the forest for the trees. Nature is perceived as having no inherent value to society, let alone the individual. When calculating Gross Domestic Product, the telltale number for a country's economic vigor, economists routinely omit environmental and social costs, arguing that these are "value" judgments. "The GDP, however, is not value free. To leave social and environmental costs and contributions to the economy off the books does not avoid value judgments. On the contrary, it makes the obvious value judgment that things such as the destruction of farmland and natural resources, underemployment, longer-commute times, and the loss of free time, count for nothing in assessing how the economy is fairing. GDP does put a value on such factors: Zero." (From an essay in alternet.org written by Dr. Jason Venetoulis, sustainability educator and co-director of the Sustainable Indicators Program at Redefining Progress and Michel Gelobter, Executive Director of Redefining Progress)

It is as if we existed divorced from air, water, earth, fire and our own desires. Economists want us to believe that only corporations can create value. It is one thing to be godless, but quite another to believe that oneself is god!

The Law in the Amazon Jungle

The Huaronis are asking for money because they believe they have been wronged. There is no doubt that the indigenous Amazon people suffered a great deal subsequent to the appearance of the petroleum industry in their back yards. Damage to their homes, property, ecology and health have been copiously quantified. Only the most obtuse refute these claims.

This brings us back to the question of law. If the indigenous people were wronged, under what statues were they wronged? Who was responsible and what should the recompense (i.e. money) be?

These are all tricky questions, particularly in light of the idea that law is inherently irrational. This idea increases in complexity with the realization that, in this Amazon versus Texaco case, we are dealing with even another conceptual framework of law. Surely this is a conundrum (unless, of course, one assumes the West is best). The most fair approach is to try to find common statues (science, empirical observation?) which ultimately can be applicable to all .

In this case, the point of diversion emerges in trying to identify the statues under which the case should be tried. Economists will argue that corporate and global trade law should be the arbiter, whereas the indigenous and their supporting "activists" argue that universal Human Rights should prevail.

The difference between the two approaches could not be more stark-- both intellectually and practically. On one side is TexacoChevron, which is an international corporation. Corporations are man-made entities. As such, in and of themselves, corporations they do not encompass Nature (or God). In fact, corporations "live" such that they can reproduce through the minds of men. Although they are not alive in a natural sense, the premise and application of corporate/trade law grants them equal rights to human beings.

On the other side, the Huaroni people are alive in the most elemental sense, because they are of flesh and blood. Where does Nature fit in? People, by definition, completely rely on Nature for their existence. Furthermore, in biology, a species is generally defined by its phenotype and habitat range. In other words, you cannot define a "species" without identifying a habitat. Humans are a species, Homo Sapiens, and, thus, are at least partly defined by their habitat. Even in our modern world, the place where we live is still defined to a large extent-- though sadly unappreciated by hurried, worried humans-- by air, water, earth and fire. So, when we talk about human rights, it instinctually includes the natural world.

Given such varying perspectives, the question of whose at fault should be addressed through incontrovertible physical evidence. Are there toxic levels of oil in the drinking water and, if yes, who put them there?

A second legal point revolves around the question of "who was there first?" -- a question of property rights. Corporists would cite legal rights as determinants of property-- "Who's 'legal rights came first? The indigenous people may have been there first physically, but when did they have legal 'rights' to be there?" And since "rights," according to corporists, are man-made, the "Man" tells you when you have "rights."

Human right supporters would respond: "Nonsense. 'Rights' are inherent to humans and come into play when the individual or group comes into being. Therefore, Human rights, in a sense, can be prioritized before the rights of corporations and even governments. And, most importantly, human rights are equal across all individuals."

The "award"--amount of money due to the plaintiff-- is a value judgment. What is one's ancestral home worth? one's culture? one's ability to live without disease and ailments? one's freedom to live as one chooses? Although these questions are not easy to answer, in today's globalized world, they are ultimately rendered with monetary judgments through prevalent Western law. Pray that these laws and the people in charge with upholding them be enlightened and incorruptible.