Menu

Rights of Nature

Vision and reality

 

Rights of Nature

Vision and reality

Rights of Nature: Vision & reality

by Imke Horstmannshoff & Barbara Unmüßig

The idea of acknowledging or "granting" nature's own rights is not entirely new. It ties in with fundamental questions of human-Nature relationships. Such debates are in full swing around the world.

What are 'Rights of Nature' and how can we envision their implementation? What are their implications for human relationships to Nature and for human jurisdictions? Which conflicts and tensions emerge?

 

What are 'Rights of Nature'?

Advocates of 'Rights of Nature' are advocating in favour of acknowledging ecosystems and non-human entities - such as rivers, forests and other parts of the natural environment - as legal subjects with proper rights.

Compared to existing environmental ethics and legislation, Rights of Nature take the issue one step further: Nature is recognised as a subject with intrinsic value and rights of its own. Rights of Nature challenge widespread anthropocentric worldviews, viewing humans as fundamentally separate from Nature, considering 'it' a property and resource to be exploited at will - and to be protected (if at all) only due to potential benefits provided to humans.

Allowing for non-human elements to act as legal entities, as plaintiffs for instance, is meant to provide more effective legal leverage to prevent environmental damage and destruction in the face of imminent ecological disasters.

Treat Nature as a person?

And let ‘it’ go to court? To many, the idea must seem absurd at first. However, major historical changes in jurisprudence - such as the abolition of slavery or women’s suffrage - have for long appeared more than unlikely to contemporaries as well. Finally, they resulted from decades of civil struggles. Moreover: with human infants or even companies not able to 'speak for themselves', however long recognised as legal subjects and represented in court, it does not seem all too absurd to extend such rights to more-than-human entities.

Already in the 1970s, American legal scholar Christopher Stone posed these questions in his much-cited essay "Should Trees Have Standing?". To his mind, granting "natural" subjects the status of legal entities would create a symmetry of power and possibilities which does not currently exist in law. However, such initiatives remained without success for decades.

Upswing for a global movement

Since the 2000s, the debate has been gaining momentum again, starting from Latin America: In 2008, → Ecuador was the first country in the world to grant nature its own rights in its constitution, followed by→ Bolivia in 2010 in a separate legislation.

For decades, indigenous movements and politicians in particular had been campaigning in both countries to incorporate the widespread concept of a living environment ('Pachamama', meaning "Mother Earth") and the pursuit of 'Buen Vivir' ('Sumak kawsay' or "the Good Life") into their constitutions and legal systems. These concepts are based on a holistic view of the world, in which people are seen as part of Nature and all living things as intertwined.

The current movement and debates on the Rights of Nature are therefore rooted in the efforts of progressive forces in the Global South and based on indigenous cosmologies linking to original Western legal concepts.

A decade and a half later, this idea is → existing legal practice in many cases, and → actors around the world are promoting Rights of Nature at various levels - from local initiatives to protect individual ecosystems, to transnational organisations such as the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN). With its international commissions of enquiry and the staging of court cases ('International Rights of Nature Tribunals'), GARN creates a framework for renegotiating prominent cases on the basis of the Rights of Nature and so-called 'Earth Jurisprudence', promoting the voices of those affected.

Implementation and preconditions

How exactly will the Rights of Nature be enshrined in jurisprudence? What exactly should be recognised as a legal entity? The concrete implementation of the Rights of Nature is subject to debates in civil society, politics and research. Demands, arguments and issues depend on national legislation, political circumstances and cultural contexts.

Rights of Nature are not only in → tension  with human→ anthropocentric worldviews and economic interests, but very often seem to 'clash' with other legal jurisdictions, such as → property rights and human rights.

Moreover, in order to effectively implement the Rights of Nature in a (human-made) system, we need both people who demand such rights and the political will to implement them, as well as political and legal systems in which they can unfold their full potential.

In other words, power structures are required that allow, uphold and protect the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of courts.

Internationally, such structures are increasingly under threat: in many places, environmental activism poses a real life danger, opportunities to express political demands are being restricted or criminalised, while the rule of law is faltering under pressure from a variety of factors.

 

Imke Horstmannshoff is a researcher, writer and activist for social-ecological change in Europe. Her work around Rights of Nature includes workshop design, coordination and facilitation of workshops, as well as of the online dossier on Rights of Nature. With degrees in Cultural and Global Studies, she is currently preparing for a PhD on Rights of Nature in Europe.

Barbara Unmüßig is a political scientist and publicist, and co-founder of numerous networks and organizations (German Institute for Human Rights, Forum Environment & Development). As a board member of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (affiliated with the German Green Party), she has been shaping the foundation's international and feminist work for over two decades until 2022.

 

Literature & Links