Rights of Nature - reimagining our relationship with the natural world.

By Ella O'Neill - Chair of Trustees - LLM Global Environment and Climate Change Law (Distinction)

Our planet is in crisis. Forests, wetlands and grasslands are disappearing at an unprecedented rate. Oceans are warming, becoming more acidic and less capable of sustaining life both at sea and on land. Wildlife populations are in steep decline, while rates of species endangerment are on the rise.

Human activity on Earth has reached such a scale that many claim we have entered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene – an age characterised by human impacts so profound they are capable of altering Earth’s ecosystems, climate and geology. As the devastating consequences of climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss become increasingly apparent, it is clearer than ever that something must change. Our systems of governance are failing us; entrenched in nature-society dualism, based on the false precept that the human world exists and operates in isolation to the more than human.

Rights of Nature, and the broader paradigm shift it supports, presents a way forward. Rejecting dominant worldviews of nature as a commodity, object or property, and recognising instead nature as a rights-holder with intrinsic value, it offers an avenue to protect and preserve the natural world for future generations of all species. The Foundations of Rights of Nature One of the most foundational figures in modern legal thought underpinning the development of Rights of Nature is Christopher Stone, whose seminal paper ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ proposed granting legal rights to natural entities, from forests to oceans, to nature as a whole. Drawing parallels to historical social movements that sought rights for previously unrepresented groups, Stone argued that much of rights discourse is unthinkable until the rightless thing becomes a rights-bearer. To some, the idea of nature possessing rights, such as the right to exist, thrive and regenerate may seem absurd or nonsensical, at odds with conventional ways of thinking. Yet, if corporations - legal fictions existing only on paper - are deemed legal persons possessing a plethora of rights in the eyes of the law, why not nature, the foundation of all life? The roots of Rights of Nature, however, can be traced millennia to ancient cultures and Indigenous traditions which understood nature and its components as living entities, recognising that the world is made up of an interconnected web of life, within which humans are just one thread.

Building on these intellectual and cultural foundations is Earth Jurisprudence, a philosophy of law and human governance developed by Thomas Berry. Earth Jurisprudence challenges the view of humans as separate from and superior to nature, and instead positions humanity as just one part of a wider community of beings, with the health of each thread of life dependent on the health of the Earth community as a whole. In line with this fundamental truth, Earth Jurisprudence argues that nature should form the foundation of human laws, ethics and governance and calls for a holistic transformation of legal, political, social and economic systems to reflect this ecological interdependence. Rights of Nature laws, then, are not an end in themselves, but rather act as a legal tool to bring about this broader paradigm shift.

Wanganui River - New Zealand

Why Rights of Nature? Why Now?

The Rights of Nature movement has seen significant momentum in recent years, with the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor currently tracking 687 ecological law initiatives across 66 countries. Rights of Nature has already been recognised in a variety of forms across the globe, from constitutional protections of nature as a whole in Ecuador to the granting of legal rights to ecosystems and species, such as the Whanganui River in New Zealand and stingless bees in Peru. This surge is largely a response to widespread ecological destruction sweeping the planet, alongside growing recognition that existing environmental law has been unable to meaningfully address these harms. Under the law, nature is treated as property, as something to be owned, managed and used by individuals, corporations and other legal entities. Environmental law operates under this premise and within broader systems of governance that regard limitless economic growth as a societal imperative. Nature, then, becomes a means to fuel this growth, with much of conventional environmental law serving to regulate permissible levels of harm and exploitation rather than prevent them outright. Rights of Nature rejects this model. It seeks a departure from unsustainable anthropocentric approaches towards ecocentric ones in which nature’s intrinsic value is recognised. Rather than asking how much environmental damage is permissible, Rights of Nature frameworks ask whether a proposed activity respects nature’s rights.

While this shift may seem subtle, it can have important practical consequences. Nature gains a voice, allowing legal action to be brought on its behalf and enabling protection based on its inherent value, rather than solely its utility to humankind. As the recognition and application of nature's rights continues to grow, so too does the possibility of a future in which the natural world is recognised not merely as property or a resource, but as a community of beings worthy of respect, protection and care.