Should Nature Have Legal Rights?
An Ecocentric Philosophy
Introduction: Reviewing Nature’s Legal Status
“Legal rights for nature” means granting ecosystems, such as rivers, forests, or mountains, legal personhood or the standing to be represented in court and have their own interests protected, similar to how corporations are treated as legal persons. In practice, this usually lets a designated guardian (often an Indigenous community, government body, or NGO) sue on the ecosystem’s behalf if it’s being harmed, rather than requiring a human plaintiff to show personal injury. Countries like Ecuador, New Zealand, and India have recognized rights for specific ecosystems or nature broadly, though enforcement and impact vary considerably.
Rights of Nature (RoN) laws are largely a response to a few recurring gaps in traditional environmental regulation. Many environmental lawsuits fail because the parties who bring the suit do not have the legal standing to do so. Conventional environmental law usually requires a human or corporate plaintiff to prove personal harm, such as property damage or health effects, before they can sue. This means damage to an ecosystem with no obvious human victim, or where the harm is diffuse and long-term, often goes unchallenged in court.
Another related gap lies in how the law values nature in the first place. Most legal systems treat land, rivers, and wildlife as resources or property to be regulated for human use, so environmental protections tend to bend toward economic development and cost-benefit tradeoffs rather than the ecosystem’s own survival or integrity. In his essay The Land Ethic, conservationist Aldo Leopold noted that “One basic weakness in a conservation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value.” He pointed out that wildflowers, songbirds, most insects, most soil organisms, and countless other members of what he calls the “biotic community” have no economic value at all, and a conservation system that only protects what pays its way will systematically neglect, and eventually destroy, the vast majority of the biotic community. This undervaluation is compounded by weak enforcement. Pollution permits, fines, and environmental impact assessments are often treated as a cost of doing business rather than a real deterrent, and even the regulations that do exist can be rolled back by future administrations.
Nature should be granted legal rights because existing property-based frameworks are inadequate to protect ecosystems, and legal personhood offers a coherent, workable alternative. The core idea is to shift nature from being a passive object of regulation to an entity with independent legal standing, so harm to it can be addressed on its own terms rather than only through human proxies. But no court can rule on behalf of a river until someone first learns to see the river as kin rather than as property. Almost every RoN law traces back to this quieter shift where individuals and communities came to understand humans not as separate from the natural world but as one strand within its web of interdependence. Legal personhood, in the end, is the law catching up to a truth that many cultures never stopped knowing.
Beyond Utility: Recognizing Nature’s Intrinsic Value
People tend to value nature primarily in terms of what it can do for us, an approach that grants nature what’s known as instrumental value, its worth as a means to human ends. This is an inherently anthropocentric perspective, and it typically breaks down into a few overlapping categories. The most straightforward is direct-use, or economic value, which is the resources we extract or consume directly, such as timber, fish, water, minerals, medicinal plants, food crops, and fiber. Beyond raw materials, nature also holds aesthetic value, or the sensory pleasure people take in scenery, natural beauty, sunsets, and wildlife, which underpins entire tourism and recreation industries. Closely related but distinct is recreational value, where nature serves as the setting for activities like hiking, fishing, birdwatching, and camping, valued not just for how it looks, but for what it lets us do. This anthropocentric framing isn’t wrong, exactly. It’s just dangerously incomplete.
As a whole, nature possesses an intrinsic value that exceeds the mere sum of the instrumental value of its individual parts. One part of this is sentience. Most organisms have some capacity to suffer or flourish, which suggests they are owed some moral consideration regardless of how useful they are to us. Another comes from the complexity, integrity, and diversity of ecosystems themselves. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic located value in the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community as a whole, not just in its individual members. So, a wetland or an old-growth forest has worth as a functioning whole that goes beyond the sum of its usable parts. Leopold captured this idea visually through the concept of the land pyramid, which models how energy flows through the biotic community. At the base sits the soil, the foundation supporting all life above it. Directly on top rests the plant layer, which absorbs the sun’s energy through photosynthesis. Above that are the consumer layers consisting of insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals. Herbivores feed on plants, while carnivores occupy higher levels by feeding on other animals, with large predators resting near the apex. Humans, in this model, fit within the middle layers as omnivores. Energy moves upward through this structure as organisms consume one another, but it also returns downward as death and decay release nutrients back into the soil. Every layer depends on the ones below it, and a stable system requires balance across all species. Removing even a single layer disrupts the whole, meaning humans, like every other species, remain dependent on nature’s overall equilibrium. Seen this way, an ecosystem’s value isn’t just what it produces for us, but the fact that we are one dependent part of it, not its owner or its endpoint. Finally, nature’s intrinsic value also rests on evolutionary history and uniqueness. A given species or landscape represents millions of years of unrepeatable evolutionary development, so its loss is irreplaceable, comparable to the loss of a singular cultural artifact that can never be recreated once it’s gone.
Our perspective needs to expand to encompass this intrinsic value. This requires humility in the face of nature as a whole. We must, as Leopold put it, “change our role from conqueror of land to biotic citizen.” We depend on nature for our survival, and our actions now shape its future as much as it once shaped ours. That mutual dependence creates an obligation to sustain it, not merely because doing so serves our own interests, but because we bear real responsibility for the harm we’re capable of causing. We need a big-picture, ecocentric view to live in harmony. This change in mindset would allow us to go from policies focused on anthropocentric issues such as pollution and resource depletion to more holistic, ecocentric policies such as legal rights for nature.
Conceptualizing Rights of Nature Laws
That shift in mindset has taken concrete legal form over the past five decades. Christopher Stone was a law professor at the University of Southern California who pioneered the Rights of Nature movement. He made his landmark argument in the 1972 essay “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” It became one of the most influential pieces of environmental legal scholarship, partly because the U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas cited it approvingly in his dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton that same year. Stone noticed a pattern in legal history. At various points, entities that seemed like “obviously” mere objects or property (children, women, slaves, corporations, ships, even municipalities) were eventually granted some form of legal personhood or standing. Each extension seemed unthinkable before it happened, and each time it happened, it seemed obvious in retrospect. He argued that nature was the next logical, if currently “unthinkable,” candidate for this kind of extension. This pattern matters for skeptics of Rights of Nature today. Extending legal status to a river currently sounds just as far-fetched as extending it to a corporation once did.
Stone was careful to define his terms, recognizing that nature does not possess consciousness or moral agency the way humans do. He argued that for an entity to hold legal rights, it needs three things. First, it must be able to institute legal action at its own behest, meaning someone can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the natural object, much like a guardian represents a child or an incompetent person, rather than restricting suits to humans who can show they were personally harmed, economically or aesthetically, by damage to that object. Second, courts must take injury to the object itself into account when deciding relief, not just injury to human interests connected to it. Third, relief must run to the benefit of the object itself, so that damages go toward restoring the river or forest rather than simply compensating the human plaintiffs.
Due to differences in the sociopolitical context in which they evolved, the models that exist today vary quite a bit. They differ on how broad “Nature” extends as a legal subject and on who gets to represent nature and “speak for the trees.” In practice, RoN usually means two things bundled together: legal personhood (the ability to sue and be sued, own property, have standing in court) and, sometimes, substantive rights (a right to exist, regenerate, flourish, flow freely, etc.).
The broadest models treat nature as a rights-holder everywhere, all at once. Ecuador became the first country in the world to enshrine a set of codified Rights of Nature in a national constitution when it adopted its 2008 Constitution under President Rafael Correa. This was a genuinely radical move. The reform drew on the Andean Indigenous worldview of Pachamama (Mother Earth) and the principle of sumak kawsay, or “good way of living.” The rights are laid out in Articles 71 to 74, which recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, give people the standing to petition on nature’s behalf, and require the government to remedy violations of these rights. This is an “open standing” model. Any Ecuadorian person, community, or group can petition on nature’s behalf. No guardian, trustee, or specific office is required; any citizen may bring a case in nature’s name.
Substantively, nature has the “right to exist and to maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes,” plus a right to be restored in case of environmental destruction, independent of any damages owed to affected people. The state is also obligated to apply preventive and restrictive measures on activities that might lead to species extinction, ecosystem destruction, or permanent alteration of natural cycles. Notably, Ecuador’s constitution remains the only national constitution in the world to enshrine Rights of Nature this comprehensively. Other countries have passed statutes or court rulings, but not constitutional provisions of this scope.
Bolivia took the statutory route rather than the constitutional one, yet it went just as broad. Bolivia’s 2009 Constitution recognizes the importance of protecting nature but doesn’t constitutionally entrench rights of nature the way Ecuador’s does. Instead, it did this through two laws, first passing the short Law of the Rights of Mother Earth in 2010, then expanding it into the more detailed Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well in 2012, which seeks to operationalize the rights set out in the 2010 law. These laws established specific rights that Mother Earth is entitled to, such as the right to life and to exist, or the right to continue vital cycles free from human alteration. Unlike Ecuador’s open standing model, however, Bolivia created a dedicated institutional office, the Defensoría de la Madre Tierra (Defender of Mother Earth), intended to be an independent body to advocate for nature’s rights.
New Zealand took a narrower approach. Instead of declaring broad constitutional or statutory rights of nature across the environment generally, it grants legal personhood to specific, named natural entities, negotiated through Treaty of Waitangi settlements with Māori. The Te Urewera Act recognized the Te Urewera forest as a legal entity in its own right, with “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” The Te Awa Tupua Act declared the Whanganui River a legal person under the name “Te Awa Tupua” and defined it as “an indivisible and living whole,” explicitly encompassing the river from mountains to sea, including its physical and metaphysical elements. This reflects the Whanganui iwi’s worldview: “I am the river, and the river is me.”
Both acts are notably different from Ecuador/Bolivia in that they don’t enumerate abstract rights like “right to regeneration.” Instead, they grant the entity legal personhood itself, meaning it can hold property, sue and be sued, enter into legal relationships, and have its own interests considered independently in resource management and planning decisions. Both use a formal guardianship model rather than open citizen standing. Each entity is appointed guardians to form a representative body made up of both indigenous and government representatives. Rather than a list of rights, both laws establish a values/purposes statement that the guardians must uphold (e.g., preserving its natural features and “intrinsic worth”). This is a much more defined and accountable representative structure than Ecuador’s diffuse citizen-standing or Bolivia’s underdeveloped institutional office.
The narrowest models emerge one ecosystem at a time, often through courts rather than legislatures. Colombia and India didn’t pass RoN statutes at all; courts did the work. In contrast to other countries, Colombia and India do not recognize RoN laws in their constitutions, national laws, or subnational laws; instead, judges unilaterally issued rulings granting the Atrato, Ganga, and Yamuna rivers legal personhood status, moving these rivers from “right-less to rights-bearing” entities. This is a narrow, single-ecosystem model created through litigation rather than a legislature or constituent assembly, and it can be more fragile since it lacks the institutional backing, such as guardianship bodies, budgets, or implementing agencies, that Ecuador’s constitution or New Zealand’s statutes built in. In fact, the ruling in India was stayed by the Supreme Court just months later, after the Uttarakhand state government appealed, arguing the ruling was impractical. The Supreme Court’s stay effectively suspended the personhood status indefinitely, and no durable resolution has replaced it.
Get Juan Flores’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
A similar pattern holds in the United States. The U.S. has no federal or state-level Rights of Nature framework. Instead, this movement has played out almost entirely at the local municipal ordinance level (and more recently, in a few Tribal nations). The rights-holder varies by ordinance, but is typically defined as “natural communities and ecosystems” within the municipality’s jurisdiction, sometimes named specifically (e.g., Lake Erie, a particular watershed, or “nature” generally within town limits). Some ordinances frame it as the ecosystem itself; others frame it around residents’ right to a healthy environment, with nature’s rights as a related but secondary provision. The rights granted are usually narrowly targeted at a specific perceived threat (fracking, factory farming, bottled water extraction) rather than comprehensive ecosystem protection. Almost always, any resident or the municipal government itself can bring an enforcement action on nature’s behalf, an open-standing model similar to Ecuador’s, but scoped to local government jurisdiction. No dedicated guardian office exists in most of these ordinances. Municipalities in the U.S. generally only have the authority state law grants them, or that home-rule doesn’t prohibit. Most of these ordinances conflict with state and federal law, and courts have consistently struck them down when challenged.
Taken together, these models suggest that legal personhood for nature is not a single fix but a set of design choices, each with its own tradeoffs, breadth versus institutional strength, legislative durability versus judicial speed, and the differences between them help explain why some Rights of Nature laws produce lasting protection while others exist mostly on paper.
Giving Rights of Nature Laws Force and Strength
Looking over the existing models, a few clear patterns emerge about what actually gives Rights of Nature laws legal teeth versus what leaves them symbolic.
The first is that a legislative or negotiated foundation tends to outlast constitutional aspiration or judicial improvisation. New Zealand is the clearest example, and the reason is structural. The Whanganui and Te Urewera Acts emerged from negotiated Treaty of Waitangi settlements, not top-down constitutional text as in Ecuador, or after-the-fact judicial interpretation as in Colombia and India. Negotiation forces a legislature to resolve the hard implementation questions regarding funding, liability, jurisdiction, and who acts on nature’s behalf, before the law takes effect, rather than leaving courts to invent them once a case is already underway. India’s Ganga and Yamuna ruling collapsed within months largely because the court granted personhood without resolving basic questions of who is responsible for what. A durable framework needs those mechanics settled in the statute itself, not left for future litigation to work out.
A second pattern is that a well-defined guardianship body with dedicated funding tends to outperform open citizen standing. Ecuador and the U.S. municipal ordinances both rely on an “any person can sue” model, which sounds empowering in principle but in practice produces inconsistent, under-resourced, ad hoc litigation. Outcomes depend on who happens to sue, with what resources, or in front of which judge. New Zealand’s appointed guardianship structure is the more effective alternative, a specific, named, funded body with a legal duty to act, sitting at the table in ordinary planning processes rather than appearing only after harm has already occurred. Bolivia, however, illustrates the risk of a guardianship model without follow-through. The Defensoría de la Madre Tierra was the right idea on paper, but was never adequately resourced. New Zealand, by contrast, attached actual settlement funds to its guardianship structure. Every other model in this comparison relies on general government budgets or unfunded mandates, and enforcement predictably withers without a dedicated funding stream insulated from ordinary political budget fights.
A third pattern favors legal personhood over novel, abstract rights language. Courts and administrative agencies already know how to handle “legal persons,” the same basic principle used for corporations, which gives them a working legal toolkit to apply. Ecuador’s and Bolivia’s language, phrases like “right to integral respect” or “right to regeneration of life cycles,” is evocative, but it introduces an entirely novel legal concept that forces courts to improvise each time it’s invoked. New Zealand’s personhood model instead plugs directly into existing sue-and-be-sued, own-property, hold-rights infrastructure. This is part of why New Zealand’s framework has functioned relatively smoothly within resource consent processes, while Ecuador’s constitutional language has produced uneven, case-by-case results.
A fourth pattern is that integration into, rather than superiority over, existing regulatory frameworks helps a law avoid preemption fights. The U.S. municipal ordinances fail largely because they attempt to override state and federal regulatory authority from the bottom up, a jurisdictional mismatch that courts routinely strike down under preemption doctrine. New Zealand avoided this problem by embedding river and land personhood within its existing Resource Management Act, so that the entity’s interests are balanced alongside other statutory considerations rather than claiming to override them outright. Paradoxically, a framework that doesn’t assert absolute supremacy is more likely to survive legal challenge, and actually be applied, than one that does.
Finally, some degree of independence from state or national government helps insulate a Rights of Nature law from being overridden. Treaty-settlement-based laws like New Zealand’s benefit from resting on a distinct sovereign or quasi-sovereign legal basis, which makes them harder for a higher level of government to simply repeal or preempt. A similar dynamic shows up in the United States. The Ho-Chunk Nation and the Yurok Tribe have both passed Rights of Nature laws within their own tribal jurisdictions. Because tribes hold a distinct sovereign legal status, these laws carry more durable legal weight than municipal ordinances and are somewhat insulated from the state preemption problems that have repeatedly undermined city-level efforts.
Taken together, these patterns point to a consistent lesson: durability comes less from how ambitious a Rights of Nature law sounds on paper, and more from how well it is built into existing legal machinery, funded, and protected from being overridden by a higher authority.
Beyond institutional design, the laws that have proven most durable also tend to share a deeper sociopolitical root. They emerged in places where a values-based shift toward nature had already taken hold in the culture, rather than being imposed on a population that still saw nature purely as property. Ecuador’s constitutional rights and Bolivia’s Mother Earth laws drew directly on the Andean concept of Pachamama, and New Zealand’s Whanganui and Te Urewera Acts formalized a Māori worldview in which the river and forest are not resources to be managed but ancestors to be honored: “I am the river, and the river is me.” In both cases, the legal change followed a prior perceptual one: a community that had never fully accepted the premise that nature is mere property, and whose worldview the law was then built to reflect rather than impose. This suggests that Rights of Nature laws succeed not just because they are well-drafted, but because they are adopted by societies already prepared, culturally and philosophically, to see themselves as members of a broader ecological community rather than its owners. Expanding that perspective elsewhere, before expecting the legal mechanics to follow, may be just as important to a law’s durability as any provision about funding or standing.
Conclusion
Rights of Nature laws exist because the alternative has proven insufficient. Conventional environmental regulation, built on a model of property and personal injury, cannot account for harm that has no human victim. Nor will it protect an ecosystem for what it is rather than what it produces. Legal personhood closes that gap, not by inventing a new legal category from nothing, but by extending a tool the law has used before.
But as the comparative record shows, personhood on paper is not the same as protection in practice. Ecuador’s constitutional rights, Bolivia’s Mother Earth laws, India’s river rulings, and the United States’ municipal ordinances all gesture toward the same idea, yet they diverge sharply in durability. The laws that have held up, New Zealand’s above all, share a common architecture: a negotiated rather than imposed foundation, a funded and accountable guardian rather than open standing, personhood rather than novel abstract rights, integration into existing regulatory frameworks rather than a claim to override them, and some degree of independence from the government whose actions the law may need to check. Where these elements are missing, as in India’s stayed ruling or the United States’ preempted ordinances, Rights of Nature exists mostly as aspiration.
Yet institutional design alone does not explain why these laws pass in the first place. New Zealand and Ecuador did not arrive at legal personhood through drafting sessions alone. They arrived there because a worldview already present among indigenous communities, one in which a river is kin rather than a resource, gave lawmakers something to formalize rather than invent. This is the deeper claim beneath the legal argument of this essay: that the law tends to follow perception, not lead it. A society will not build durable protections for what it still sees as mere property, no matter how well the guardianship structure is designed or how well the funding is secured. It will only do so once it has first recognized nature as something with standing, interests, and value of its own.
This is why the case for legal rights for nature cannot rest on institutional design alone. It also requires the perceptual shift from viewing the natural world through instrumental value alone toward recognizing its intrinsic worth. Once that shift takes hold, legal personhood stops looking like a radical invention and starts looking like what Christopher Stone argued it always was: the next unremarkable step in a long legal history of extending standing to those who once had none. The Lorax speaks for the trees. The law is only now learning to listen.
- Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2018). Constructing rights of nature norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand. *Global Environmental Politics*, *18*(4), 43–62.
- Leopold, A. (1949). The land ethic. In *A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there* (pp. 201–226). Oxford University Press.
- Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary. *inquiry*, *16*(1–4), 95–100.
- O’donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers. *Ecology and Society*, *23*(1).
- Tanasescu, M. (2017). *When a river is a person: from Ecuador to New Zealand, nature gets its day in court*. https://doi.org/10.64628/aal.fdjmcp473
- Villavicencio-Calzadilla, P. (2025). *The Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia: Progress and Challenges | Heinrich Böll Stiftung*. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. https://www.boell.de/en/2025/01/29/rights-mother-earth-bolivia-progress-and-challenges
- Wesche, P. (2021). Rights of nature in practice: A case study on the impacts of the Colombian Atrato River decision. *Journal of Environmental Law*, *33*(3), 531–555.
