As the planet faces intensifying climate disasters, a growing number of legal scholars, activists and governments are calling for a radical shift in how we think about environmental protection — by giving nature legal rights. 

At its core, the Rights of Nature (RoN) movement, founded in the early 1970s, argues that natural objects — such as trees, rivers and ecosystems — should be granted legal personhood, meaning they could be represented in court and have their interests defended. This framework challenges the longstanding view of nature as property. Instead, it posits that ecosystems have the right to exist, thrive and regenerate — and that humans have a legal responsibility to protect those rights.

From theory to reality

The legal roots of RoN trace back to a 1972 law review article by University of Southern California late professor Christopher Stone, provocatively titled “Should Trees Have Standing?” Stone proposed that natural entities should be able to initiate legal proceedings to defend their interests, just as individuals and corporations can. 

RoN sentiments were present even before this revolutionary article was published, however. In 1970, Roderick Nash, the first chair of the UC Santa Barbara Environmental Studies Program, wrote the Santa Barbara Declaration of Environmental Rights in response to the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. This response is believed to be the start of the modern environmental movement. 

In the declaration, Nash stated that “the quality of our lives is eroded and our very existence threatened by our abuse of the natural world.”

But it wasn’t until the early 21st century that these ideas moved from theory into legal systems. In 2006, Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania, became the first U.S. community to pass a local ordinance recognizing the rights of nature, banning corporations from dumping toxic sewage sludge in local waters.

Then, in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to enshrine the rights of nature in its national constitution. Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution affirms that nature, or Pachamama, has “the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles,” explicitly grounding the legal framework in Indigenous Andean worldviews that see nature as a living being, not a resource.

Ecuador’s constitutional shift opened the door to legal actions on behalf of nature. In 2017, New Zealand passed the Te Awa Tupua Act, granting the Whanganui River legal personhood after over a century of advocacy by Māori tribes. This was part of an effort to recognize the Māori’s cultural and historical connection to the river, and to promote more ecologically focused decisions in regards to governance. The river is now represented by two guardians — one appointed by the government and one by Māori — ensuring that both Indigenous knowledge and state law inform its protection.

Implementation: Symbol or substance?

Despite these gains, implementation of the RoN framework remains uneven. Legal personhood may sound like a bold shift, but it doesn’t always translate to legal protections. In many cases, governments are still slow or unwilling to act on behalf of nature. For example, although Ecuador has more than 50 documented cases citing RoN, few have resulted in long-term or systemic change in the way that natural resources are treated.

One key challenge is enforceability: even where rights are recognized, they often lack the legal or institutional mechanisms for enforcement. Who speaks for nature? What happens when the rights of a river conflict with the rights of local residents or corporations? These are the questions that organizations and governments across the globe — including the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund — are aiming to address. 

Despite these complexities, the further development of a RoN framework is vital. As the climate crisis deepens and ecosystems face mounting threats, RoN offers more than symbolic value — it reshapes our legal and moral relationship with the environment. It challenges the extractive mindset that has long dominated environmental law and reframes nature not as property, but as a subject with inherent worth. While granting nature legal standing does not guarantee protection, it creates the legal tools and conceptual space to fight for it. RoN provides a platform through which communities can advocate for environmental protection from a new, more values-driven lens. The movement prompts a cultural shift — one that asks us to treat the Earth not as a commodity, but as a community. In doing so, it opens new avenues for ecological justice in a world that urgently needs them.

A version of this article appeared on p.13 of the Apr. 24, 2025 edition of the Daily Nexus.