Beyond Human-Centric Law: The Emergence of Rights of Nature in Modern Environmental Jurisprudence
Abstract
The Rights of Nature doctrine is a modern framework that shifts environmental law from an anthropocentric approach to an ecocentric approach by recognizing the rights of ecosystems, including the right to exist, survive, and grow without interference from pollution and human exploitation. This paper examines the historical development of the Rights of Nature doctrine and traces its evolution through a series of events, contributions of academic scholars, indigenous communities, and international developments. Many countries, such as Ecuador, New Zealand, and India, have introduced the Rights of Nature through legislation and judicial precedents. Despite these efforts, significant challenges remain regarding its enforceability, including issues of legal guardianship, valuation of ecosystems, and conflicts between industrialization and ecological rights. Nevertheless, the doctrine addresses contemporary environmental problems such as global warming and climate change, which are largely caused by environmental degradation. This paper argues that while the Indian judiciary has adopted an ecocentric philosophy, the lack of distinction between “living” and “juristic” persons creates an enforcement barrier that can only be resolved through the appointment of independent guardians.
Introduction
For many years, legal systems around the world have viewed nature as property. Forests, rivers, and other natural resources have largely been treated as objects for human use. Existing environmental laws do not necessarily prevent environmental destruction; rather, they regulate it by setting permissible limits. If a river is polluted, the law generally focuses on the impact of such pollution on human health, property, and economic interests.
Due to this, there is a growing need for a legal framework known as the Rights of Nature. This doctrine challenges the traditional view that nature is merely an object for human use and instead recognizes it as a legal subject. Similar to corporations, nature is granted recognition as a legal entity in the eyes of the law. Under this doctrine, rivers, forests, and animals are endowed with the rights to exist, survive, regenerate, and maintain a healthy environment.
This is no longer merely a theoretical concept. In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to amend its Constitution to recognize the rights of “Mother Nature.” Following Ecuador, New Zealand enacted significant legislation granting legal status to the Whanganui River. Subsequently, Indian courts also recognized certain natural entities as living persons through a series of judicial decisions.
However, transforming recognition into effective enforcement is not easy. A river cannot speak for itself in a court of law; therefore, human representatives must act as its guardians. This raises several important questions: Who should speak on behalf of the river? Who should bear responsibility for environmental damage? And how can industrial development be balanced with ecological rights?
Theoretical Foundations: Anthropocentrism vs. Ecocentrism
Environmental law is largely shaped by two competing perspectives: anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. For centuries, legal systems have been predominantly human-centred. Under the anthropocentric approach, human beings possess intrinsic value, while the value of everything else is measured according to its usefulness to humans. Consequently, ecosystems such as rivers, forests, oceans, and mountains are viewed primarily as resources for human survival and development rather than as entities with independent value. This perspective has facilitated the exploitation of nature for human benefit, contributing to major environmental crises such as pollution, wildfires, climate change, and global warming.
In contrast, the ecocentric approach views humans and nature as interconnected parts of a larger web of life rather than placing humans above all other forms of existence. Accordingly, it recognizes that nature possesses intrinsic value irrespective of its usefulness to human beings. This perspective challenges the long-standing belief that nature exists solely as a resource for human consumption and instead repositions nature from an “object” to a “subject” deserving of legal and moral consideration.
Historical Development and International Legal Foundation
The Rights of Nature doctrine did not develop overnight. It emerged through the contributions of indigenous communities, academic scholars, and various international developments that challenged traditional legal understandings of the relationship between humans and nature.
The Human Rights Parallel and the 1948 UDHR Framework
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, recognizes that every human being possesses inherent rights by virtue of being human, rather than as privileges granted by political systems. Drawing a parallel from this principle, many legal scholars argued that nature should also be recognized as having inherent rights based on its existence and intrinsic value. They contended that nature existed long before human civilization and should therefore be regarded as more than mere property or a resource for human use.
Thomas Berry’s Paradigm of Species-Specific Rights
Many critics argued that granting rights to nature would imply giving natural entities the same rights as humans, such as the right to vote or freedom of movement. Thomas Berry, an American cultural historian and ecotheologian, addressed this criticism by explaining that rights are “species-specific.” According to Berry, different entities possess rights that correspond to their nature and function.
For example, rivers have river rights, including the right to flow, maintain their ecological integrity, and connect with other water systems. Birds have bird rights, such as the right to fly, nest, and reproduce. Trees have tree rights, including the right to grow, regenerate, and access the soil and nutrients necessary for their survival. Human beings, similarly, possess human rights.
Berry argued that a nature-centred legal system should recognize and protect the rights of each entity according to its unique characteristics and ecological role.
Christopher Stone and the Doctrine of Legal Standing (1972)
A significant shift in environmental legal thought occurred in 1972 with Christopher Stone’s influential article, Should Trees Have Standing? Prior to this development, a person generally had to demonstrate a direct injury or legally recognized interest in order to bring a case before a court. Since natural entities lacked legal standing, environmental harms often reached courts only when a human interest could be shown to have been affected.
In his article, Stone proposed that natural entities such as rivers, forests, and ecosystems should be recognized as legal persons, similar to corporations and other juridical entities. He argued that these entities should be represented by guardians or trustees who could act on their behalf in legal proceedings.
Stone’s theory laid the intellectual foundation for later developments in environmental jurisprudence and significantly influenced jurisdictions that subsequently recognized legal rights for nature, including Ecuador and New Zealand.
Constitutional Codification in Ecuador and the Vilcabamba Precedent (2008–2011)
In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to constitutionally recognize the Rights of Nature through provisions protecting the rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth). Article 71 of the Constitution of Ecuador provides:
“Nature, or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. All persons, communities, peoples and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature.”
Under this provision, citizens are empowered to seek the enforcement of nature’s rights before public authorities and courts. In 2011, a landmark case involving the Vilcabamba River tested these constitutional protections. Residents of the region brought an action against a provincial road construction project, alleging that large quantities of debris and excavation material had been dumped into the river, altering its natural flow and causing environmental harm.
The court ruled in favour of the river and ordered remedial measures to restore the damaged ecosystem. The decision is widely regarded as one of the first successful judicial applications of constitutional Rights of Nature provisions and demonstrated how legal recognition can be used to protect ecosystems from environmental degradation.
Following similar developments, New Zealand granted legal personality to the Whanganui River, reflecting the Māori belief expressed in the phrase: “I am the river, and the river is me.”
The 2010 Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth
In April 2010, the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, adopted the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The Declaration asserted that nature possesses inherent rights, including the right to exist, flourish, regenerate its vital cycles, and remain free from pollution and ecological disruption.
The Declaration further emphasized that individuals, communities, and governments have a responsibility to protect and restore ecosystems. It also advocated for accountability where environmental harm results in the violation of nature’s rights. Although the Declaration is not a legally binding international instrument, it has significantly influenced the global Rights of Nature movement and environmental discourse.
The Indian Context: Judicial Activism and Precedents
The Madras High Court: Parens Patriae Jurisdiction and Intergenerational Equity
Indian jurisprudence occupies a middle ground through the “Public Trust Doctrine.” This doctrine states that certain natural resources are too important to be subjected to unrestricted ownership by either the government or private individuals. Therefore, the State acts only as a trustee of such resources, while the citizens are the beneficiaries. The Indian judiciary formally adopted this doctrine in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. This approach was further strengthened by a significant judgment delivered by Justice S. Srimathy of the Madras High Court.
The case arose from an employment dispute involving government officials in Tamil Nadu. The State Government had compulsorily retired an employee and withdrawn his pensionary benefits because he had improperly executed a land deed in favour of a private individual. The land in question formed part of a protected forest area.
The forest land was situated in the ecologically sensitive Megamalai region, popularly known as the “Green Peak.” Although the transaction was claimed to be an administrative error, the Court strongly condemned the conduct of the officials and described it as an “act against nature.” The Court’s observation reflected the growing judicial recognition that environmental harm cannot be treated as a mere administrative irregularity when ecologically sensitive areas are involved.
To prevent such actions that result in environmental degradation, the Madras High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction, meaning “parent of the nation.” It refers to the power and obligation of the State to act as a guardian for those who are unable to protect themselves. Traditionally applied to vulnerable persons, the Court extended this principle to nature itself.
By invoking this jurisdiction, the Court declared “Mother Nature” to be a living entity and observed that nature possesses rights similar to those recognised by law. Since nature cannot defend its own interests, the Court held that the State must act as its guardian. This marked an important shift towards an ecocentric approach within Indian environmental jurisprudence, where nature is viewed not merely as property but as an entity deserving legal protection.
With this judgment, both the Union Government and the State Governments were placed under a continuing obligation to protect and preserve Mother Earth. Subsequently, the Court delivered a powerful warning regarding environmental protection and intergenerational equity:
«“The past generations have handed over ‘Mother Earth’ to us in its pristine glory and we are morally bound to hand over the same Mother Earth to the next generation.”»
The High Court further warned that society cannot hide behind the doctrine of “sustainable development” to justify the exploitation of natural resources. It observed that when corporations destroy forests, wildlife, and ecosystems in the name of development, such actions cannot truly be described as sustainable. The Court stated that such practices are more appropriately characterised as “sustainable destruction.” While this reasoning strengthens the Rights of Nature approach, it also raises an important practical question: if nature is treated as a rights-bearing entity, who should independently represent and enforce those rights when the State itself fails in its duty as guardian?
State-Level Jurisprudential Developments Across India
Alongside the Madras High Court judgements, there are other important judicial decisions recognising the rights of the ecosystem in India. For instance, in Mohd. Salim v State of Uttarakhand, in March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand passed an order declaring the tributaries Ganga and Yamuna, the holy sacred rivers of India, as a “living person with all rights, duties and liabilities”. This judgement came after years of scientific research conducted on the tributaries, finding that more than 350 million litres of untreated sewage water was being discharged into the Ganges every day and that parts of the water body had become biologically dead. The Court stated that the life of the Ganga and Yamuna was deteriorating. Therefore, to prevent further damage and restore the life of the rivers, the Court provided them with living personhood. The judgement is significant because it reflects a shift from viewing rivers merely as natural resources towards recognising them as entities deserving independent legal protection. The Uttarakhand High Court also appointed the Chief Secretary and Advocate General of Uttarakhand as the legal guardians of the tributaries, thereby granting them legal standing before the courts.
Similarly, in Court on its Own Motion v Chandigarh Administration (2 March 2020), the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the Sukhna Lake a living person by invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction. Massive unauthorised corporate and residential structures had been built on the sensitive demarcated catchment area, polluting and damaging the lake. The Court ordered the demolition of such structures, declared the area eco-sensitive, and further imposed a fine of 100 crore rupees each on the Punjab and Haryana administrations. Such an amount was intended to be used for the restoration of the lake and for minimising environmental damage. This judgement demonstrates how rights-based environmental jurisprudence is not merely symbolic but can also be accompanied by concrete remedial measures aimed at ecological restoration.
Constitutional Basis for the Rights of Nature in India
The Rights of Nature doctrine can be linked to various provisions of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which has been interpreted by the courts to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Similarly, Article 51A(g) imposes a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.
Although these provisions do not expressly grant legal rights to nature, they reflect the constitutional importance of environmental protection. The Rights of Nature doctrine strengthens these principles by recognising ecosystems as entities deserving legal protection in their own right. Such recognition can provide an additional mechanism to ensure that the constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g) and the environmental protections flowing from Article 21 are effectively enforced.
Practical Implementation Barriers and Analytical Challenges
While the Rights of Nature doctrine aims to provide stronger protection to ecosystems by recognising them as legal entities, its practical implementation remains difficult. Unlike human beings, nature cannot express its interests or enforce its rights on its own. This creates several legal and administrative problems regarding representation, liability and enforcement. Questions arise as to who can speak on behalf of nature, who should be held liable when an ecosystem causes damage, and how conflicts between environmental protection and economic development should be resolved. Although the doctrine has been recognised in various jurisdictions, these challenges continue to affect its effective implementation.
The “Liability Loop”
Even though the courts passed judgements recognising and ensuring the rights of ecosystems, the implementation of such orders remains difficult. The primary roadblock to enforcement arises from declaring nature a “living person” rather than a “legal person”. By addressing natural entities as living persons, water bodies are deemed to possess rights, duties and civil liabilities similar to those of human beings. While this approach seeks to strengthen environmental protection, it also creates practical and legal complications regarding the extent to which such rights and duties can actually be exercised.
The Uttarakhand High Court judgement regarding the tributaries caused a major stir and was opposed by the State Government of Uttarakhand. The Apex Court, in appeal, overruled the High Court’s judgement declaring the Ganga and Yamuna as living persons due to concerns regarding its practical enforceability. This highlights a fundamental tension within rights of nature jurisprudence: recognition alone does not guarantee effective implementation. Moreover, by providing human-like rights and duties, nature could theoretically become capable of being sued before the courts. If a river, during floods or other natural calamities, caused loss of life or destruction of property, questions would arise regarding legal responsibility and compensation.
Another issue concerns who would ultimately bear liability for such damages. As stated in the Uttarakhand High Court judgement, and similarly reflected in the Constitution of Ecuador, public authorities act as legal guardians of the ecosystem. Consequently, the burden of compensation may indirectly fall upon the State and, ultimately, taxpayers. This creates what may be described as a “liability loop”, where the State acts both as guardian of nature and as the entity potentially responsible for harms associated with natural processes. Such a framework risks creating legal uncertainty and may weaken the practical effectiveness of rights-based environmental protection.
Therefore, this issue may be addressed by moving away from the concept of nature as a “living person” and instead adopting a framework similar to the ideas proposed by Thomas Berry.
Methodological Hurdles in Environmental Valuation
For many years, courts have measured the value of ecosystems primarily through their usefulness to human beings. Similarly, environmental damage has often been assessed based on the losses suffered by humans. For example, compensation is commonly calculated by considering the loss of tourism income, destruction of commercial structures such as resorts and boats, or the medical expenses incurred by affected individuals. Likewise, the valuation of land is generally determined through methods such as the sales approach, depreciation approach and other market-based mechanisms. These methods are fundamentally designed to protect human interests rather than the interests of nature itself.
This creates a significant challenge for Rights of Nature jurisprudence. If nature is recognised as a rights-bearing entity, the harm caused to an ecosystem cannot be measured solely through its economic value to human beings. As several legal scholars have argued, a nature-centred legal system requires entirely different valuation methods tailored to different ecological entities. The traditional anthropocentric approach may therefore be insufficient to address ecological harm within a rights-based framework.
Under this emerging framework, environmental damage is treated as a debt owed directly to the damaged ecosystem itself. It is not merely a fine paid into the government treasury. Instead, compensation should be calculated according to the actual amount required to restore the damaged ecosystem to its original condition. This approach shifts the focus from punishment to ecological restoration. However, its practical implementation remains difficult. To make such a framework effective, specialised scientific tools are required to calculate the cost of restoring soil health, wildlife populations, biodiversity loss and reproductive damage caused to local species that are increasingly facing extinction. Without reliable valuation mechanisms, the enforcement of ecosystem rights may remain largely symbolic rather than practical.
Socio-Economic Friction with Macro-Economic Development Goals
One of the most difficult challenges associated with Rights of Nature is its potential conflict with national industrialisation and development goals, particularly in developing countries such as India. Granting ecosystems the status of a living person may help prevent habitat destruction, ecological degradation and corporate pollution. However, it can also create immediate challenges for essential public infrastructure projects.
If an ecosystem possesses an absolute right to exist and maintain its natural structure, any developmental activity that requires alteration, extraction or interference with that ecosystem could potentially be challenged before the courts. Critical public projects such as highways, dams, railway lines and the expansion of electrical grids into rural areas may therefore face legal objections based on violations of nature’s rights. This reveals a fundamental tension between environmental protection and economic development.
While the protection of ecosystems is necessary, excessive legal uncertainty may delay projects that are important for employment generation, poverty reduction and economic growth. As a result, courts and policymakers may be required to balance ecological preservation with developmental necessities rather than treating either objective as absolute. Without clearly drafted legislation defining the scope, limits and enforcement mechanisms of Rights of Nature, the concept risks remaining an idealistic theory rather than a workable legal framework. The challenge, therefore, is not merely recognising the rights of nature but creating a legal structure capable of reconciling those rights with broader socio-economic objectives.
The Custodial Conflict of Interest: The State as Guardian and Developer
One of the biggest flaws in the guardianship system is that individuals and public authorities are appointed as trustees of the ecosystem. There is no guarantee that such guardians will always act in the best interests of nature rather than their own interests and motivations. While the appointment of guardians is necessary because nature cannot represent itself, the effectiveness of this system depends entirely upon the independence and accountability of those entrusted with that responsibility.
In the case of public authorities, a clear conflict of interest arises. Governments are established to promote economic development, industrial growth and the expansion of infrastructure. At the same time, they are often the primary entities responsible for approving, funding and organising large-scale development projects that may result in environmental degradation. Consequently, the State occupies two competing positions: it acts as the guardian of the ecosystem while simultaneously pursuing projects that may harm that ecosystem.
This creates a significant enforcement problem. By appointing the government or public authorities as guardians of nature, the legal framework effectively places the responsibility of challenging environmental harm upon the very institution that may have authorised or contributed to that harm. In practical terms, the State may be required to act against its own policies and projects. Such an arrangement risks reducing guardianship to a symbolic mechanism rather than an effective tool for environmental protection.
A more balanced model can be observed in New Zealand, where two guardians were appointed, one representing the State and the other representing an independent Indigenous group. This structure helps ensure that the interests of the ecosystem are represented through multiple perspectives rather than being controlled solely by government authorities. The significance of this model lies in its attempt to reduce conflicts of interest and strengthen accountability.
India could adapt a similar approach to provide more effective protection for nature. The legal framework should include independent co-guardians such as environmental activists, tribal communities, local representatives or other individuals who do not possess institutional conflicts of interest. Such guardians would be capable of challenging governmental actions when public authorities fail to fulfil their duty to protect the ecosystem. This would transform guardianship from a symbolic concept into a more meaningful mechanism of enforcement.
Similarly, environmental compensation should not merely be deposited into the Consolidated Fund of India. Instead, a separate mechanism could be established through which such funds are directly transferred to ecosystem restoration programmes. These funds should be administered by independent trustees to ensure that compensation is used specifically for ecological restoration rather than becoming part of general government revenue.
Conclusion
The Rights of Nature doctrine transforms the traditional legal understanding of nature from an object of ownership and exploitation into a legal subject capable of possessing rights. This approach has influenced several jurisdictions, including Ecuador, New Zealand and India, where courts and legislatures have attempted to recognise nature as deserving of legal protection beyond its utility to human beings.
However, the practical implementation of these rights remains challenging. Since nature cannot speak or act for itself, guardians must be appointed to represent its interests. While this mechanism seeks to protect ecosystems, it also creates significant legal and institutional challenges, including issues of enforcement, liability, valuation of environmental harm and conflicts of interest between conservation and economic development. These challenges demonstrate that recognition alone is insufficient to guarantee meaningful protection.
Therefore, the future success of Rights of Nature depends not merely on granting legal rights to ecosystems but on creating a carefully scrutinised legislative framework capable of enforcing those rights in practice. Without clear mechanisms for representation, accountability and restoration, the doctrine risks remaining largely symbolic. A balanced legal framework that reconciles environmental protection with developmental needs is therefore essential for ensuring that the rights of nature become both legally meaningful and practically effective.
REFERENCES
I. Cases
A. Periyakaruppan v. Principal Sec’y to Gov’t, W.P. (MD) No. 15501 of 2017 (Madras H.C. May 23, 2022).
Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab & Haryana, C.W.P. No. 18253 of 2009 (P&H H.C. Mar. 2, 2020).
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388 (India).
Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, W.P. (PIL) No. 126 of 2014 (Uttarakhand H.C. Mar. 20, 2017).
II. Legislation and Constitutional Sources
Constitución de la República del Ecuador arts. 71–74 (2008).
Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, s 14 (N.Z.).
III. Journal Articles and Academic Sources
Christopher D. Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).
Vrinda Kavdia, Rights of Nature in India: Between Symbolic Recognition and Structural Failure, VII Indian J. L. & Legal Rsch., Issue VI (2025).
IV. Online Sources
Rights of Nature, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, https://www.garn.org/ (last visited June 8, 2026).
The Rights of Nature: Can an Ecosystem Bear Legal Rights?, Columbia Climate Sch. (Apr. 22, 2021), https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/the-rights-of-nature-can-an-ecosystem-bear-legal-rights/.
Rights of Nature—An Overview, ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/rights-of-nature (last visited June 8, 2026).
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Bell Tower 1999).
Cormac Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (2d ed. 2011).
Peter D. Burdon, Earth Jurisprudence and the Rights of Nature (Ashgate 2011).
Erin O’Donnell, Legal Rights for Rivers: Competition, Collaboration and Water Governance (Routledge 2018).
David R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World (ECW Press 2017).
United Nations Environment Programme, Harmony with Nature, https://www.un.org/harmonywithnature/ (last visited June 8, 2026).
Joseph W. Dellapenna & Joyeeta Gupta eds., The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water (Springer 2009).
Philippe Sands et al., Principles of International Environmental Law (4th ed. 2018).
