Rights of Nature & Future generations
Research By: Albert Lalonde
The Foundations of the Rights of Nature
The Rights of Nature movement is rooted in Indigenous knowledge systems that recognize nature as a living entity with intrinsic value, rather than a mere source for human exploitation. In 1972, legal scholar Christopher Stone published “Should Trees Have Standing?”, arguing that nature should be granted legal personhood to enable direct legal representation.
The Rights of Nature Tribunal was created in 2014 by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature to address environmental harm where traditional legal systems fall short.
Unlike state-run courts, the Tribunal treats nature as a rights-holder, allowing communities, Indigenous leaders, scientists, and legal experts to bring forward cases. It challenges economic-driven environmental policies and provides an alternative legal space to advocate for nature’s rights.
GARN x New York Climate Week 2023
Key Milestones in Rights of Nature’s Legal Evolution
The Rights of Nature movement merged as a response to the limitations of traditional environmental law, which primarily treats nature as property or a resource for human use. Advocates for Rights of Nature argue that ecosystems, rivers, forests, and other natural entities should be recognized as legal persons with inherent rights, including the right to exist, regenerate, and evolve.
“We must recognize that nature has rights, just as human beings do. When we destroy rivers, forests, and wildlife, we are violating these rights and compromising the future of generations to come.”
Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution, the first to grant nature enforceable rights.
Bolivia’s 2010 Law of Mother Earth, which explicitly recognizes the rights of nature.
Recent legal personhood designations for rivers and ecosystems in New Zealand, India, and Colombia.
Tensions and Challenges
Integrating these frameworks is not without challenges, as tensions arise between different governance models, legal traditions, and sustainability approaches.
Sustainability vs. Exploitation Paradox: Many legal frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, promote sustainability while permitting resource extraction for the benefit of current generations, creating a contradiction in environmental protection efforts.
Universal vs. Localized Approaches: Critics argue applying universal rights frameworks can risk erasing Indigenous and local governance traditions, which emphasize kinship-based relationships with nature.
Legal Barriers: Unlike human rights, rights of nature and rights of future generations remain largely aspirational, through the recognition of ecocide as an international crime may help bridge this gap.
400 legal provisions recognizing the rights of nature Exist across 39 countries, demonstrating growing global momentum.
40+ lawsuits in Ecuador have invoked constitutional rights of nature protections since 2008, setting global legal precedents.
60% of global ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably, Intensifying the urgency for enforceable protections for Land and its defenders.
The Convergence of Rights of Nature and Rights of Future Generations
The overlap between the Rights of Nature and the Rights of Future Generations is clear in several key areas, demonstrating their shared goals of long-term environmental protection and legal recognition.
Challenging Anthropocentric Legal Norms: Both frameworks move beyond human-centered law, recognizing nature and future generations as legal entities.
Intergenerational Responsibility: The Seventh Generation Principle, rooted in Haudenosaunee law, advocates long-term ecological thinking.
Opposition to Extractivism: Both frameworks challenge exploitative economic models that prioritize short-term profits over sustainability.
“The rights of nature and rights of future generations are not separate issues—they are two sides of the same coin. Without a thriving planet, there is no future to protect.
THOMAS BERRY | CULTURAL HISTORIAN