The rights of nature, also called Earth rights, is a legal idea that says ecosystems and species have natural rights, much like how humans have basic rights. This idea questions old laws from the 20th century, which often treated nature as a "resource" to be owned, used, and harmed. Supporters believe laws based on the rights of nature help people act in ways that match modern science, which shows humans and nature are deeply connected.
This idea is based on two main reasons. First, human rights are partly based on the belief that those rights come from human existence. Similarly, the natural world’s rights come from its own existence. Second, people depend on healthy ecosystems to survive. Protecting nature’s rights helps protect human rights and health.
From the rights of nature viewpoint, most 20th-century environmental laws use an outdated idea that sees nature as separate parts instead of parts of a whole. A bigger problem is that these laws often serve economic interests more than protecting nature. They try to fix damage caused by money-driven activities, but they do not focus on letting nature thrive as their main goal. This criticism is part of efforts like lawsuits about climate change, which aim to push society to reduce climate change effects.
As of May 2024, nearly 500 rights of nature laws exist at local and national levels in 40 countries, including many cities and counties in the United States. These laws appear in forms like constitutional rules, treaties, laws, local rules, and court decisions. A state constitutional rule is being proposed in Florida.
Basic tenets
Proponents of nature's rights believe that, just as human rights have become more widely accepted in laws and ethics, nature's rights should also be recognized and included in human laws and values. This idea is supported by two main reasons: first, that the same ethical principles that support human rights also support nature's rights, and second, that humans depend on healthy ecosystems to survive.
The first reason is that if humans have basic rights because they exist, then the natural world should also have basic rights because it exists. Over time, human rights have expanded, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) created by the United Nations, which outlined key human rights as fundamental and unchangeable. The creators of the UDHR stated that these rights come from the fact of human existence, not from decisions made by powerful groups.
Some scholars argue that since human rights are based on human existence, nature's rights should be based on the existence of nature itself. This means human legal systems should continue to grow to include the rights of nature. People who support this idea include Thomas Berry, a U.S. cultural historian; Cormac Cullinan, a South African lawyer; Vandana Shiva, an Indian scientist and environmental advocate; and David R. Boyd, a Canadian law professor and U.N. expert on human rights and the environment.
Thomas Berry developed a philosophy called Earth jurisprudence, which says the Earth has its own laws that are most important. This idea suggests that everything has an intrinsic right to exist and grow simply because it exists. Earth jurisprudence is now widely discussed by legal experts, the United Nations, lawmakers, philosophers, and other professionals as a way to create laws and economic systems that protect nature's rights.
The second reason is that humans can only thrive in the long term if they live in balance with the natural world. Thomas Berry argued that the idea of human well-being depending on natural systems, which have no right to exist, is illogical. Protecting nature's rights helps humans protect their own interests.
The idea of nature's rights changes how humans view the natural world, moving from seeing it as property or a resource to seeing it as a partner in an interconnected Earth community. This approach follows the path of human rights movements, which once seemed impossible but later became widely accepted.
Christopher Stone, a law professor at the University of Southern California, wrote about this idea in his essay "Should Trees Have Standing." His work was referenced in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Sierra Club v. Morton, which suggested that environmental issues should be addressed by nature itself. Stone and others note that human rights have been increasingly recognized over time, even when they were not originally part of the law. The progress made in human rights movements shows how the current movement can expand to include natural systems and species as rights-bearing entities.
Underpinnings and development
Proponents of changing environmental laws argue that current systems fail because they treat nature as property that can be damaged for profit or human needs. They explain that seeing nature only as an economic resource has already harmed many ecosystems and species so badly that experts now consider strategies to decide which species to save, rather than fixing the economic causes of harm. While environmental laws from the 20th and 21st centuries offer some protection to ecosystems and species, critics say these laws do not stop or reverse environmental decline because nature is treated as less important than human and economic interests, not as a priority for the well-being of all living things.
Supporters of nature’s rights argue that rethinking environmental laws through a rights-based approach shows the limits of current systems. For example, the U.S. Endangered Species Act only acts when species are near extinction, focusing on protecting existing economic interests. A "Healthy Species Act" would instead aim to ensure species thrive and support economic systems that help protect them.
Another example is the European Union’s Water Framework Directive from 2000, described as the most significant European environmental law. It aims to achieve "good status" for all EU waters, including ensuring "ecological flows" for ecosystems. However, despite scientific progress, the EU still lacks a clear definition of "ecological flow" or a shared method to calculate it. A rights-based approach would recognize both the human right to water for basic needs and the right of waterways to have enough clean water flows to support ecosystems.
Scholars and organizations also discuss the idea of living in harmony with nature as a philosophy. This concept emphasizes respecting the interconnectedness of all life and the rights of all beings. It is part of a broader approach to environmental law and ethics that focuses on the needs of the entire ecosystem.
Modern environmental laws began in the 1960s, based on the idea of managing nature in separate parts. For example, U.S. laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act were passed in the 1970s to address different parts of the natural world individually. Some laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act, required analyzing the environmental impacts of projects but did not require actions to fix those impacts.
These early laws reflected scientific thinking of the time, which focused on studying nature as separate parts. A more modern, systems-based understanding of nature—where humans are part of a connected whole—developed later. The first major textbook describing nature as a system was written in 1983. The Gaia Hypothesis, introduced in the 1970s, proposed that Earth functions as a self-regulating system. Systems dynamics, which began in the 1970s, expanded to include natural systems alongside human and economic systems. Since then, science has shown that humans are part of a dynamic, interconnected world where isolation is not possible.
Despite these scientific advances, environmental laws have not fully changed. Many early 1970s laws in the U.S. and other countries remain unchanged, even though science now sees nature as a connected system.
In the 19th century, Edward Payson Evans, an early thinker on nature’s rights, wrote that humans are part of nature, not separate from it. Thomas Berry argued that society’s laws should reflect natural laws, stating that the universe is a community of subjects, not a collection of objects. He explained that all life shares a common origin and that humans are not the only subjects with rights. Laws based on the intrinsic value of nature create a new moral standard that guides society to act in ways that benefit all life.
Scientists like John Muir and Aldo Leopold supported the idea of ethical responsibility to nature. Leopold said that seeing land as a community we belong to, not a resource to own, helps us care for it. He suggested that actions are right if they protect the health and beauty of ecosystems. Albert Schweizer defined right actions as those that show respect for all life.
Advances in science and ethics have led to a new legal framework that emphasizes the relationships between humans and nature. Court decisions in countries like Ecuador, Colombia, and India have used these ideas to recognize the legal rights of nature. This approach moves beyond "sustainable development," which focuses on using nature as a resource, to visions like "thriving communities," where nature is seen as a full participant in society, not just an object to be used.
Some laws grant nature rights without requiring duties, while others treat nature as a legal person with rights and responsibilities, including legal accountability.
History
The ethical and philosophical ideas behind the legal theory and movement that gives nature rights are based on a belief that nature should be respected. This is different from the idea that humans should control nature, treating it as something to own. Indigenous law professor John Borrows said that in Indigenous traditions, stories about how the world was created help guide people on how to live in harmony with the Earth, not against it. A 2012 international Declaration about Indigenous Peoples said that modern laws harm the Earth because they do not respect the "natural order of Creation." The Declaration also said that humans have a place and duties in the Earth's special order and benefit from living in balance with the Earth and all life it supports.
Indigenous beliefs match and have helped shape the development of laws that give nature rights, such as in Ecuador and Bolivia. In 2008, Ecuador changed its constitution to recognize the rights of nature, partly because of the need to better protect Pachamama, a term that includes both the physical and spiritual parts of the natural world. Bolivia also changed its constitution and created laws that show respect for Pachamama and the idea that humans and natural systems are part of one family.
New Zealand law professor Catherine Iorns Magallanes said that traditional Indigenous beliefs see nature as a living ancestor. From this belief comes the duty to protect nature as one would protect a family member, and the need for laws that show responsibility to the natural world as family.
However, some scholars say that the Indigenous parts of nature's rights are not true, and others warn that using nature's rights laws without care could harm Indigenous communities.
Many other religious and spiritual traditions share ideas that support the idea of giving nature rights. Eastern traditions, like Chinese Daoism and Japanese Buddhism, teach that the world is a place of energy called bussho, which flows through humans, nature, and the universe. A 11th-century philosopher named Zhang Zai said, "What fills the universe is my body, and what guides the universe is my nature."
In Hinduism and Buddhism, the idea of karma shows how humans are connected to the Earth and the universe. Buddhist teachings about "co-dependent arising" say that everything is connected. Mahayana Buddhism uses the symbol of "Indra's Net" to show a universe of endless connections, where nothing is more important than anything else.
Western traditions also include ideas about the Earth and the universe in spiritual teachings. In ancient Europe, people worshipped female gods as symbols of Mother Earth. In early Greece, the Earth goddess Gaia was seen as a powerful god. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, said that the world is a living being with a soul and intelligence, containing all other living things. A medieval thinker named St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that humans are not the center of the universe but part of a whole that includes the universe.
More recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that listening to the Earth is more important for happiness than following short-term desires. His successor, Pope Francis, has spoken about the need to change how humans treat the Earth, saying that the environment has rights and that the problems humans face come from focusing too much on economic growth and treating the market as the most important thing.
The Qur'an, the main religious text in Islam, says that all creation praises God by existing. Scholars explain that the goal of Islamic law is to ensure the well-being of all living things, including those not yet born.
Bringing together Western and Indigenous ideas, Archbishop Desmond Tutu talked about "Ubuntu," an African belief that means "I am because you are." He said that humans are connected and cannot live in isolation.
Human rights have developed over time, with the most important step being the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations. The idea that humans have natural rights, which come from simply being human, was key to this development.
Roderick Fraser Nash, a professor of history and environmental studies, traced the history of rights for nature back to the 13th century, when the Magna Carta introduced the idea of "natural rights" that influenced modern rights discussions.
Peter Burdon, a professor and Earth Jurisprudence scholar, said that the ideas of 17th-century philosopher John Locke helped lead to the American Revolution by showing that the British government was denying colonists their natural rights. Thomas Jefferson, a U.S. president and thinker, argued that "the laws of nature and of nature's God" show that all people are born with equal rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen also said that humans have natural, inalienable, and sacred rights, with the goal of protecting these rights.
The idea of rights expanded to include animals in the 18th and 19th centuries. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and lawyer, said that one day animals might have rights that were never taken from them by force. Edward Payson Evans, a 19th-century scholar, said that the 1948 adoption of the UDHR was a major step, based on the belief that human rights come from simply existing. The movement for nature's rights built on this belief, saying that if existence is the reason for rights, then rights should not be limited to humans alone.
Rights of nature law
In the early 2000s, laws that protect nature's rights expanded greatly. These laws included rules written in a country's constitution, agreements between nations, laws made by national and local governments, rules created by cities or towns, and decisions made by courts. By 2022, laws protecting nature's rights existed in 24 countries (an increase from 17 countries in 2021). These laws were found in Canada, at least seven Tribal Nations in the United States and Canada, and more than 60 cities and counties across the United States. In total, 29 countries had either laws protecting nature's rights or were working on creating such laws by 2022.
How laws that protect nature's rights are understood and used differ in different areas, especially for water-based environments like rivers and oceans. Studies comparing laws from different countries show that nations use different methods—such as court decisions, laws, and local rules—to give rights to freshwater and ocean ecosystems. These methods vary in how rights are described (for example, whether ecosystems are seen as legal people, subjects with rights, or living things) and how groups are organized to represent and enforce these rights. These studies also note ongoing challenges, such as deciding who gives the rights, the legal reasons for recognizing them, and how they are carried out and enforced in practice.
Related initiatives
During the early 2000s, stronger and more active international networks focused on the rights of nature became more common. This likely led to the increased inclusion of these principles in laws. These efforts worked closely with other important changes in systems, such as creating new economic and financial models that better reflect human and nature rights, leadership from Indigenous communities to support both Indigenous peoples' rights and nature's rights, global social movements like the human right to water, practical solutions like rewilding that align with nature's rights, and building the ability of the rights of nature movement through the creation of global hubs.
To show how nature's rights laws are being used, the nonprofit Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature created "International Rights of Nature Tribunals." These are efforts led by non-governmental groups and provide suggestions that are not legally required. The tribunals gather people who support nature's rights, human rights, and Indigenous peoples' rights in a process similar to the Permanent Peoples' Tribunals. The goal is to formally recognize and give visibility to people and natural systems harmed by alleged rights violations and to offer a way to address such harm.
As more people learn about nature's rights laws and legal principles, a new area of study has developed. Legal scholars and others are now offering strategies and analysis to help apply these laws more widely, especially as early successes and challenges in their use are studied.
In popular culture
In 2018, a documentary called Rights of Nature: A Global Movement, directed by Isaac Goeckeritz, Hal Crimmel, and Valeria Berros, examined the difficulties of developing new legal systems related to the Rights of Nature.
A documentary film titled Invisible Hand, which focuses on the rights of nature movement, was released in 2020. It was directed by Joshua Boaz Pribanic and Melissa Troutman of Public Herald and executive-produced and narrated by actor Mark Ruffalo. The film received four Best Documentary Awards.
The book The Overstory, which won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and remained on the New York Times bestseller list for over a year, explored the relationships between humans and trees, as well as the rights of trees.
A podcast called Damages discusses the idea of the rights of nature in different situations.
An episode of The Daily Show addressed the concept of the rights of nature.