Guest Opinion
As the Rights of Nature movement gains momentum, courts are adding to the jurisprudence on how to interpret these rights from existing legal documents. Legislatures are also drafting new laws to recognize the Rights of Nature. I previously wrote about this growing movement in the United States, and I thought it worthwhile to take a look at the movement in international law. What I found is a movement that is clearly gaining momentum.
The graphic below shows the rate of growth of tribunals around the world extending laws or decisions to recognize the Rights of Nature, contributing to a growing body of law tracked since 2019 by the Ecojurisprudence Tracker.
The most significant ruling in international law came from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on May 29, 2025. Prior to this opinion, the United Nations General Assembly had issued 15 resolutions and 20 reports acknowledging and recognizing the rights of nature in various forms. (The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is a creation of the Organization of American States but cooperates with the United Nations.) On May 29, 2025, the Court considered the Rights of Nature in the context of a case brought based on climate change treaty obligations. That opinion included the most concrete articulations of the Rights of Nature of any international case to date. The Court also has jurisdiction over 30 states, meaning this advisory opinion has far-reaching impact.
Because of that impact, we can expect to see application of these principles in member nations.
We now have that first case. The first application of these principles came in Colombia. The Administrative Court of Santander declared that the Santurbán Páramo (river ecosystem), as an entity, is subject to rights to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration under the responsibility of the state and the communities that inhabit it and depend on its environmental services. This implies, among other legal consequences, priority protection, legal representation, the right to restoration, and proactive precautionary measures. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is responsible for exercising guardianship and legal representation of the rights of the Santurbán Páramo and its transition or buffer zone. Within three months of notification of this ruling, the Ministry must design and establish the identification of ecologically or strategically important transition zones to conserve water resources that supply municipal aqueducts, which in turn are fed by the Santurbán Páramo. In addition to the court’s action, the legislature banned all but small-scale mining permits in the region as well.
Even before this sweeping interpretation affecting 30 nations, the State of Mexico—one of the 31 states of Mexico—amended its state constitution to recognize the Rights of Nature. On April 22, 2024, the legislature of the State of Mexico approved amendments to Articles 5 and 18 of its constitution, recognizing nature and biodiversity as subjects of rights. The amendment states:
“Nature or biodiversity, endemic and native species are subjects of rights, which are granted, protected, and promoted by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Mexico, at the same level as human rights.”
While this is just one state in Mexico, other countries in the Western Hemisphere are taking similar steps. Ecuador was the pioneer in adopting recognition of the Rights of Nature into its law. Article 71 of Ecuador’s Constitution reads that nature:
“has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”
German Courts Find Rights in Nature
In Germany, the regional court in Erfurt, during the “dieselgate” cases involving German automobile manufacturer BMW, found that a “person” could also be an “ecological person” under European Union law.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights (Art. 51(1)), and in particular Articles 2 and 3(1) in conjunction with Article 37, establish inherent rights of nature, the court opined. The court stated:
“. . . these fundamental rights are by their nature applicable to nature or individual ecosystems—i.e. ecological persons. It can be left open whether, in the present case, nature as such or individual ecosystems (particularly) damaged by exhaust gases require protection. The Charter gives rise to the comprehensive right of ecological persons to have their existence, preservation and regeneration of their life cycles, structure, functions and development processes respected and protected.”
The recognition of Rights of Nature in European Union law by a German court opens the door for other EU nations to reach similar conclusions.
How Is This Different from Other Environmental Protection Opinions?
Traditionally, rights have been interpreted as those affecting human interests, such as environmental destruction or climate change damages. This approach requires demonstrating how failure to protect a body of water, for example, would harm human health. In contrast, the emerging Rights of Nature framework recognizes that ecosystems possess intrinsic value that warrants protection and preservation independent of human impact.
The extension of “personhood” to include ecological persons has proven to be a successful interpretive approach in European law. However, the history of interpreting “person” under the U.S. Constitution suggests it is unlikely to follow the same path. Efforts to extend rights—or even to recognize pets as “persons,” or at least as more than property—have not succeeded so far, even though they are often at the emotional center of divorce proceedings as much as children are. Likewise, attempts to recognize a fetus as a “person” under the U.S. Constitution have thus far failed.
That said, legislative efforts continue to grow in the United States, and given the momentum evident in international law, the U.S. may not be far behind.
To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to: https://profvictoria.substack.com/
Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.