By Stellina Jolly
This blog post is adapted from the author’s presentation at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law in Hanoi, Vietnam from 9 to 10 October 2025.
Nature: A Political and Economic Construct
Scientifically, the idea of ‘nature’ is neutral, but its use has been shaped by political and economic constructs influenced by capitalism, colonialism, and globalisation. Capitalism and colonialism treated Nature as an object of human use. This understanding converted Nature into a resource to be possessed, exploited, and extracted for the benefit of the colonial power and to the detriment of the global south. By its insistence on interdependence and integration of the economies, globalization transformed natural resources into tradeable commodities. From a political lens, the debate around Nature concentrated on access surrounding its ownership and control. This is reflected at the international level, where the permanent sovereignty of natural resources, which claims ownership of natural resources by states, reflects the idea of treating Nature as property. Similarly, at the domestic level, the property narrative dominated the legal framework governing Nature through public and private property. The underlying notion is about the superiority of humans to control and exploit the resources.
International environmental law inherited and remained true to this paradigm of treating Nature as a resource. Even the legal instruments, couched in the language of sustainability, aim to protect Nature for human benefit, not for its own sake. In this mix of anthropocentrism, acknowledging the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment provided an stimulus for environmental protection. However, acknowledging the right to a clean and healthy environment also suffers from anthropocentrism, with the understanding that nature/ environment needs protection for the benefit of human life and dignity. The anthropocentric laws based on the presumption of human superiority have failed to halt environmental degradation.
In this background, the Global South presents a complex contradiction. On the one hand, its culture reflects the long-standing cosmologies, including Pachamama in the Andes and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (“the world is one family”) in India. However, colonialism brought its economic constructs around Nature and transplanted the legal systems built on the notions of property, sovereignty, and development. Even after the formal end of colonialism, the legal framework retained the ideology of extracting Nature in the name of development. Thus, the Global South legal system reflects a paradox: On the one hand, it treats Nature as a commodity, but on the other, it searches for alternative paradigms that decolonise law in content and approach.
The Rights of Nature Movement: Moving from Anthropocentrism to Eco-centrism
The Rights of Nature (RoN) rejects the dominant anthropocentrism by granting legal personhood to natural entities. RoN was first recognised in Ecuador (2008), followed by Bolivia (2010). In New Zealand, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood, recognizing the Māori cosmology that views the river as a spiritual entity. In India (2017), the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Ganga and Yamuna legal persons, though the Supreme Court of India stayed their implementation. In 2019, Uganda became the first African nation to enshrine Nature’s personhood in law.
Recognition of the RoN provides fresh imperative to preserve ecological integrity by granting legal standing to Nature. It emphasises the shared existence of all elements of Nature, including humans. Such a representation contrasts from the legal approach, which envisages protecting the environment through ownership rights. However, the moot question is whether the RoN is part of the international law framework and whether this development can address the planetary crisis effectively.
RoN Under International Law
To date, no international legal instrument has explicitly acknowledged Nature as a separate legal entity. However, developments indicate a slow recognition of the same and numerous entry points for integrating the RoN into international law.
Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework acknowledges the development surrounding RoN. It states, “Nature embodies different concepts for different people … The framework recognises and considers these diverse value systems and concepts, including, for those countries that recognise them, rights of Nature and rights of Mother Earth, as being an integral part of its successful implementation.” While the framework per se does not recognise the RoN, it provides an entry point for domestic laws to be linked to international commitments. It is expected that domestic developments with consistent state practice may help the formation of RoN as customary international law. The push for the inclusion of ‘Ecocide’ as a new category of crime under the Statute of the International Criminal Court is suggestive of the evolving consensus about the need to account for crimes against Nature for its own worth, irrespective of its human impacts.
Additionally, there are entry points for the recognition of RoN under the existing international environmental law, including:
Public Trust Doctrine: The doctrine holds that resources like air, and water are preserved for public collective benefit, and the State is a trustee. This doctrine can be a feasible avenue to create obligations for states where states act as trustees of Nature not just for collective benefit, but for its own worth. In this context, the 2017 Inter-American Court of Human Rights advisory opinion offers a way forward. The advisory opinion treated environmental harm as a human rights violation, delinking it from its utility to humans, and assessing it for its “intrinsic value.” Though the decision does not explicitly acknowledge RoN, it provides a strong jurisprudential step toward acknowledging the intrinsic value of Nature, one of the core elements of RoN.
Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM): The principle at its core recognises that there are areas beyond national appropriation. This principle can be evolved to shift the focus from a human-centric shared benefit sharing approach to include ecosystem preservation. Essentially, the argument is that the obligations under CHM can be interpreted to mean stewardship of nature. However, this possibility is constrained by the anthropocentrism inherent in CHM. In this background, what is the way to integrate RoN in international law?
Way forward: Strengthening Indigenous Rights and Procedural Rights
The real possibility of integrating RoN is through the indigenous rights under international law. The indigenous way of life recognises the integrated life of humans and Nature. Promoting the right to self-determination, and the free, prior, and informed consent given in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, can be a significant signpost here. Promoting the right of self-determination will give the indigenous community the legal platform to steer their idea of living in harmony with Nature into nature governance. Similarly, ensuring free prior and informed consent gives the indigenous people a safety net mechanism to protect nature and prevent undue state interference. Such development can also help overcome several normative challenges associated with RoN, including the question of representation. New Zealand has adopted a system governing the Whanganui between the Māori and the State, but many legal systems lack such nuanced institutional understanding. In India, the court appointed Governemnt officlas as the guardian representing rivers. Appointing state entities that are the major polluters creates a scenario where Nature is represented by the same institutions responsible for its degradation. Further, appointing state entities as the guardians through a ‘parens patriae’ has the consequence of treating Nature perpetually as a minor, which goes against the premise of Nature as right bearing entity.
Additionally, there are challenges in discerning the interest of Nature. What humans comprehend as the interests of Nature depends on the value judgment each carries from their side. The case of Costa Rica v Nicaragua, before the International Court of Justice, has already presented the challenge of quantifying ecological harm. Only in the context of the indigenous people does their way of life include the connectivity of human and non-human entities. Thus, the practical way to integrate RoN under international law is to strengthen indigenous and procedural rights of access to environmental information, justice, and participation. Procedural rights granted under the Rio Declaration 1992 , the Aarhus Convention 1998, and the Escazu Agreement 2018 can be the commencing point for bolstering respect for Nature by enabling citizens and communities to act on behalf of nature. The emphasis on procedural rights shifts the focus of international law from State and brings the community into focus. Individuals with genuine respect for Nature can then become part of the governance structure.
Conclusion
Currently, the idea of RoN is only in its nascency under international law. Integrating RoN under international law will require an innovative interpretation of the existing environmental principles from an eccentric perspective. However, even with this possibility, overcoming the economic and political construct surrounding Nature and recognising its intrinsic worth remains a herculean challenge. Nevertheless, such a development is worth pursuing to protect the Earth and can be attempted by strengthening procedural and indigenous rights under international law.
About the author
Dr. Stellina Jolly is Senior Associate Professor at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi, and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the University of Johannesburg. A Fulbright Scholar, she serves on the Governing Board (South & West Asia) of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law. Her research spans international environmental and private international law, with publications in Transnational Environmental Law, Journal of Private International Law, and Chinese Journal of Environmental Law. She has led research and consultancy projects for IRENA, ADB, the European Commission, and other international organizations.
Image credit: iStock
