Why subjective rights for nature?

Our legal systems are made by people and for people. We are considered legal subjects, enjoy fundamental rights and human rights, have legal standing and are equal before the law. We can appeal to the courts and take legal action. Nature, on the other hand, is considered a legal object before the law with no rights of its own. It has no legal standing, no legal personality and is largely treated like an object. As a result, nature is systematically marginalized and judgments are made to its disadvantage. For example, according to the German Animal Welfare Act, it is permitted to inflict pain, suffering or harm on animals as long as there is a reasonable cause for doing so. Economic interests are regularly accepted by courts as reasonable grounds. The animals concerned would certainly take a different view.

In certain cases, the current right of associations to initiate proceedings does grant state-recognized environmental protection organizations the authority to represent nature in court. Under this system, however, there is an extensive enforcement deficit. Nature is not even granted the few rights it has because compliance is not sufficiently monitored. Proceedings are often discontinued and penalties are too low. In short, the current law is no longer sufficient to adequately protect nature.

How can rights of nature work?

Ecuador shows how things can be done better. The country reformed its constitution in 2008 and granted nature subjective rights. This gives nature a general right to continue to exist and the right to restoration if it is damaged. The constitution also regulates who represents the rights of nature: all individuals, communities, people and nations can turn to the state authorities to enforce the rights of nature. The responsibility and opportunities to protect nature therefore lie with society as a whole and not just with environmental protection organizations.

The Los Cedros cloud forest case shows how well this can work. Gold and copper were to be extracted in this area as part of a mining project. The government had already awarded the relevant concessions. But in 2021, the Constitutional Court enforced the rights of nature in a ruling. The forest should remain untouched. Many people joined forces to defend these rights.

Our demands!

We advocate transforming the current model of the right of associations to initiate proceedings into a comprehensive concept of rights of nature. All people should be able to claim the rights of nature in court. These rights should also be universal and not only apply to a limited selection of cases.