Rights of Nature: The Question of Representation and its Connections to Power-Relations
In light of man-made climate change and the range of foreseeable risks it holds, actors pushing for the protection of nature are raising their voices. One strategy to pursue ecological interests unfolds in the framework of Rights of Nature (RoN). Rights of Nature envisions an empowering shift in the way nature is seen by the law – away from an object of protection to a subject with its own rights. Although promising and successful in a number of cases, certain aspects of RoN remain contested, such as the question of representation. Scholars argue, that power-relations influence who may speak for nature in court and call for further critical investigation.

Image credit: Pixaby
The Global Alliance for The Rights of Nature (GARN) describes RoN as both a legal and philosophical concept, which seeks to grant ecosystems the subjective right to “exist, flourish and regenerate their natural cycles” (GARN, n.d.). Grounded in indigenous knowledge and worldviews, RoN also strives to reshape how sustainability and the human-nature-relationship are commonly understood (Misereor, 2023). In capitalist societies, Fraser (2022) argues, nature is typically seen as a “thing”, a pool of resources available for the economic activities of human beings.
It is this view of nature which is claimed to be a factor that makes capitalism systematically cause climate change (Ibid.). And it is here, where RoN finds a motivation to oppose the objectification of nature (GARN, n.d.). The aspirations of RoN are frequently described as a paradigm shift, which may achieve greater environmental protection (GARN, n.d.; Gilbert et al., 2023). According to advocates of RoN, the usual laws to protect nature still put the human benefit at heart of their argumentation and are unable to prevent the destruction of nature (Misereor, 2023). Subjective rights are claimed to cover this blind spot and specifically put nature´s needs and interest on the agenda, thereby acknowledging its intrinsic value.
Since it first began circulating in academic publications in the 1970s, subjective rights of nature have been practically implemented in a number of cases around the world. As the first country where it was adopted, Ecuador rewrote its constitution in 2008. Article 71 now reads: “Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes” (Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, n.d.). Subsequently, other countries, such as Bolivia, Uganda and Canada have followed suit and assigned subjective rights to nature as a whole, or specific ecosystems and landscapes (Ibid.). The most recent example for successful implementation of RoN can be found in Spain, where rights were granted to a lagoon in 2022 (Misereor, 2023).
Despite the increasing number of cases where rights of nature were successfully defended in court, Gilbert et al. (2023) point to the novelty of the RoN research field, arguing that “there is still relatively little understanding on how it works in practice and what commonalities exist beyond specific case studies” (p. 364). Here, scholars note that one aspect which requires deeper elaboration is the question of representation. Generally, defending nature as a legal subject with its own rights comes along with a few initial issues to be solved. First: the presence of nature. Nature itself cannot be present, or rather, participate in a political decision-making process. Only adult human beings can theoretically do so. Therefore, a human adult must speak in the name of nature (O´Neill, 2006). Here lies the second issue: the authorization of representatives. Non-human natural entities are unable to authorize others to represent them in a legal proceeding. And, adult humans do not share a significant common identity with other natural entities that automatically qualifies them for representing them, just as a woman might be a suitable candidate for representing women (Ibid.). Presence and authorization resemble sources of legitimation, that are absent in the case of RoN, according to O´Neill. GARN (n.d.) holds against this view and regards the shared characteristic of being a natural entity as sufficient to claim that any citizen “has the right to demand the recognition of rights for Nature before the law”. In practice, the representation is regulated differently. In some countries, like Ecuador, it is indeed the entire population that can theoretically speak for nature in court, in others this can be narrowed down to a few political authorities (Misereor, 2023).
As the question of representation is one central issue of RoN, “these rights can be understood as mechanism of representation”, argues Tănăsescu (2022, p.70). Hereby, who is allowed to bring nature´s interests forward is inherently a question of who has the privilege to be heard and seen in a legal proceeding. Therefore, it is argued, RoN is not only a mechanism of representation, but through that, a mechanism of power: “Rights of nature will inevitably work to empower certain groups over others” (Ibid., p.140). In this light, Tănăsescu appeals to employ critical thinking and to “always ask for the reasons a certain group may be preferred over another” (Ibid., p.70).
The issue at heart is not, that speaking for nature is regarded as such an honor, that whoever is allowed to fulfill this task improves their standing in society. Instead, it is mainly the issue that groups or individuals representing natural entities have the opportunity to bring forward their own interests along with or in the shape of nature´s. Despite the ambition to defend nature´s needs independently of the human being, it remains a human interpretation what nature wants and only persons who agree with what they interpret those interests to be, will seek the way to court. Therefore, Tănăsescu notes, that “who has the right to speak on behalf of […] nature has everything to do with the kinds of things that can be accomplished” (Ibid., p.70).
According to Petel (2024), the representation of RoN may feed into existing structures of marginalization or only favor certain members of one marginalized group, while brushing over its internal heterogeneity. In 2013, “the Supreme Court of India granted decision-making power over the Niyamgiri hills to the Dongria Kondh tribal community […] excluding other groups such as the local Dalits (untouchable community in the Indian caste system) who also inhabited the hills” (Ibid., p.20). Also in 2017, when subjective rights were assigned to two rivers, no weight was given to conflicting views of the Dalits and other minorities (Ibid). In the case of Ecuador, the largest indigenous group of the country, the Kichwa, dominated the constitutional process and pushed for the recognition of nature as a legal subject, although other indigenous communities were less supportive of RoN (Ibid.).
According to Petel:
the objective of the RoN should be to combat power asymmetries, and to favour those whose well-being is closely intertwined with ecological integrity in contrast with profit-driven agents, who may simply enjoy the economic benefits without having to suffer the costs through the externalization process at the heart of global capitalism (Ibid., p.23.).
To reach its potential and dismantle marginalizing power-relations, the implementation of RoN requires further critical elaboration, scholars argue.
Sources:
Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights (n.d.). Rights of Nature Law Library. https://www.centerforenvironmentalrights.org/rights-of-nature-law-library (Last visit: December 19th 2024).
Gilbert, Jeremie et al. (2023). Understanding the Rights of Nature: Working Together Across and Beyond Disciplines. Human Ecology, 51, 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00420-1
Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (n.d.). Rights of Nature 101. https://www.garn.org/ron-101/ (Last visit: December 19th 2024).
Misereor (2023). Rights of Nature. Challenging the “human-nature” relationship? Bischöfliches Hilfswerk Misereor e. V.
O´Neill, John (2006). Who speaks for nature? In Y. Haila & C. Dyke (Eds.), How Nature speaks. The Dynamics of the Human. Duke University Press.
Petel, Matthias (2024). The Illusion of Harmony: Power, Politics, and Distributive Implications of Rights of Nature. Transnational Environmental Law, 13(1), 12–34. doi:10.1017/S2047102523000262
Tănăsescu, Mihnea (2022). Understanding the rights of nature. A critical introduction. Transcript Verlag.
***
Marla Castañeda Falcón, is a student in the HCIAS’ Master’s program Communication and Society in Ibero-America
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Marla Castañeda Falcón (March 4, 2025). Rights of Nature: The Question of Representation and its Connections to Power-Relations. HCIAS Blog. Retrieved April 21, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13f1p
