Rights of Nature is the legal approach that treats Nature (or specific ecosystems like rivers, lagoons, forests, and watersheds) as a rights-bearing subject rather than only as property to be managed. Since 2018, the movement has shifted from a handful of landmark experiments into a more diversified landscape of national statutes, high-court rulings, Indigenous-led governance models, and also legal backlash in some jurisdictions.
# Big Shifts After 2018 A visible shift since 2018 is from “symbolic recognition” toward attempts at durable legal machinery, especially guardian models, defined rights bundles, and procedural pathways for enforcement. At the same time, the last few years have produced clearer evidence that recognition without institutions, budgets, and authority can stall or become performative.
# National Law Milestones
Panama adopted a national Rights of Nature statute (Law 287 of 24 February 2022) explicitly recognizing Nature as a subject of rights and setting duties on the State and on natural and legal persons to respect and protect those rights. - ecojurisprudence.org 
- Panama’s Law 287 - pdf
An English translation of Panama’s Law 287 has circulated widely among advocates and researchers, helping the law travel as a template and reference point for other jurisdictions exploring national-level recognition - pdf
# Europe’s Breakthrough Case
Spain’s Mar Menor lagoon and its basin gained legal rights through Law 19/2022 (30 September 2022), widely described as the first ecosystem in Europe to receive this kind of recognition via a Western legal framework. - verfassungsblog.de
Spain’s Constitutional Court later upheld the constitutionality of that Mar Menor law (decision reported as 20 November 2024), which advocates frame as a landmark moment for Rights of Nature within the European Union context. - ecojurisprudence.org
# River Personhood and Indigenous Governance Models
In Canada, the Magpie River (Muteshekau-shipu) was recognized through local resolutions (2021) as a legal person with enumerated rights and with designated guardianship rooted in Innu leadership and local governance, becoming a frequently cited “guardian model” case - naturecanada.ca
This Canadian pathway is often contrasted with purely court-driven recognition, because it foregrounds governance design (who speaks for the river, how decisions are made, and what duties follow) rather than only symbolic status. - ecojurisprudence.org
# South Asia Developments
Bangladesh’s High Court recognized rivers (associated with the Turag River case, 2019) as living entities / legal persons, and later reporting describes the Supreme Court Appellate Division as upholding that approach, keeping the idea alive at the national level - centerforenvironmentalrights.org
Recent commentary on Bangladesh emphasizes the enforcement gap, where rights-recognition can remain weak if agencies are fragmented, politically constrained, or lack practical authority to prevent pollution and encroachment - eastasiaforum.org
# The United States: Legal Backlash
In the United States, Rights of Nature activity since 2018 has often taken the form of municipal charters or ordinances, which can collide with state preemption and federal constitutional doctrines. The Lake Erie Bill of Rights (Toledo, 2019) became a flagship example, and was struck down by a federal judge in 2020 - nationalaglawcenter.org
Some sources also describe an Ohio state-level move to restrict “rights of nature” laws following Toledo’s vote, illustrating the structural fragility of local-first Rights of Nature strategies within US federalism - ecojurisprudence.org
# UN and Global Diplomacy Signals
At the UN level, “living in harmony with nature” has continued to gain institutional visibility, including late-2024 UN General Assembly action under the “Harmony with Nature” agenda - docs.un.org
Parallel to this, global biodiversity diplomacy has increasingly used “harmony with nature” language, with COP16 (Cali, 2024) featuring a new coalition of countries framed around “living in harmony with nature,” signalling political traction even where legal personhood is contested. - reuters.com
# Counter-Signals and Political Contestation
The post-2018 story is not one-way progress, and explicit resistance has also become more visible. Reporting from a UN Environment Assembly context describes a UK government delegate stating the UK could not accept the idea that nature has rights, showing how Rights of Nature can be treated as a cultural and constitutional boundary, not only an environmental policy option - theguardian
# What Seems To Matter for “Real” Impact Since 2018, a core lesson has been that rights-recognition works best when paired with enforceable institutions, defined guardianship, stable funding, and clear authority to intervene against harms. The movement’s strongest recent examples tend to be those that treat governance design as part of the legal act itself, not an afterthought.
# Earlier History In 1972, legal scholar Christopher D. Stone asked Should Trees Have Standing?, and Justice William O. Douglas argued in his dissent in *Sierra Club v. Morton* that rivers and forests should be able to appear in court to defend themselves.
Internationally, several major developments followed: - **Ecuador** (2008) recognized *Pachamama* (Mother Earth) as a rights-bearing subject in its Constitution. - **Bolivia** (2010, 2012) enacted the *Law of the Rights of Mother Earth*. - **New Zealand** (2014, 2017) granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River and Te Urewera Forest, with guardians appointed to act for them. - **India** (2017) recognized the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as legal persons, though enforcement remains uncertain.
# Assets
rights-of-nature
# See
- The Hidden Connections
- Systems View of Life and The Web of Life
- Earth Law and the Rights of Nature
- Legal Person and Legal Standing
- Environmental Law and earthlawcenter.org