Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Scholars have urged the examination of how Nature’s rights may link with other rights- claims to impact political struggles between local communities and central governments over decision-making authority. This article examines two court cases that were decided by Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in order to shed light on the ability of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Ecuador to employ the rights of nature in their efforts to contest the approval of extractive projects. The article contends that conjunctions be- tween nature’s rights, human rights and the precautionary principle have challenged three patterns of knowledge creation and use that have supported the primacy of the national interest. The first is the presumption of co-existence of Indigenous land uses and mining projects. The second is the state’s power to classify land based on the level of protection for which it is eligible. The third is the treatment of differentiated actors as equivalent stakeholders. 

The recognition of nature as a legal rightsholder has become one means by which people around the world have sought to pursue ecocentric sustainable development strategies. We examine perceptions in Sweden of how the prospective recognition of nature as a rights-bearing legal subject may nonetheless conflict with the objectives identified in the U.N.’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda for “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.” Our analysis is based on interviews with individuals whose work involves the protection of the environment or the use of its resources. The article demonstrates how concerns about the harm to democratic systems are built upon several interlocking assumptions regarding human-nature relationships, the limits of human knowledge about nature, and the proliferation of conflict engendered by recognition of nature’s rights.

Can nature have rights, or is this idea bound to be considered odd, frightening or even laughable as Christopher Stone stated when arguing for nature’s rights in his seminal article in 1972? The idea is based on the view that nature should be allowed to exist on its own terms and not on man’s. Expectations are that such an approach will become a tool for changing the view of the relationship between man and nature. In modern Western legal systems however, nature is primarily seen as property. Property usually has one or more owners with far-reaching rights to dispose of it. The idea that nature has rights is therefore new and radical; it represents a shift in the balance of power between humans and nature. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the current Swedish constitutional protection of nature may relate to the dea of the rights of nature. How is nature, environment, climate and nature negotiated in the existing legal and constitutional framework? With examples from the Cementa and the Girjas cases we discuss how the constitutional issues involved are legally interpreted and politically negotiated in ways leading to environment and nature being downplayed. Examples discussed are the Cementa and the Girjas cases, which both led to Government actions and interventions. The question is if nature would have a stronger position, were it given rights of its own, and if could fit in the constitutional system or. Or is it a strange bird?