In Canada, Indigenous advocates argue that mining companies violate the rights of nature. Tribunal judges found the industry guilty of “ongoing ecocide.”
What if rivers had an inherent right to be protected from pollution, regardless of its utility to humans? This is the idea that drives the “rights of nature” movement.
In Western legal systems, arguments against pollution or the destruction of the environment tend to focus exclusively on people: It’s wrong to contaminate a river, for example, because certain humans depend on the river for drinking water.
But what if the river had an inherent right to be protected from pollution, regardless of its utility to humans? This is the idea that drives the “rights of nature” movement, a global campaign to recognize the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature — not just rivers, but also trees, mountains, animals, ecosystems — by granting it legal rights. Many Indigenous worldviews already recognize these rights. The question for many in the movement, however, is how to bring the rights of nature into the courtroom.
