FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT ON/OF THE NATURE What Are Fundamental Rights of Nature?
Rights of Nature is a legal and philosophical concept that recognizes nature (ecosystems, rivers, forests, animals, etc.) as having legal rights, similar to human rights. Instead of treating nature as property, this idea treats nature as a rights-bearing entity. Core Principles of the Rights of Nature Nature is considered to have rights such as: Right to exist Right to thrive and evolve Right to restoration (if damaged) Right to maintain natural cycles Countries That Recognize Rights of Nature 🇪🇨 Ecuador In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognize the Rights of Nature in its constitution. Nature is referred to as “Pachamama” (Mother Earth). 🇧🇴 Bolivia Passed the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (2010). Recognizes nature’s right to life, diversity, water, clean air, and restoration. New Zealand Recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person. The river has legal guardians to represent it. Examples Around the World Whanganui River (New Zealand) – legal personhood Ganges River (India) – briefly granted legal personhood (later stayed by court) Colombia – Constitutional Court recognized rights of the Amazon rainforest Traditional environmental laws: Focus on regulating pollution Allow damage within limits Rights of Nature approach: Protects ecosystems even before damage occurs Allows people to go to court on behalf of nature Fundamental Rights of Nature means nature has the right to exist, regenerate, and be legally protected — just like humans have fundamental rights. Vilcabamba River Case (2011) Court: Provincial Court of Loja, Ecuador First successful case enforcing constitutional Rights of Nature. Local government dumped road debris into the Vilcabamba River. The court ruled that the river’s rights were violated. Government was ordered to restore the river. First time a court enforced nature’s constitutional rights. Atrato River Case (2016) Court: Constitutional Court of Colombia Court recognized the Atrato River as a legal person. Illegal mining was causing severe environmental damage. Court appointed guardians to protect the river. Established legal personhood for a river and state responsibility for protection. Whanganui River Settlement (2017) Law: Te Awa Tupua Act, New Zealand Recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person. Two guardians appointed (one from government, one from Māori community). First river in the world officially recognized as a legal person through legislation. Ganga & Yamuna Case (2017) Court: Uttarakhand High Court, India Court declared the Ganges River and Yamuna River as living entities. Later stayed (suspended) by the Supreme Court of India. Major judicial recognition attempt in South Asia. Amazon Future Generations Case (2018) Court: Supreme Court of Colombia Recognized the Amazon Rainforest as a subject of rights. Ordered the government to create plans to stop deforestation. Connected climate change with rights of future generations. 3 In 2017, the Supreme Court of India overturned a High Court of Uttarakhand ruling that recognized the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as legal entities with rights. The ruling regards a lawsuit filed in 2014 in the High Court of Uttarakhand over illegal construction and encroachments along the Ganges River. First Instance Ruling: In March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand ruled that the Ganga and Yamuna rivers were in danger of losing their existence and were therefore extended “all corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person” to the rivers. The High Court appointed the Chief Secretary and Advocate General of Uttarakhand as the rivers’ legal custodians, and granted the two individuals standing to act on the rivers’ behalf in any legal proceeding. The Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment referenced the deteriorating state of the rivers, recognizing that despite decades of programs like the Ganga Action Plan (1986) and National Mission for Clean Ganga (2011), pollution levels had continued to rise, and concluded that extraordinary measures were needed to preserve the rivers’ ecological and cultural integrity. The High Court’s decision came after years of scientific and environmental data revealed the dire condition of India’s most sacred waterways. According to India’s Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), by 2016, more than 350 million liters of untreated sewage were being discharged into the Ganges each day, and industrial effluents had rendered large stretches of the river “biologically dead.” In some areas, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels exceeded six times the permissible limit for aquatic life, while heavy metals such as chromium and lead were detected in concentrations above national safety standards. The Ganges River and its tributary, the Yamuna, are two of India’s major rivers. The Ganges River, worshipped in Hinduism as “Ganga Mata” or mother, is a lifeline to more than 500 million people across India. In its ruling, the Court recognized that Hindus hold a “deep faith” in the two rivers and they “collectively connect with them,” stating that “the rivers are central to the existence of half of the Indian population and their health and well-being. They have provided both physical and spiritual sustenance to all of us from time immemorial.” Supreme Court Ruling: The state government of Uttarakhand took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the declaration was legally unsustainable and could expose the state to unmanageable liabilities for flooding, pollution, or accidents occurring along the rivers’ courses. In July 2017, India’s Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling by the High Court in Uttarakhand and determined that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers could not be viewed as living entities. The federal justices noted that while the protection of the Ganges and Yamuna was of “utmost national importance,” the assignment of personhood to natural entities required legislative, not judicial, authorization. The high courts of India are the highest courts of jurisdiction in each state and union territory of India. All courts in India, including high courts, are bound by the judgements and orders of the Supreme Court of India. 4 The reciprocal relationship that communities living along nature have long nurtured is being threatened and is going through many fractures due to the acceleration of invasive neo-colonial ‘development’. The onslaught of the current dominant unsustainable extractive approach reflects a colonial framework that sidelines indigenous communities, their ways of being and the rest of nature. In doing so, the lands and natural ecosystems that the communities live in are being polluted, destroyed, and are vanishing. The current planetary crisis has become the crisis of civilisation. The crucial dimensions of life are failing, simultaneously leaving several communities in very desperate situations and future deplete. The environmental governance in India is marred by several such contradictions. As a result of colonial legacy, most bureaucracy still operates in colonial logic of looking at the rest of nature as a resource property to be controlled and managed. This extractive logic has created four major issues including regulatory failure, limits to judicial activism, the assumption that conservation is environmentalism and domination of neo-liberal growth ideas. But what is really doing to our environment? Around 351 river stretches in India are excessively polluted according to the The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). This has resulted in the near extinction of species like the Gharial and Gangetic dolphin and in the endangering of several other species. Moreover, these dams and the pollution of the water hamper ecological balance, ruining livelihoods of fishers and farmers, and impacting human health. With climate change, unprecedented floods, landslides, and other such disasters are exacerbated and already threatening the safety of dams around the world, with more extreme weather events elevating the risk of catastrophic dam collapses. The fragile ecosystems such as the Himalayas and the Western Ghats (where most dams are proposed and operational) in India are already prone to disasters which are worsened by climate change. The Rights of Nature Our relationship with nature is severely disrupted. To sustainably protect people and the environment, we need new approaches – such as granting rights to nature. This article is part of the Rights of Nature dossier, which explores how this approach can be practically implemented and what opportunities it offers. Rights of Nature – an alternative? Recognising that the rest of nature is alive in the formal legal systems and transcends the traditional boundaries within which classical environmental law has been constructed is a new discourse emerging across the world. A series of decisions by courts or governments across the world may just provide a fresh lease of life to these movements. But are Rights of Nature in their current form and in the present western discourse, truly an alternative? We will examine this question in the coming section. The Uttarakhand High Court (hereafter, UHC) ruled in two separate orders on 22 and 30 March 2017 that the north Indian rivers Ganga and Yamuna, their tributaries, and the glaciers and catchment feeding these rivers in Uttarakhand have rights as a ‘juristic/legal person/living entity’. In July 2017, the UHC order was stayed by the Supreme Court of India, after the state of Uttarakhand filed a petition against it, arguing that the order is legally unsustainable and simply not ‘practical’. On July 4th, the High Court of the State of Uttarakhand delivered another judgement in which it recognised all members of the animal kingdom as legal persons. The petition was filed pro bono publico for the protection and welfare of animals. However, the scope of the writ petition was enlarged with the consent of parties and in the interest of the larger public to promote the protection and welfare of the animals (Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs. Union of India & others, 2018). In March 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order declaring the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh city as a living entity, also with rights equivalent to that of a person (CWP No. 18253 of 2009 and other connected petitions vs State of Punjab and Haryana, page 137, 2020.).In April 2022, the Madras HC recognised the rights of mother earth as a living person. There have also been processes in neighboring countries like Bangladesh when the Dhaka High Court, in January 2019, recognised the river Turag as a living entity with legal rights and held that the same would apply to all rivers in Bangladesh. Similarly, there has been an ongoing effort in Nepal to include rights of nature through a constitutional amendment and in Pakistan to draw Bill of Rights for the transboundary river, Indus. The River Indus in Leh. What would it mean for a river to have rights? The Uttarakhand High Court in its ruling in the case of Lalit Miglani vs. State of Uttarakhand & others observed that: “The rivers sustained the aquatic life. The flora and fauna are also dependent on the rivers. Rivers are grasping for breath. We must recognize and bestow the Constitutional legal rights to the 'Mother Earth'. The very existence of the rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air and glaciers is at stake due to global warming, climate change and pollution.” For a river to be recognised as a person entitled to rights in the eyes of laws would mean to grant it, among other rights and duties, the power to bring a suit under its name, have its injuries be recognised, hold its polluters for harms caused, and claim compensation and be entitled to other remedies. Fundamental rights, in that sense, are the most basic of obligations because they emanate from the idea that they are present even if no law exists. In the case of a river being recognised as a legal person, the most basic right would be the right to live. I argue that this would mean the river has a right to flow without being dammed or diverted in such a significant way that the river’s basic character is altered (e.g. being converted into a reservoir, or channelised through canals and tunnels). Furthermore, the right to live implies the right not to be polluted to an extent that essential biological and other processes are irreparably damaged. Fundamentally, the Rights of Nature should mean that the ecological conditions making up a natural habitat are to be respected and protected. Hence, the river has a right to maintain its identity and integrity. Note, here, that I am not arguing that this puts an end to fishing or other human activities related to the river, it rather pushes for a healthy relationship respecting the river’s flow, its constituent plants and animals, its catchment, the rocks and soil and other elements of the landscape it flows through. In the same way, the destructive activities that damage the river including pollution, dams, diversions, industrial fishing and trawling, and sand mining could be challenged. An additional question being raised is whether all components of the river and its catchment also get rights. For instance, is the flora and fauna that lives within a river’s ecosystem also recognised as having rights as living entities, as ‘persons’? If so, would this apply to each individual of each such species, or to the species as a whole? Would it also include indigenous and other local communities? At a recent dialogue, organised by civil society, on unpacking some of these issues, a collective vision agreed on was that these rights should include whatever a river can do naturally, without any hindrance. One of the participants, KK Chatradhara from Assam, defined the rights of rivers as ‘a right to behna, khelna and khelana (flow, to play and to feed). As such, the river must have the right to flow (unhindered), meander, and to flood in its floodplains. The rights of the soil and groundwater flow must also be included while keeping in mind the close relationship between the two. Moreover, the rights of the river should include the rights of all that determine the health of the river including the species in the river, its basin, catchment areas, and the forests near the river among others. Of course, these varied parameters of health need to be more clearly defined. Along with the aforementioned, it was stressed that rivers cannot be separated from people as human civilisations have grown with and by rivers and their actions are important to look at. Hence, the traditional local and subsistence uses need to be within the ambit of defining the rights, with a gradation of priority and hierarchy of uses and stringent regulation or prohibition on large-scale, commercial uses. Implementing the Rights Assuming a common understanding of what is a river and what the rights of a river could mean, how will such rights be protected? Since the river cannot do this itself, and since, in the first place, it is humans who are recognising its rights, there would need to be a system of custodians or guardians that helps guarantee and protect its rights. This would resemble the system put in play for a human infant or a person with severe ‘disability’. In saying this, the author does not mean to suggest that nature does not have its own ways to express dissonance; for instance at one level of understanding, we could think of ‘irregular’ behaviour such as sudden floods, cloudbursts, droughts etc as some form of ‘dissent’. However, in the realm of law, which is a human construct, rights are primarily for regulating human behaviour in order to protect the integrity of nature including the species that comprise it. Pin Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. Parenthood / Custodianship In both UHC orders, a set of individuals have been appointed as ‘parents’ to protect the rights of the rivers. Amongst the ‘parents’ appointed by the UHC there are government functionaries and a couple of independent lawyers. These appointments however evoke less confidence as a concern over the interests of the river may be overshadowed by state functionaries' loyalty to their governments, who are themselves violators of the river’s rights. Moreover, within the second order of the Court the ambit of power is widened: “The Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand is also permitted to co-opt as many as seven public representatives from all the cities, towns and villages of the State of Uttarakhand to give representation to the communities living on the banks of rivers near lakes and glaciers (Lalit Miglani vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2017).” Unfortunately, the Court has left decisions on this to the state’s Chief Secretary (the topmost bureaucratic position). Recently, there is a poor record of state and central governments simply not filling such positions or filling them with people who will not challenge the status quo. The spirit of the following observation made by the UHC could mean a more democratic decision-making process through meaningful consultations at various levels: “we would hasten to observe that the local inhabitants living on the banks of rivers and lakes whose lives are linked with rivers and lakes must have their voice too” (Lalit Miglani vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2017). There is a need for a commission comprising local communities, government, and civil society with a multiscale, nested institutional framework to enable participation across the entire stretch of the river. The need is for local participation determined by gram sabhas (village assemblies) and area sabhas (urban area assemblies) and representation of various livelihoods relating to the river with independent mediators and clear rules of functioning that ensure transparency and accountability. Moreover, subsequent questions arise when you begin to consider what happens if the “parents” or custodians fail to discharge their duties. Will they be personally penalised for this failure? Or will they simply be replaced? And what of disagreements on what constitutes a violation? Given the enormous grey areas left undefined in the Court orders there are a lot of issues that need to be spelt out when the orders are operationalised. Across other cases in different parts of the world, several of these issues remain to be expanded or have limited understanding. Violation, restitution, restoration and compensation To efficiently exercise the rights of rivers and implement appropriate redressal, there is a need for a comprehensive definition of the actions that amount to ‘violation of the rights of rivers’ and the extent and scope of ‘the process and nature of restitution’. For instance, restitution could mean the restoration of a river to the healthy state it was in prior to violation. As stated in the 2020 Dialogue on Rights of Rivers: “For example, restitution may be dismantling dams that have blocked the river's flow or so drastically altered its nature that it can no longer be recognized in its original form (including, for instance, flowing only though tunnels inside the mountain, in so-called run-of-the-river hydro projects). It may also be to adequately compensate all affected communities and other relevant parties.” In some parts of the world, dams have in fact been decommissioned or removed to enable the river to run free again, helping restore its health or populations of wild fish. Could restitution also mean regenerating catchment areas, so that ‘normal’ water and silt flows are re-established? All such possibilities need to be considered, as some have pretty far-reaching positive, albeit challenging, consequences. The River Ganga in Banaras, India. Rights of Nature – can it be a systemic alternative? As highlighted above, for RoN to be truly transformative it has to be built on grounded imaginations of what people would articulate as ‘rights’. Along with a strong conservation angle, it has to have the goals of direct democracy, local and bioregional economies, cultural diversity, human well-being, and ecological resilience at the core of its vision. Without keeping the intersectionality and holistic imagination of transformations, it stands the risk of being appropriated. Hence, it is important to look at holistic alternatives. For example, when the Quechua residents of Potato Park in the Peruvian Andes say “our food systems are not just the work of humans. They are the work of the mountains, of Pachamama [Mother Earth], of the sacred, the whole community which is centred on reciprocity, solidarity, and respect for elements of life. This is buen vivir (‘living well’) for us”, they highlight important learnings for conservation, sustaining their own livelihoods, through immersive community participation. Or how the Gond adivasis (India’s indigenous peoples) and other traditional forest dwellers of central India have protected their water, forests, and land using their traditional knowledge generation after generation. Village assemblies in Korchi, India, along with resisting against mining, are actively engaged in reimagining and reconstructing systems of gendered direct democracy and gaining control over means of production. The Tharakans of Tharaka territory, traditionally known as Nthiguru iri Njuki (The Land of the Bees) in Kenya are reviving their rituals, ceremonies, and traditional governance to cope with the crises that the pandemic posed as a result of larger systemic crises; in turn revealing the resilience and strength of traditional knowledge systems and practices. These cosmovisons are part of these communities’ aesthetics rooted in their gritty experience, intuitive intelligence and interdependence. The Indian concept of Swaraj (from ancient India, popularised by Mahatma Gandhi during Independence struggle) is a combination of radical autonomy (individual and community level), responsibility for the well-being of others, restraint on one’s own consumption and behaviour so as not to impinge on the sovereignty and well-being of others, and a non-binary relationship between the material and the spiritual; as part of the ongoing processes in India, this has been extended to include the more-than-human world as ‘eco-swaraj’. These examples, as well as, several across the world have solidarity that binds all humans and more-than-humans together. These struggles are not just political but have sacredness, reverence for the rest of nature articulated in forms of rituals and prayers. Our existential challenge is: How do we build the Rights of Nature movement and other such discourses further based on these emerging coalitions? How do we bring in the voices of more-than-humans? How do we revive and sustain our relationship with the rest of nature to bring out systemic transformations? There is a need for cultural change that can bring about an ethics of care, a discourse that can alter the way we see the rest of nature, especially in the western world. Indigenous people around the world have respected the rest of nature as part of their worldviews, as part of living. In recent times, eco-feminists, gift economists, eco-spiritualists, have also argued for recognition of nature’s rights as part of attitudinal shifts in human beings – not only as legal measures but as a way of being. Ultimately, we will respect and achieve harmony with the rest of nature not so much because we have given it legal rights, but rather because it is simply the right thing to do. Abong River, Kaziranga National Park. Assam, India. All information as of 2024. Up-to-date developments on Rights of Nature cases can be found on the open-access platform EcoJurisprudence Monitor. 5 Thus we have to go a long way as long as we have an Apex court twisting the life with words only IF PRAKRIT IS PART OF BRAHMAM AND COMPANION OF PURUSHA, why not naturally the nature is a person? On the contrary, venkatachalapathy God made of stone and wood ia made a person for income taxation in India. Money alone counts K RAJARAM IRS 24226 On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 at 05:32, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > Fundamental Rights of Nature > > > > -- > *Mar*Yes — there *is a real, active global movement* advocating for what > philosophers, Indigenous cultures, and ecological justice activists call > the *“Freedom of Nature”* or *Rights of Nature*. These efforts go beyond > academic theory and aim to change how legal systems recognize nature—not as > property to exploit, but as a *rights-bearing entity* with legal standing > and protections. (Wild Law > <https://www.wildlaw.net/our-movement?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > ------------------------------ > 🌍 1. *The Rights of Nature Movement (Global)* > > A growing international movement now exists under the banner of *Rights > of Nature*: > > - > > *Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature* (GARN) is a worldwide > network of organizations and individuals working to *change laws and > policies* so that ecosystems, species, rivers, forests, and land are > recognized as having inherent rights—not just human property. They advocate > systems that protect these rights legally, similar to human or civil > rights. (Wild Law > <https://www.wildlaw.net/our-movement?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > - > > Dozens of laws, constitutional provisions, and court rulings now exist > across *about 40+ countries* recognizing some form of nature’s rights. > These include constitutional recognition in some countries and local legal > protections for rivers, forests, and other ecosystems. (Wild Law > <https://www.wildlaw.net/our-movement?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > > ------------------------------ > 📜 2. *Legal Recognition in National & Local Laws* > > Some important real-world examples: > 🧭 *Ecuador* > > - > > Ecuador became the *first country in the world* to include *Rights of > Nature* in its national Constitution in 2008. This enshrines nature’s > right to exist, regenerate, and maintain its processes, and obliges > citizens and governments to protect those rights. (Wild Law > <https://www.wildlaw.net/our-movement?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > - > > (Note: A 2025 referendum could reshape these rights; this shows the > movement is politically contested as well as alive.) (TIME > > <https://time.com/7333784/ecuador-constitution-referendum-rights-of-nature/?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > > 💧 *River and Ecosystem Rights* > > - > > Courts in Peru ruled that the *Marañón River* has rights and must be > protected from contamination and harmful development—an action led by > Indigenous campaigners and widely reported. (The Guardian > > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/21/mari-luz-canaquiri-murayari-indigenous-river-campaigner-peru-wins-goldman-prize?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > Municipal ordinances in Peru have also granted legal rights to *stingless > bees*, the first insects in the world recognized with rights to exist > and thrive. (The Guardian > > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/29/stingless-bees-from-the-amazon-granted-legal-rights-in-world-first?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > > 🪶 *United States Tribal Laws* > > - > > Several Indigenous nations in the U.S. — including the *Ponca Tribe of > Oklahoma* and the *White Earth Band of Ojibwe* — have passed laws > recognizing rights of nature for natural entities such as wild rice and > rivers. (Democratic and Environmental Rights Center > > <https://www.centerforenvironmentalrights.org/rights-of-nature-law-library?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > > ------------------------------ > 📌 3. *Civil Society Organizations Advancing Rights of Nature* > > These organizations are active beyond governments: > > - > > *Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights* (CDER) works on legal > strategies, including implementation of rights of nature in laws and court > cases globally. (Democratic and Environmental Rights Center > > <https://www.centerforenvironmentalrights.org/rightsofnature?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > *Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund* (CELDF) assists > communities in drafting and passing rights of nature laws at local and > regional levels, including historic efforts like the *Lake Erie Bill > of Rights* in Ohio. (CELDF > <https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > - > > *Movement Rights* focuses on Indigenous-led legal reform and > grassroots empowerment to embed nature’s rights into law across tribal and > local governments. (Climate Resilience Project > > <https://climateresilienceproject.org/strategies/rights-of-nature/?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > *Sacred Earth Activism* supports campaigns to integrate nature’s > rights into law through cultural and activist networks, including in places > like the UK. (Sacred Earth Activism > <https://www.sacredearthactivism.org/natures-rights?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > > ------------------------------ > 🌱 4. Indigenous and Grassroots Alignment > > While not always using Western legal language, *Indigenous movements* > globally champion similar ideas: > > - > > Organizations like the *Indigenous Environmental Network* argue for *Mother > Earth* as a rights-bearing entity based on deep spiritual and > ecological traditions. (Wikipedia > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Environmental_Network?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > Many Indigenous peoples’ assemblies and land rights campaigns (e.g., > in South America, North America, Asia) embed the concept that land, rivers, > and ecosystems have fundamental rights to life and integrity — a worldview > now gaining legal recognition in some cases. > > ------------------------------ > 🧠 What This Movement Represents > > This movement is *not just a slogan* — it is: > > - > > A *legal paradigm shift*: redefining nature’s status from property to > rights holder. (GARN > <https://www.garn.org/rights-of-nature/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > - > > A *social and cultural movement* rooted in Indigenous worldviews and > ecological justice. (Wikipedia > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Environmental_Network?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > A *growing body of law*: local ordinances, tribal laws, constitutional > rights, and international advocacy frameworks. (CELDF > <https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > > ------------------------------ > 🧭 Where the Momentum Is Headed > > Supporters hope that: > > - > > Rights of Nature becomes recognised at *national levels in more > countries*. (Stand Up For Your Rights! > > <https://www.standupforyourrights.org/rights-of-nature/what-are-the-rights-of-nature?utm_source=chatgpt.com> > ) > - > > Legal personhood for ecosystems becomes a common tool to *legally > protect nature* from development and pollution. > - > > Modern legal and economic systems begin to *prioritize ecological > well-being* alongside human rights. > > ------------------------------ > Summary > > Yes — there *is* a real, ongoing movement working toward the *freedom of > nature* and *legal recognition of nature’s fundamental rights*. It > includes global networks like the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, > legal advocacy groups, Indigenous political action, and innovative legal > victories in courts and constitutions. These efforts are both practical and > philosophical, and they represent one of the most concrete responses to the > very urgent ecological issues you raised. (Wild Law > <https://www.wildlaw.net/our-movement?utm_source=chatgpt.com>) > ------------------------------ > > If you want, I can also outline where *Rights of Nature laws have been > passed by country or region* — would that be helpful? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Thatha_Patty" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2B3V%3Do3PdLHA5jLLiGyLPPTiZWiwAopePkbvUTaPje_GA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2B3V%3Do3PdLHA5jLLiGyLPPTiZWiwAopePkbvUTaPje_GA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoovKKV%3DOadJfb9Xbpi4t2-tfT6MQjB1zqfOaXT1AxExhg%40mail.gmail.com.
