The Rights of Nature movement has been steadily growing in recent years. Multiple countries have now granted nature legal rights. As it has grown, it has invited comparison with another aspirational legal system: Human Rights. Some proponents of Rights of Nature have argued for linkage between the two systems, while others seem to suggest that they are at odds with each other. This Note undertakes a critical analysis of the relationship between Rights of Nature and Human Rights. It uses the analyses of Finnish legal scholar Martti Koskenniemi, who has advanced one of the most cogent critiques of rights. This Note first considers court cases from Colombia, India, and the United States where Human Rights and Rights of Nature have gone up against each other, demonstrating the conflict that can arise between competing rights in a system. The philosophies that underlie both systems are then compared. The two systems rely on greatly different philosophical underpinnings, and necessarily reflect different value judgments. This Note suggests that there are still ways forward for Rights of Nature to succeed. The idea of “biocultural rights,” where nature’s rights and the rights of human populations are linked together, serves to make people friends with nature instead of foes. Mainstream Human Rights has suffered criticism that it is too internationalist and takes the individual out of their context. Biocultural rights could be a step forward.

Continue reading The River Divides, the River Unites: A Critique of the Relationship Between Human Rights and the Rights of Nature.