For the longest time, Nature has always stood as a purpose-built commodity for mankind. From providing life on the planet to sustaining the same, its ecosystems are viewed most of the time as service providers for humans, defying their own appanage. All the conventions established, agreements signed, and policies regulated share the same goals: to acquire more resources for use in services provided to humans. Mother Nature, in her purest form, is a resource that humans exploit, leading to her demise under the guise of sustainability. But in the latest times, we see a movement rising.
A radical activism in declaring Nature a legal standing precisely began in 2008 when Ecuador introduced “Rights of Nature’’ in its constitution. This doctrine was entitled “Pachamama”, which refers to the idea that Nature should be entitled to respect for its existence and the maintenance of its evolutionary processes. The first judgement ruled against a construction company for the construction of a road which dumped rubble into the river Vilcabamba. Similarly, in the same measure, the river Whanganui in New Zealand won the right to be protected under the act known as the Te Awa Tupua Act.
As a result of this, the river was designated as a legal person and won its respective rights as such. These actions are taken to substantiate the argument that nature is not only a resource for humans to maintain their existence but also a subtle entity having its own intrinsic value rather than being used as a human property for their prosperity.
Such notions and practices challenge the traditional concept of only granting humans a legal status. These impressions remain detached from the idea that humans own everything. States that possess supreme sovereignty within their territories regard nature as subordinate. But the practice is now altering, with activism rising to grant nature its own legal status.
As per having a legal standing, the exploitation of Laws of Nature then leads to jurisdiction according to the corresponding circumstance. However, when “locus standi” is attributed to Mother Nature, it should be granted formal status, a defence mechanism, and strategic implications to fulfil its intended purpose. Above all, the Rights of Nature, if included in the constitution, must not act as a pawn in the monopoly of politics and monetary rewards.