Symposium on Advisory Opinion AO-32/25 on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights: Rights of Nature and their Interpretive Role in Future Legal Argumentation

[María Paula Marroquín works at the Center for Studies and Dissemination of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. She holds a Bachelor of Laws from San Francisco de Quito University and an MA in Social Justice and Education from University College London.]

In July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHtR) issued the Advisory Opinion AO-32/25 on Climate Emergency and Human Rights. This instrument reinforces State obligations to ensure an effective response to climate change and protect the environment. Most importantly, the Advisory Opinion emphasizes its arguments for recognizing Nature’s rights as a paradigm that acknowledges the rights inherent in ecosystems (para. 279). 

This post examines the relevance of recognizing Nature’s Rights in Ecuador and beyond and argues that these jurisprudential approaches to Nature provide a laboratory of legal reasoning that can enrich inter-American human rights adjudication in the climate emergency context described in the Advisory Opinion.

2008 Ecuador’s Constitution: Nature as a Right Holder 

Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognize Nature’s rights. Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution declares: mandates: 

“Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life reproduces and flourishes, has the right to have its existence fully respected, as well as the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structures, functions, and evolutionary processes”.

This constitutional recognition has three relevant attributes: firstly, it leaves behind the anthropocentric perception of the environment and acknowledges Nature’s importance far beyond the sole human utility. Secondly, it distinguishes itself from classical human rights, which individuals exercise, by creating collective, ecosystemic, and non-derogable rights. Finally, it establishes an innovative normative framework where harm to ecosystems is a rights violation, not merely a regulatory breach. 

Constitutional Court of Ecuador Key Rulings

After the Constitution recognized Nature’s rights, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, the highest body for constitutional interpretation and administration of justice, developed key standards in landmark rulings:

• Ruling 1149-19-JP/21: the Court annulled mining concessions at the forest Los Cedros. The Court sustained this decision by developing the precautionary principle that implies the identification of the following elements: i) Potential risk of serious or irreversible damage; ii) Scientific uncertainty about these negative consequences; iii) The adoption of effective and timely protective measures by the State. The Court emphasized that the environmental authority had ignored the precautionary principle and allowed mining exploration activities in a fragile ecosystem, and proceeded to cancel them. 
• Ruling 2167-21-EP/22: the Court recognized that each ecosystem’s element, such as River “Monjas”, fulfills a specific role from which it derives its integral and individual value, without recognizing its value as a whole. Therefore, the damage of a river could affect, because of its connections to a whole ecosystem. The Court concluded that because of this, rivers are rights-holders with standing. 
• Ruling 253-20-JH/22: the Court extended rights of nature to animals, specifically a capuchin monkey named “Estrellita” by stating that animals should not be protected only by an ecosystem perspective, but from a view that recognizes their intrinsic values. The Court clarified that animals cannot be equitable to human beings, but that does not mean that they are not rights holders with their own particularities. 
• Ruling 273-19-JP/22: the Court examined a constitutional action where the Ministry of Energy, Natural and non-removable resources violated the rights of the indigenous community A’l Cofán of Sinangoe to prior consultation, to territory, to culture, to live in a healthy environment, to water, to health, to food, as well as the rights of nature, due to mining concessions in the area. The Court linked nature’s rights with collective indigenous rights to their ancestral territory and natural resources. 

In a short brief, the Court has developed the following important jurisprudential approaches: (i) the precautionary principle; (ii) the standing of ecosystems; (iii) animals as right holders; (iv) the link between Nature’s rights with collective indigenous rights.  These are some of the few examples that demonstrate that the Constitutional Court of Ecuador is building a coherent doctrine and developing new concepts that reinforce the acknowledgment of Nature as a right holder. 

Comparative Perspectives: Rights of Nature Beyond Ecuador

Besides Ecuador, there have been some countries that have recognized nature as a right holder. For example:

• Law of Mother Earth (Bolivia, 2010): Recognizes nature as a living being with inherent rights. The law emphasizes harmony between humans and nature, obligating the state and society to protect ecological systems for present and future generations. This law challenged the extractivist models, inspiring global debates on environmental personhood and offering a legal framework that intertwines Indigenous worldviews with modern environmental governance.
• Atrato River Case (Colombia, 2016): The Colombian Constitutional Court declared the Atrato River a subject of rights, recognizing its protection as essential for Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. It mandated guardianship structures combining state and local communities. It merged environmental protection with social justice, setting pa recedent for biocultural rights.
• Future Generations v. The Ministry of the Environment (Colombia, 2018): The Colombian Supreme Court granted the Amazon rainforest rights as a subject of protection, in response to youth claims about deforestation and climate change. This case underscored intergenerational justice, holding the state accountable for safeguarding ecosystems.
• Whanganui River (New Zealand, 2017): Through the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, New Zealand recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person, reflecting Māori cosmology that sees the river and people as one. The law grants the river rights and protections, with two guardians, one representing the Crown, and the other one from the Māori Iwi.
• Lake Erie Bill of Rights (United States, 2019–2020): In a local referendum, Toledo residents adopted the Lake Erie Bill of Rights to recognize the lake’s rights, aiming to address pollution and toxic algae blooms. However, a federal court struck it down in 2020 as unconstitutional. Despite its invalidation, the initiative sparked national dialogue on community-driven environmental protection and highlighted the tension between grassroots ecological movements and entrenched legal-economic systems.

These briefly studied jurisdictions showcase the recognition of Nature’s Rights through statutes, judicial rulings, or local initiatives, but Ecuador remains the only legal system that constitutionalizes the rights of nature. This high-level protection enables courts in this country to apply and interpret nature’s rights broadly and not only to specific ecosystems. Ecuador’s model integrates nature’s justice into its legal system foundation, reshaping its significance, enforcement, and cosmovision.

Possible Implications for Inter-American Future Legal Reasoning

The Advisory Opinion recognizes Nature’s right to conserve its essential ecological processes. The Interamerican Court declares that recognizing Nature’s rights will allow a long-term protection to prevent existential harm (para 279). The Court is innovative, as it abandons the anthropocentric vision for a more ecocentric one. 

This anthropocentric view, according to Faruque Hossain, relies on the perspective that humans are the only subjects of legal, moral, and social recognition, while Nature, animals, and their ecosystems are only valuable if they are useful to humans. In contrast, an ecocentric view relies on the fact that Nature fulfills its vital functions and that humans are part of that ecosystem. The IACHtR emphasizes that this recognition transcends the notion of Nature as an object, protecting its structural role (para 280).

The IACHtR interprets the American Convention through the Rights of Nature based on its evolutive perspective (para 282). This approach strengthens State obligations in climate crisis cases. Two consequences arise: (i) the Court will resolve environmental violations through this new paradigm, and (ii) failure to protect Nature will not only breach the law but also violate rights.

In this context, Ecuador’s jurisprudence offers a valuable “living laboratory” for such transnational borrowing. Through landmark cases like Cedros, Mona Estrellita, A’l Cofán of Sinangoe, and River Monjas, the Constitutional Court has operationalized constitutional rights of nature, demonstrating how courts can weigh ecological integrity against extractive interests. These rulings show how courts can balance ecological integrity against extractive interests, illustrating both the normative power and practical challenges of enforcing Nature’s rights.

The Inter-American Court could adapt Ecuador’s approach by: (i) expanding standing to protect animals, rivers, forests, and ecosystems as victims; (ii) strengthening the precautionary principle to demand resilience beyond damage-repair responses; and (iii) decolonizing Nature’s protection by safeguarding Indigenous peoples’ cosmovisions and relationships with their environment.

Looking forward, one strong thesis emerges: in the climate emergency, rights of nature must move beyond symbolism. They represent the foundation for rethinking state obligations and intergenerational justice. By framing environmental protection as an autonomous axis of justice rather than a derivative of human rights, the Inter-American Court could redefine international human rights law. The Advisory Opinion has the potential to embed ecological constitutionalism within this framework.

Challenges and Critical Reflections

Recognizing the rights of nature faces persistent challenges. The gap between symbolic recognition and enforceability poses a major risk. Constitutional or advisory recognition may remain groundbreaking in theory, but ineffective if institutions lack capacity, political will, or if economic priorities prevail. This could reduce rights of nature to aspirational rhetoric rather than transformative law. Powerful economic actors and state institutions may also resist ecocentric rulings, framing them as threats to development.

Another debate concerns the relationship between rights of nature and human rights. Critics fear that Nature’s rights may overshadow efforts to address human rights violations. However, environmental destruction undermines fundamental rights to life, health, and culture. Thus, far from creating conflict, Nature’s rights reinforce and extend human rights protection into the ecological sphere.

For the Inter-American Court, the central challenge lies in balancing its anthropocentric jurisprudence with a new ecocentric perspective that recognizes human well-being as inseparable from ecological integrity. Its ability to navigate this tension will determine whether it can lead the development of an inter-American doctrine of ecological justice responsive to the climate emergency.

Conclusions

Ecuador’s constitutional jurisprudence on Nature’s rights offers the Inter-American Court of Human Rights valuable interpretive tools to address climate emergency obligations in a holistic, ecocentric manner. By learning from Ecuador’s jurisprudence, the Court can move beyond anthropocentric limits and recognize the interdependence of human rights and ecological integrity. The Advisory Opinion already recognizes Nature as a subject of rights, but enforceability and future international jurisprudence remain pending. The Court should seize this moment to shape a new normative horizon that firmly integrates Nature’s rights.