There is an increasing push by environmentalists, scholars, and some politicians in favor of environmental rights stated in very general terms, sometimes referred to as “rights of nature” or “nature’s rights.” A milestone victory in this movement was the incorporation of rights of nature into the Ecuadorian constitution in 2008. However, there are reasons to be skeptical that general environmental rights will have the kinds of transformative effects that are anticipated by their most enthusiastic proponents. From a conceptual perspective, a number of difficulties arise when rights (or other forms of legal or moral consideration) are extended to non-human biological aggregates, such as species or ecosystems. There are two very general strategies for conceiving of the interests of such aggregates: a “bottom-up” model that grounds interest in specific aggregates (such as particular species or ecosystems), and then attempts to compare various effects on those specific aggregates; and a “top-down” model that grounds interests in the entire “biotic community.” Either approach faces serious challenges. Nature’s rights have also proven difficult to implement in practice. Courts in Ecuador, the country with the most experience litigating these rights, have had a difficult time using the construct of nature’s rights in a non-arbitrary fashion. The shortcomings of nature’s rights, however, do not mean that constitutional reform cannot be used to promote environmental goals. Recent work in comparative constitutional law indicates that organizational rights have a greater likelihood of achieving meaningful results than even quite concrete substantive rights. Protection for the role of environmental groups within civil society may, then, serve as the most effective way for constitutional reform to vindicate the interests that motivate the nature’s rights movement.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of San Bernardino...
On Aug. 14, a Montana district court released a groundbreaking decision for climate change activists. In Held v. Montana, the court announced that...
This article discusses the links between climate and debt sustainability by focusing on how climate mitigation and adaptation are paid for, and who...
Environmentalists are frustrated that President Joe Biden agreed to greenlight the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline, or MVP, as part of the...
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped an absolute bombshell with its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Early assessments...
The Supreme Court’s new term begins on the first Monday of October. But before delving into the most important environmental case yet to be heard, it...
Environmental justice is rooted in an understanding that people of color and low-income communities are more likely than the population at large to...
Public nuisance has lived many lives. A centuries-old doctrine defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, it is...
This chapter first explains how the federal Clean Water Act is linked with the implementation of other major environmental laws in the United States...
New legislation on Capitol Hill brings us closer than ever to having comprehensive data privacy protection and a civil right to intimate privacy. The...
Contributions to solving the globe’s environmental crisis are properly expected to come from every country to a greater or lesser degree depending on...
This paper, which appeared as Chapter 7 in Johnston, Climate Rationality: From Bias to Balance (2021), explains the economic and energy security...
This paper, which appeared as Chapter 7 in Johnston, Climate Rationality: From Bias to Balance (2021), explains the economic and energy security...
Roundtable Series for Environmental Law Faculty on the Future of Legal Education
ROUNDTABLE Three Questions Addressed by Authors: