In this talk, I first offer a quick overview of a forthcoming book entitled “From Sovereignty to Guardianship: Governing Antarctica, Governing the World”. In it, I propose that Antarctica should not only be seen as a laboratory for the natural sciences, but also for territorial governance, providing inspiration in places where both the regime of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources of individual states and the international regime of Common Heritage of Mankind have proven insufficient and inadequate. At the same time, I show that Antarctic governance can be made less state-centric and less anthropocentric by incorporating the political representation of nature in decision-making processes that affect the continent. To successfully protect Antarctica, I claim moreover that action must be taken beyond it: governing Antarctica requires governing the world, and vice versa. Given the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss that we face and the growing challenges to international law and cooperation, environmental governance around the world can—and should—benefit from the creative and often unexpectedly fruitful Antarctic political imagination.
After this general overview, I focus on the question of the political representation of Antarctica. In line with a global movement advocating for the rights of nature and of the movement Rights of Antarctica, I examine the claim that Antarctica as one thriving community of life should be considered as the subject of political and legal representation. I present some defences for the rights of natural entities in domestic constituencies and point to important differences between them and the Antarctic case. I discuss the political, legal, and institutional challenges of considering Antarctica as a political and legal subject. Among them: how to challenge the monopoly of states as decision-makers, how to pick nature’s representatives, and how to modify existing institutions and create new ones to make this representation possible. The promise of moving in this direction, I argue, is to overcome state-centrism and anthropocentrism in international law, building a precedent for the representation of other natural entities and places beyond Antarctica.
How to cite: Mancilla, A.: Representing Planetary Nature: The Promise and Challenges of Rights of Antarctica, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-153, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-153, 2026.
The notion that natural entities like forests, rivers, lagoons, and glaciers should be turned from objects into legal subjects with their own rights or legal personality has increasingly gained traction in Europe. This is underscored by the legal recognition of the Mar Menor lagoon by the Spanish legislator, an Act upheld by the Constitutional Court.
Skepticism surrounding the concept, however, remains., Among other things, this is because a range of alternative frameworks for the protection of nature have been developed in various European jurisdictions. These include the right of associations to file public interest lawsuits or judicial precedents establishing human rights obligations to curb harmful emissions. From this viewpoint, Rights of Nature – often perceived as an idea “transplanted” from the Global South – are rejected by some as incompatible with European legal traditions.
Drawing on our comprehensive analysis of Rights of Nature initiatives adopted across Europe, we show that only a few have resulted in concrete Rights of Nature norms being incorporated into legislation. We nevertheless contend that evaluating the merits of Rights of Nature in Europe solely on the basis of their direct legal outcomes is unduly narrow. In the current "age of rights", asserting rights is frequently a means of catalyzing broader, transformative societal changes – changes that cannot be fully achieved through legal processes alone. Human rights as both legal and moral rights serve as a prime example of this phenomenon. Similarly, the animal rights movement has employed analogous strategies.
Building on expressive theories of law, we argue that the European experience highlights the dual character of the Rights of Nature concept as both legal and expressive. Beyond its potential to generate direct doctrinal or institutional innovations, the expressive dimension of Rights of Nature can play a significant role in raising public awareness and increasing the salience of environmental issues. With its emotive language and symbolism affirming the intrinsic value of and our responsibility for local natural entities, such as the Swiss glaciers, the concept can play a role in reshaping public perceptions and fostering a deeper, more broadly shared commitment to environmental protection.
How to cite: Reich, J. and Hausammann, F.: Legal and expressive: the dual nature of Rights of Nature in Europe, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-683, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-683, 2026.
Since the landmark ruling in Ecuador in 2021 stopping mining activities in the Cloud Forest »Los Cedros« citing the »rights of the forest« the concept of Rights of Nature (RoN) has gained a lot of attention. RoN are currently introduced or fought for in many parts of the world as a – potentially – powerful legal strategy in order to protect biodiverse ecosystems. RoN obviously have a close connection to biodiversity since they are protecting ecosystems rather than individual organisms, species or specific (a)biotic factors of the environment. Many scholars have argued that RoN are also an acknowledgement of biodiversity’s intrinsic value, insofar as they are granted on behalf of nature. My argument starts with the observation that well known cases of RoN are primarily fought for and granted to attractive, relatively undisturbed biodiversity hotspots, often situated in the global south. While these »organismic like« ecosystem are especially well suited for raising awareness for RoN, the question remains how natural entities that deviate from the above mentioned qualities can be introduced in a RoN framework.
Specifically, I will ask, first, how already degraded and/or polluted landscapes challenge our conception of RoN. The second challenge for RoN are cases where rights are not given to nature as apart from humans but to human-nature entangled diversity, as for example the case for Manoomin (wild rice) in 2018. The third challenge concerns potential natural legal subjects that are either difficult to grasp due to their constitution, life-style or size, like fungi or waves, not well known, like the deep sea, or adverse to human health, like viruses.
I raise these challenges because they are part of an – ongoing – evolution of the theoretical and legal development of RoN. These challenges can thus be seen as a second shift in our conception of and relationship with nature within the RoNframework, drawing attention to humanity’s diverse and conflicted relationship with nature.
How to cite: Backhaus, E.: Whales, Rice, and Waves: Recent Developments in the More Than Human Rights Movement, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-898, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-898, 2026.
In February 2024, Colombia's Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) declared the Cauca River a victim of armed conflict - the first time a river has received such legal recognition. By December 2026, the JEP must determine what reparations are owed to address decades of ecological harm, including pollution, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. This decision will establish global precedent for translating nature's legal rights into concrete environmental interventions.
Our interdisciplinary research integrates ecological science with transitional justice frameworks to inform this unprecedented reparations case. We developed quantitative assessments of ecological harm through species distribution modelling and analysis of environmental and conflict-related spatial data sets. These methods enabled us to establish baseline biodiversity conditions and attribute observed degradation to conflict-related activities versus other anthropogenic pressures.
Working alongside legal scholars, river stakeholders, and Colombian researchers, we are translating ecological findings into legally defensible reparative measures aligned with established principles of victim-centred justice. This requires navigating fundamental questions: How do we define "recovery" for a river system? Should reparations target the main stem exclusively, or must they address tributary networks? What temporal and spatial scales are appropriate for intervention?
Our emerging framework addresses these challenges through process-based restoration design that considers both immediate remediation needs and long-term ecosystem trajectory. The approach balances scientific rigour with the practical constraints of judicial timelines and implementation capacity in post-conflict contexts.
Beyond informing the Cauca case, this work establishes methodological precedent for operationalising Rights of Nature declarations globally. We demonstrate how ecological science can move beyond its advisory role to become integral in legal decision-making for rights-bearing natural entities. Our "blueprint" for nature reparations offers transferrable principles for future cases while acknowledging the site-specific complexity inherent in ecosystem restoration.
This presentation will share insights from bridging scientific assessment with legal implementation, examining both successes and challenges encountered when giving nature its own voice in justice processes. The work illustrates how interdisciplinary collaboration can transform symbolic legal recognition into measurable ecological outcomes.
How to cite: Wilkes, M., Lostal, M., Valencia-Rodríguez, D., Restrepo Santamaria, D., and Jiménez-Segura, L.: Operationalising Rights of Nature: Ecological Reparations for the Cauca River, Colombia, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-436, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-436, 2026.
Given the decline in biodiversity across aquatic ecosystems and the increasing risk of ecosystem collapse, initiatives oriented towards the recognition of water bodies as subjects of rights emerged in different geographical, economic, and cultural contexts. In this study, we analyze two distinct cases, each located in a country represented by one of the researchers, who therefore possess contextual knowledge of both the natural and legal aspects.
The first case addresses a 2025 constitutional amendment proposal submitted by a Swiss NGO to the Canton of Lucerne, aiming at the recognition of the legal rights and personhood of the Reuss River. The amendment seeks to include the assurance of fundamental rights, legal personality, the right to existence, and ecological integrity of these non-human entities in the Constitution.
The second case concerns a Public Civil Action of a structural nature, initiated in 2021 by lawyers and researchers from a Research Group at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, filed before the Federal Court in Florianópolis, Brazil. In this lawsuit, the creation of new socio-ecological governance institutions that preserve the natural integrity of the ecosystem was requested, as well as the recognition of the Lagoa da Conceição lagoon as a subject of rights. Both the Reuss River and Lagoa da Conceição have faced severe biodiversity degradation that motivated these legal actions.
Our aim is to analyze the differences and similarities between these two cases in relation to their juridical and political systems, as well as their consequences for biodiversity preservation and the possibilities for representing water bodies. The Swiss case involves a constitutional amendment that potentially confers legal personhood on the Reuss River, enabling it to represent its own interests as a hybrid legal personality. In contrast, the Brazilian case is grounded in a judicial decision that seeks to establish a governance mechanism—the Judicial Chamber—for Lagoa da Conceição, while also recognizing the active legal standing of associations advocating for its rights. By incorporating philosophical perspectives, we also intend to analyze the legitimacy of these forms of representation for water bodies to evaluate which model may be most suitable to protect biodiversity.
How to cite: Tabares Fagundez, G. and Wallimann-Helmer, I.: Recognizing Water Bodies as Subjects of Rights and Reversing Biodiversity Loss: A Comparative Case Study of Brazil and Switzerland, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-490, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-490, 2026.
Rights-based approaches are increasingly positioned as essential to reconciling biodiversity protection with social justice outcomes. While the rights of nature and of communities are now widely invoked in global conservation discourse, less attention is paid to the rights of individuals who enter the criminal justice system for wildlife offences. Yet these individuals occupy a critical junction in human–nature relations: their post-release pathways shape both ecological outcomes and the legitimacy of conservation governance. This paper argues that implementation of rights-based conservation must account for the reintegration rights of those sanctioned under conservation law.
Drawing on a mixed-methods study of twelve wildlife crime offenders nearing release from five correctional facilities in Zambia, the analysis identifies how the conditions experienced during and after incarceration can either undermine or reinforce both human rights and nature’s rights. A structured, researcher-led intervention revealed three latent domains shaping reintegration trajectories—Structural–Personal Vulnerability, Relational Opportunity, and External Structural Pressure. These domains reflected intersecting constraints such as poverty, social stigma, institutional fragmentation, and unstable housing. While several participants demonstrated improved opportunity orientation and strong family reconnection post-release, others experienced deteriorating conditions that heightened their vulnerability and indirectly increased ecological risk.
The study demonstrates that enforcement-led conservation generates some predictable rights tensions. Where post-release environments are characterised by stigma, limited livelihood access, and weak institutional coordination, individuals’ rights to dignity, security, and economic participation are compromised. At the same time, ecological rights are jeopardised when reintegration fails, as individuals with constrained options remain structurally exposed to reoffending. Conversely, when reintegration support is stable, relational, and locally grounded, the rights of nature and the rights of people become mutually reinforcing: desistance from offending increases, legitimacy of conservation institutions improves, and ecosystem protection benefits.
The paper concludes that rights-based conservation cannot be operationalised solely at the level of communities or ecosystems. It must explicitly include post-enforcement responsibilities, recognising reintegration as a core component of a socially just, ecologically coherent rights framework. This reframing strengthens both compliance and legitimacy and highlights the importance of integrating reintegration support into future rights-of-nature and ecosystem-based management debates.
How to cite: Richards, E.: Reintegration as a Conservation Right: What Post-Release Trajectories of Wildlife Crime Offenders Reveal About Human–Nature Rights Trade-offs, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-286, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-286, 2026.
In the midst of the biodiversity and climate crises, the world is looking to the rapidly growing and impactful fields of human and nature-based rights as a promising toolkit for achieving more sustainable futures for humans and the rest of nature. In recent years, there has been enormous progress in both fields related to the ocean, not least in equipping society with legal instruments that support efforts for coping with and reversing the impacts of climate change, overexploitation and pollution on marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. This contribution draws on rights-based material reviewed in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. Visions for brighter human-ocean futures, and strategies and corresponding options for achieving transformative change in the ocean context are highlighted through a rights-based lens. Further, we consider watershed initiatives in the rapidly growing legal field in support of marine ecosystem well-being, examining their successes and potential implications for ocean-focussed decision-making. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (UN 2022), including the right to a stable climate, has been pivotal in initiating strong global action on land and for the ocean. The Ocean Rights Declaration launched in 2025, the supporting Ocean Rights Movement, and the Rights of Nature already declared for ocean components in several nations, all provide promising fundamental shifts in perspectives and governance in the marine realm. We provide a perspective on what human rights and rights of nature are bringing to the decision-making table in terms of the potential synergies, trade-offs and alignments in how they are supporting and/or could jointly encourage more sustainable practices and uses related to the ocean and its rich wildlife, resources, values and functions.
How to cite: Shannon, L., Morgera, E., Gosnell, H., Riddell, D., Ifejika Speranza, C., Gordon, E., Pitts, H., Villasante, S., Rodriguez-Garavito, C., and Bender, M.: Exploring Ocean-related Rights in a Transforming World, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-249, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-249, 2026.
