Preis 2025 der Winter Stiftung
für Rechte der Natur

This thesis examines "Rights of Nature" (RoN) as adopted in the United States, Ecuador, Bolivia, New Zealand and Colombia, with a particular focus on the "Rights of Rivers". It looks at six crosscutting aspects: the sources of law, the holders of the rights, the content of the rights granted, the conditions for limitations, the designation of legal representatives, and the possibilities for legal enforcement. It also provides an overview of the relevant context, the origins of the RoN in the five countries, and the legal reality. The comparison reveals that the examined RoN share certain similarities.
Typically, a more complex organization level is recognized as rights-holders, such as “ecosystems” or “water catchment areas”, and protection applies to a condition that extends beyond mere existence, similar to the concept of "ecosystem health" developed in the field of natural science. Moreover, violations of these rights often give rise to a right to restoration, and the precautionary principle is allocated a significant role.
However, substantial differences exist, including varying conditions for limitations and diverse models for representation. Building on these findings, considerations were made regarding the legal situation in Austria, especially concerning public environmental law in relation to the protection of water bodies. Ultimately, the analysis suggests that RoN could yield substantial advantages. One of their strengths lies in the shift of perspective that makes legal gaps visible.
Furthermore, establishing RoN as fundamental rights could ensure they are respected, protected, and guaranteed by the state. Any interference with these rights would be carefully assessed to determine if they are provided by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and are necessary, adequate, and proportionate. The regenerative capacity of an ecosystem might serve as an absolute barrier to interference.

Dr.in Tina Rametsteiner, E.MA
Universitätsassistentin PostDoc für Öffentliches Recht

Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversität
Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaften
Lasallestraße 3
1020 Wien

The Rights of Nature idea, which recognizes natural entities as rights holders, is the most innovative development considered as the response to current environmental challenges. This paperexplores the question of whether it is necessary to integrate nature as a non-human human rights subject into the European Human Rights System. Therefore, environmental-ethics concepts provide the normative framework for the case law analysis of the ECHR. Those concepts differentiate between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of an entity.
In the case law, models can be formed on this normative basis:
Model 1 shows that nature is subject to indirect protection. Since the Convention is silent on environmental matters, environmental concerns either serve as legitimate aim to limit certain rights and freedoms, such as property rights under Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (limiting function) or are incorporated into various Convention rights, with particular emphasis on Article 8 ECHR (annex function).
Model 2 shows that the Convention does not focus on directprotection of the environment. Against the background of global ecological crisis, the strong anthropocentric approach of the ECHR is not sustainable (anymore).
Against this background the ECHR also provides a weak anthropocentric approach in its historic judgment in the VereinKlimaseniorinnen case. In contrast, the IACHR takes a physiocentric approach in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, stating that the autonomous right to a healthy environment grants rights to the environment. With a potential integration of nature as non-human subject in the European System, follow-up research is required.

My Hanh Pham
Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin,
Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Völkerrecht und Menschenrechte
Universität Erlangen

Abstract
In 2016, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as the first water body in Latin America to have its own rights. This article interrogates the historical roots of the judicial decision declaring the river a rights holder. Drawing on my long-term engagement with social organizations as an activist, lawyer, and then researcher, I illuminate the influence of Black people from the Atrato River in the transformation of law in at least three areas: ethnic territorial rights, transitional justice, and river rights. To do so, I combine interdisciplinary theoretical critique with socio-legal research using community-based and autoethnographic approaches to trace the community methods and historical practices of political contestation deployed along the rivers. Thus, I conceptualize how an organic and distinctive style of claiming and creating rights has been constructed in the basin. Moreover, by listening to the voices of the riverine representatives, I argue that the river is a nonhuman existence that has participated in the processes of rights-making in conjunction with local communities and a broader mosaic of allied actors. However, I also outline how legal systems still function to overlook crucial socio-legal claims of marginalized and resistant communities.

Abstract
Mittlerweile ist die Vorstellung von Natur als Inhaberin von Rechten keineswegs mehr abwegig, sondern nimmt im rechtswissenschaftlichen Diskurs einen breiten Raum ein und wird in einzelnen Rechtsordnungen dem Praxistest unterzogen. Der Frage, ob Rechte der Natur auch vertragliche Rechte sein können, wurde bislang allerdings nicht genauer nachgegangen.
Vertragsverhandlungen erlauben es uns und zwingen uns sogar dazu, die Interessen einer anderen Person besser zu verstehen und bei der eigenen Entscheidungsfindung zu berücksichtigen. Ökonomisch ausgedrückt: Verträge sind ein Mittel, um externe Effekte zu internalisieren. Dieses Modell hängt maßgeblich davon ab, wer als Partei zählt, die am Verhandlungsprozess teilnimmt. Die ökonomische Literatur bezieht sich dabei traditionell auf andere Menschen und ihre individuellen, vermeintlich eigennützigen Interessen. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht, inwieweit das Modell des Vertrages auch auf unsere Interaktion mit der Natur angewandt werden kann, um Wege zu finden, auf denen Menschen ihre Interessen im Sinne einer nachhaltigen Koexistenz an der Natur und anderen Spezies ausrichten und zur Konfliktlösung mit nicht-menschlichen Interessen in einen Dialog treten.

Dr. Felix Aiwanger

Wissenschaftlicher Referent, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Hamburg