Rights of Nature (RoN) represent an innovative form of environmental governance. However, the diverse application of RoN across varying socio-ecological contexts remains under-researched. This paper employs the “Roots of Rights” (RoR) approach for a comparative analysis. We examine RoN’s institutionalisation, implementation, and contestation in Germany and Aotearoa New Zealand, focusing on underlying relational values. Our analytical framework investigates two core dimensions: political dynamics of marginalisation and the role of relational approaches in the codification process. The findings reveal a fundamental divergence in RoN’s function. In Germany, RoN operates primarily as a radical theoretical tool. It is used by civil society to challenge the prevailing anthropocentric legal tradition. Conversely, legal personhood in New Zealand (e.g., Whanganui River) is a direct political product of Treaty Settlements. These frameworks serve the political self-determination and emancipation of Māori Iwi. Crucially, they codify a deeply-rooted, pre-existing relational worldview (tikanga). We conclude that RoN functions as a “thin” conceptual instrument in Germany, but as a ‘”hick”, politically instrumental means of securing non-hegemonic norms in New Zealand.
Stefan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: