Extinction or Prosperity? Sovereignty for Nature and Natural Rights Governance for Sustainable Future

Part 2

As I argued in the first part of the theory on Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG), the Development–Destruction Trap exposes how modern governance structures are enabling intergenerational harm and planetary injustice by prioritizing GDP growth and resource extraction over life-supporting systems. This second part engages in a necessary alternative: the paradigm of Nature’s Sovereignty (NS). Here, I bring forward the exact formulations and propositions articulated in my book Sovereignty for Nature and Natural Rights Governance for Sustainable Future which outlines how nature’s supremacy, when respected, offers the foundational architecture for justice-based, ecologically-aligned governance.

The Choice Before Us: Business-as-Usual or Natural Rights Led Governance

Today's global governance and development paradigms—rooted in colonial, capitalist, and anthropocentric models—have normalized ecological destruction through laws and economic systems that disregard the inherent rights of nature. The resulting crises, including climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse, and rising sea levels, are inevitable outcomes of these flawed systems. To build a just future, we must adopt Nature's Sovereignty: a philosophy that centers life, ecosystems, and justice over profit and convenience.

Governments need to embed ecological conservation into policies, laws, and cooperation frameworks. Industries must transition from extractive to regenerative practices, creating circular economies that restore ecosystems. Moreover, education should teach coexistence ethics alongside science, fostering a generation committed to protecting nature. Philanthropic and youth-led communities and indigenous voices must be empowered to lead community-based conservation. Technology should support ecological goals without worsening inequalities and leaving burdens for future generations.

Although transformative change faces resistance, crises create opportunities for systemic shifts. A world with clean rivers, thriving forests, and harmonious cities is achievable through decisive action. Nature's Sovereignty provides a hopeful, practical framework to restore balance and ensure survival, calling for immediate collective action to secure resilience and just future for generations to come.

Nature’s Sovereignty: Establishing New Relationships Between People and Nature

Nature has its own order, sovereignty, and governance structure. It is fully operational under the domain of natural law and is expressed through its own behavioral patterns. These laws are not written by human hands but observed through the continuity, harmony, and balance in ecosystems, seasonal cycles, circadian rhythms, and biogeochemical processes.

"Nature operates through a nonnegotiable order. The laws of nature were not and cannot be created by any man-made institution."

The governance system must be derived from the characteristics and the supremacy of nature.  The five determinants sketched in the diagram form the philosophical and institutional foundation for NRLG, demanding a radical reorientation-from dominance to coexistence, from extraction to restoration, from entitlement to responsibility.

Institutionalizing Nature’s Sovereignty: The recognition of nature’s supremacy must be institutionalized across governance structures, planning systems, and public decision-making. "The goal is not to adapt nature to human institutions, but to rebuild institutions that reflect the values, logic, and limits of nature."

Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth moves in this direction. It requires that state ministries, policies, and budgets reflect the principle of "Living Well" (Vivir Bien). Decision-making is anchored in ecological thresholds, biodiversity conservation, and regenerative processes, compelling institutions to act not as managers of natural resources, but as guardians of nature’s continuity.

In New Zealand, the legal personhood of the Whanganui River, recognized after 140 years of Māori advocacy, has led to a shared guardianship model between the state and indigenous communities. This institutional arrangement treats the river as a living presence requiring care, voice, and representation rather than an object of ownership. Institutionalizing Nature’s Sovereignty means integrating natural laws and rights into the design of governance itself, such as by assessing policy by ecological consequences and measuring legitimacy by whether decisions sustain the interdependence of life. This shift is the only way to rebuild systems that are now visibly collapsing under the weight of their own ecological denial.

me.

Natural Rights of Lives and Nature: Entrusted by Sovereignty of Nature

Prominent philosophers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant championed the importance of natural rights (NRs). Locke included life among the basic NRs, together with liberty and property. (Herbert, 1996) Kant related life to human dignity, every human being should be treated as an end in himself, not to an end. (Kant, 1900–) NRs e.g. inhaling  fresh air, access to healthy water and food are birth rights of every living being of the planet, rights which exist by the virtue of being part of nature.

Thinkers like Locke and Rousseau emphasized liberty as essential to human dignity and mutual respect. Key declarations (e.g., U.S. 1776, France 1789) embedded these principles in law. In the modern era, liberty informs human rights frameworks and social contracts, though protection for NRs is minimal. Liberty is the inherent ability of individuals to act freely without infringing on others' rights; it is not granted by institutions but exists independently, grounded in moral equality and ethical responsibility.

The modern applications of the NR to life are defined as

a) Human Rights and Social Justice (struggles against ecocides, genocides, and systemic oppression and averting poverty etc.)

b) Bioethics (Debates around questions of euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty)

c) Environmental Sustainability (increasingly connects with environmental justice);

d) Global Peace and Security: International humanitarian laws and treaties work to protect all forms of life during armed conflicts based on this very premise-to respect life and dignity of all.

Science has been revealing the knowledge on nature system but there remains significant unveiled knowledge of the nature system. For millions year the oceans, Amazan forest and the great Himalaya mountain exist, however, several self-claimed highly modernized nations e.g. the Maya Civilization (Central America), the Sumerian Civilization (Mesopotamia), the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) Civilization, and the Indus Valley Civilization (Harappan Civilization) collapsed caused by combined human-caused environmental degradation with social or political conflict.

These historical examples underscore the significance of ecological stewardship and governance rooted in natural limits- aligning closely with the NRLG philosophy. NRLG demands that governance recognizes nature as not an object to be managed, but a subject entitled to protection. The NRLG doctrine identifies the Natural Rights to a) Life or Self-dignity of Lives and Nature; b) Liberty or Freedom; c) Social Harmony & Justice; and d) Indigenous Knowledge & Culture.

This shift has begun to surface in select legal systems where these rights are no longer philosophical ideas but actionable legal mandates. Ecuador stands as a notable example. Its 2008 Constitution was the first in the world to recognize nature - or “Pachamama”- as a rights-bearing entity. A watershed moment came with the Vilcabamba River case, where a road-widening project had illegally deposited debris into the river, altering its natural flow. The river, represented in court as a rights-holder, was not treated as property harmed but as a subject injured, with the Provincial Court of Loja ruling in favor of the river and recognizing the violation of the rights of nature. This case illustrates that harm to ecosystems is no longer just an environmental infraction-it becomes a rights violation. This sets the stage for a broader jurisprudence of nature, where harm to forests, wetlands, or species is redressed through realignment with ecological integrity.

Natural Rights Led Governance: A Pathway To Achieve Ultimate Natural Rights Governance

NRLG is a foundational shift in institutional design. It recognizes that all life forms are entitled to natural rights by virtue of their existence within nature’s system. These rights are universal, unchangeable, and indivisible. They do not derive legitimacy from human institutions - they are inherent. NRLG thus requires:

a) Legal frameworks that uphold nature as a rights-bearing subject

Nature should be recognized as a juridical person with legally enforceable rights. This means codifying the rights of ecosystems to exist, to thrive, and to regenerate within national and international legal systems. As seen in Ecuador and New Zealand, , recognition shifts the paradigm from one of exploitation to protection, empowering communities and institutions to act as nature's advocates. This argument has prior foundation, and prominent philosopher Ibn Khaldun claimed that “When the soil is neglected, productivity declines, and this is the beginning of society’s decline.” (Khaldun, 1967). That’s why the judicial recognition of environmental harm such as rights violations or crimes against nature should replace existing global systems. For example, the International Court of Justice should be required to ensure the natural rights of all lives and nature by applying the NRLG framework.

b) Protection of Life and Property: Ultimate Sustainability for All

The protection of life and property under NRLG treats ecological security as human security. An example includes Bangladesh’s Cyclone Preparedness Program which drastically reduced cyclone deaths. The Community-led governance, as in India’s Forest Rights Act, strengthens local land rights and prevents forced displacement. Legal frameworks such as Ecuador’s Rights of Nature and the Paris Agreement ensure resilience against climate risks. Global, national, and community level mechanisms should be evolved over time for ecological restoration and reparation. Public policies should align with the natural law rather than the imperfect knowledge-based state law with biophysical thresholds. To operate these shifts, government must internalize that ecological responsibility supersedes human entitlement. It is not about granting rights to nature, but acknowledging the rights nature already possesses and has exercised long before human codification. Therefore, NRLG transforms the architecture of governance itself from vertical command-and-control to embedded ecological accountability.

c) Nature Justice: From Conflict to Harmony

Nature Justice (NJ) calls for human actions to align with na tural laws and prioritize ecosystem restoration over mere harm management. NJ embodies principles such as the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, fair distribution to prevent exploitation, protection from unjust state or individual interference, and promotion of meritocracy and opportunity. It ensures people are rewarded based on contribution and effort, not privilege. Crucially, it recognizes the intrinsic value and rights of all beings. Ultimately, NJ demands equitable treatment of all life forms and a commitment to ecological restoration and fairness The shift toward NJ is exemplified by the Constitutional Court of Colombia’s recognition of the Atrato River as a rights-bearing entity. After years of illegal gold mining and state

negligence, the court ruled that the river’s degradation violated both the rights of nature and the rights of the Afro-Colombian communities who lived along it. The court mandated a revolutionary guardianship structure with equal representation from the state and the affected communities. The river was no longer an object of regulation-it became a subject of co-governance, thus restoring both the river's and communities' dignity. Similarly, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled in favor of the Ogiek people in Kenya, who had been evicted from their ancestral forestlands under colonial and post-colonial conservation regimes. By reinstating their land rights, the court recognized that indigenous ecological stewardship as a precondition to conservation. NJ then, is not just a doctrine but a process. It is measured in biodiversity recovery, in restored watershed functions, in the return of migratory species, and in the recognition of indigenous law. It requires participatory governance that dismantles extractive models and replaces them with frameworks of care, reciprocity, and ecological reparation.

d) Governance by Natural Law and Enforce Natural Accountability

Natural Law (NL), is a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. NL was first articulated by Aristotle, who argued for a natural justice valid everywhere regardless of local laws. Aquinas later expanded this, viewing natural law as part of divine law accessed through human reason to align life with God. Finnis further refined this, emphasizing human flourishing and defining what is truly "good" for humanity. NL also reflects the inherent self-regulating systems of nature and the galaxy, which sustain themselves without external force.

NL functions through balance, feedback loops, and regenerative capacity. It cannot be repealed or amended by parliaments. The legitimacy of any governance system must be tested against its alignment with natural law.  A law that permits the extinction of species or the degradation of rivers may be procedurally valid, but it is substantively illegitimate in the eyes of nature.

"Governance must not violate the Natural Law. If it does, it loses legitimacy not just morally but ecologically."

Bolivia’s Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth is a landmark articulation of governance grounded in NL. It reframes Earth as a living system with rights to life, regeneration, and continuity.  This shift echoes the knowledge systems of indigenous communiti es,.

 where governance is practiced through seasons, soil, and sky—not just statutes.

Similarly, in 2019, the High Court of Bangladesh granted all rivers in Bangladesh the status of "legal person" or "living entity", aiming to strengthen their protection against encroachment and pollution. The court also appointed the National River Conservation Commission, though was ineffective, as the legal guardian of all rivers in the country. The decision catalyzed a legal discourse on whether governance systems that degrade their own life-support systems can truly claim legitimacy.

These legal innovations mark a reawakening to a foundational truth: ecological collapse is not a failure of policy—it is a failure of law to recognize nature’s sovereignty. Governance by NL thus invites jurisprudence rooted in planetary ethics, not political convenience. 

Rule by NL introduces natural accountability- a stringent, nature-guided system ensuring justice-based outcomes regardless of race, wealth, or geography. Unlike traditional accountability grounded in existing governance principles, organizational management, and legal systems aligning with the capitalist economic governance, the natural accountability emphasizes moral obligations derived from nature itself, advocating intergenerational and cross-species responsibility. Key examples illustrate this in practice:

a) Corporate accountability, where companies proactively assess and disclose environmental impacts, ensuring zero harm policies;

b) Government policies, such as laws to reduce deforestation, enforce zero tolerance on environmental violations; and c) Community stewardship, where Indigenous groups sustainably manage forests, rivers, and fisheries, using resources only as needed to preserve them for future generations. Natural accountability bridges human action and ecological ethics, fostering transparent, equitable, and sustainable environmental governance, and embodies the precautionary principle to protect future life and ecosystems.

Equity, Integrity, and Shared Rights

Natural Rights governance is built on interconnected pillars centering both humans and nature.

Human equity ensures all people have equal access to resources and decision-making, regardless of socio-economic status or geography. For example, Bangladesh emits only 0.56 tons of CO₂ per capita yet faces $1.5–$2 billion in annual damages. Meanwhile, wealthy, high-emission countries avoid financing recovery, highlighting the urgent need for climate justice and fair reparations.

Ecological justice recognizes non-human entities have intrinsic rights, requiring humans to act within nature's regenerative capacity. For instance, Amazonian Indigenous peoples protect biodiversity, but state-supported extractive industries displace them and violate land rights, illustrating the need for integrating social and ecological justice.

Climate justice demands high-emission countries compensate those least responsible. In 2022, Pakistan’s floods devastated 33 million lives, but aid fell short, underlining the principle that polluters must pay for damage caused.

Integrity underpins ethical governance, for example, Norway reinvests oil wealth for future generations rather than pursuing immediate gains, and Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act mandates considering future citizens’ needs.

Shared rights balance human and nature rights. For instance, Kenya’s Community Land Act (2016) recognizes indigenous land rights, preventing exploitation.

Together, these principles foster fair, sustainable, and inclusive governance that protects people and nature now and for future generations. The governance calls for Equity (resource allocation), Integrity (ethical leadership), and Mutual Rights (guardian laws) to counter neoliberal exploitation and push ecological justice forward.

e) Entrusting Communities Stewardship

Entrusting and empowering community-centric stewardship is a core pillar of NRLG. Echoing the Iranian philosopher Al-Ghazali  caring for the earth is an act of worship and highlights he spiritual and ethical dimensions of stewardship. NRLG calls for empowering indigenous groups, rural populations, and grassroots organizations-those deeply connected to nature-to manage ecosystems. This requires granting them autonomy, rights, and resources. Essential principles include recognizing communities' natural rights to manage their lands and resources, decentralization of power, promoting intergenerational responsibility, conserving biodiversity, inclusive decision-making, and fair benefit distribution.

"Without entrusting community stewardship, nature governance will remain top-down and exclusionary."

In Brazil’s Amazon, the Kayapo people manage more than 11 million hectares of rainforest. Satellite data shows these territories suffer less deforestation than adjacent state or private lands. Their cultural practices—sacred sites, rotational harvesting, collective decision-making—embody principles that mainstream governance struggles to operationalize. In Bangladesh, co-management initiatives in the Sundarbans have shown that when local communities are empowered, outcomes improve. Biodiversity indicators have risen, and illegal logging has decreased, while livelihood alternatives have flourished through eco-tourism and sustainable harvesting. Entrusting communities is not romanticism-it is a recognition that governance grounded in proximity, culture, and ecological wisdom is often more effective than distant bureaucracies. d By integrating legal, economic, and knowledge frameworks, community stewardship under NRLG challenges top-down state or market approaches by reallocating power to those most connected to the environment and promotes true environmental democracy and resilience against ecological collapse. However, that requires peaceful settlement that will ensure communal harmony.

f) Peaceful Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanism The Conflict or Grievance Resolution

Mechanism in NRLG addresses disputes over land, water, and natural resources through peaceful, equitable, and inclusive means. Core principles include fair, transparent processes, legal support for vulnerable groups, community-led settlement, and proactive conflict avoidance through early warning systems.

transparent processes, legal support for vulnerable groups, community-led settlement, and proactive conflict avoidance through early warning systems. Overall implementation involves strengthening environmental courts, creating independent mediation bodies, involving communities in environmental impact assessments, and offering legal literacy and mediation training. Examples include Bolivia’s recognition of Indigenous land governance and South Africa’s local water associations mediating water conflicts. Such mechanisms reduce environmental conflicts, strengthen democratic governance, and enable sustainable development. By promoting non-violent, community-based conflict resolution grounded in natural rights and ecological justice, NRLG fosters resilience, protects ecosystems, and builds trust, supporting long-term environmental stewardship and social stability.

With the anthropocentric paradigm exhausted of legitimacy, the only viable path forward is to build governance systems rooted in the sovereignty of nature and the universality of its rights. NRLG is the doctrine that needs a whole-of-society approach to achieve the paradigm shift. Nature can only sustain due to its sovereignty the way oceans have been sustained despite human-made disasters affecting its lifeline. Ocean is a key example of complying with key principles of NRLG, as reflected in the poem below:

"If we fail to recognize the supremacy of nature now, we do not just risk environmental catastrophe-we guarantee it."

(To be continued in Part III: The Global Pact and the Institutions We Need. In the next part of this ongoing series, we will explore the institutional architecture needed to operationalize this shift. From international treaties to community governance structures, the future must be shaped by ecological truth, not political convenience.)