Are Rights of Nature Manifesto Rights (And is That a Problem)?

That nature, including insentient entities such as trees, rivers, or ecosystems, should be recognized as right-holders is an enticing thought that would have substantial practical repercussions. But the position finds little support from moral conceptions of rights and moral distinctions that have judicial relevance in the sense of providing normative reasons for legislation and assessing existing laws. An alternative to viewing rights of nature as proper rights resting on valid moral claims that ought to be legally recognized is to regard them as ‘manifesto’ rights. Such rights are based on political demands and hold even if there is no one with a corresponding duty to fulfill them. I investigate whether rights of nature can be considered manifesto rights. Some objections to regarding rights of nature as manifesto rights will be considered, such as difficulties of delimiting the borders of an environmental entity and making successful analogies with existing (human) rights based on interests and needs. It will be suggested that while some of those challenges can be mitigated by custodianship, it is not clear what needs of insentient entities in nature would justify such claims. It is found that rights of nature depend substantially on legitimate custodians both for delineation of the entity in question and for establishing interest-like characteristics. But rights of nature are not manifesto rights when there is a legitimate custodian having the possibility of evoking duties in others. However, the need for a legitimate custodian in delimitation and establishing normatively relevant characteristics of specific environmental entities defeats universal appeals to rights of nature.