Should rivers have duties? Implications of standing for nature

Purpose Because “rights” are typically paired with “duties” in legal systems, this paper aims to give careful consideration to this relationship in the Rights of Nature framework. Design/methodology/approach Case studies, comparative analysis, literature review, and legal theory. Findings Questions of “duties” are consequential but remain largely speculative in the RoN context. RoN advocates will need to grapple with them, and the most sound approach, where politically possible, is the creation of a well-considered statutory scheme specific to a particular ecosystem or jurisdiction that clearly establishes a guardianship regime to represent the best interest of Nature in practice. Research limitations/implications Very limited case precedent to work with, few examples of Rights of Nature models around the world, particularly as they relate to guardianship bodies. Practical implications These findings may be helpful in considering the phrasing of Rights of Nature legislation or court decisions. Social implications The paper contains implications for those serving on Rights of Nature guardianship bodies. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first law journal article making an in-depth consideration of this issue.