An interdisciplinary perspective on the interpretation of legal‐scientific concepts in rights‐of‐nature initiatives

Abstract Despite an ever‐growing body of environmental laws, biodiversity loss and climate breakdown persist globally. This has prompted debate over whether existing legal regimes can be strengthened sufficiently to address these crises, or whether more transformative legal approaches are needed The concept of rights of nature , which is gaining traction worldwide, represents one such transformative approach by recognising ecosystems as rights‐bearing entities. However, ambiguities in the legal‐scientific concepts underpinning these initiatives might hinder their effective implementation and jeopardise their viability. To address this issue, we conducted an analysis of 10 rights‐of‐nature initiatives across five continents, using content analysis and data from 11 semi‐structured interviews with experts from diverse disciplines, including ecology, law, legal activism, anthropology, philosophy, economics and Indigenous knowledge systems. We identified 22 key concepts, with the rights to ‘exist’, ‘be restored’, and to ‘evolve’ or undergo ‘evolutionary processes’ most frequently employed. Our findings highlight that concepts are often interpreted in multiple, contrasting and conflicting ways across disciplines. Ecologists pointed out inherent tensions between the right to evolutionary processes and other rights, such as conservation and preservation, while legal scholars found concepts such as the right to exist more straightforward for legal application but encountered challenges in operationalising others, such as establishing restoration baselines. The Indigenous scholar in our study framed concepts such as restoration within relational contexts, connecting them to cultural values. Quantifiable concepts associated with ecological functions, such as natural cycles, were more consistently understood across disciplines. Our study reveals substantial interpretive tensions between scientific precision and the inclusivity necessary for accommodating diverse cultural and legal contexts. Addressing these challenges may require moving beyond disciplinary silos towards co‐creative approaches that integrate law, science, philosophy and Indigenous scholarship. Future research should prioritise interdisciplinarity and context‐sensitivity that allows flexibility for diverse worldviews while maintaining legal clarity. Such approaches may help rights‐of‐nature initiatives become more robust, inclusive, and adaptable across different socio‐ecological settings. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.