Lilly Roth

• The debate on whether nature should have its own rights has been carried out for decades, ever since the concept was introduced by Stone (1972). The intention has remained the same: protect natural entities within our anthropocentric world by using our own weapons. Although preserving the environment has become an even more urgent matter with the progressing loss in biodiversity, at the same time, legal instruments for its protection have evolved as well. This raises the question of the necessity of Rights of Nature. Were all those legal tools enforced in an effective and timely manner, would our environment be sufficiently protected from human interferences? The current legal system, especially in European countries, is based on an anthropocentric view of the world. This grants natural entities protection only in their relation and worth to humans. Acknowledging nature’s inherent value might be a new innovative idea within western societies. However, it is a concept that has been practiced by indigenous peoples for a long time. Their ecocentric worldview has been eradicated from international and national law by colonialists (Guzmán, 2019). By introducing Rights of Nature in Europe, this ecocentric approach would be included in a legal system that is still based in a society in which anthropocentric views are deeply rooted. Despite the growing awareness of human effects on nature and the necessity to protect the planet as well as prevent further climate change, granting natural entities intrinsic rights would require a paradigm shift not only in European law systems but also in western societies (Peppoloni, 2024). Since rapid action is vital for preserving our environment, it is questionable whether enough time remains for such a fundamental transition. Using and enhancing existing tools within the current system might be more effective. Therefore, the following article will show legal instruments already in place. As they are partly still lacking in their execution, room for improvement will be demonstrated, which would finally enable them to together provide sufficient protection for European nature. Namely, these tools include the Precautionary Principle, Human Rights, Nature Conservation laws and the possibility of litigation on behalf of the environment. These assessments will be made from a European point of view. It should be noted that analysing legal tools within other parts of the world rooted in different cultures might lead to divergent results.