This paper is structured into two parts, which are closely related: first, the analysis of the parlamentary and governmental measures against the covid-19 pandemic; and second, the future regulatory framework about freedom of movement and other rights in the European area, according to the new European pact on migration and asylum.

The study traces the development of compulsory vaccination in Germany against the background of political discussion and legislative activities, focusing on the area of tension between state health protection and the right to medical self-determination in the context of constitutional balancing. It is based on the assumption that the right to medical self-determination traditionally dominates state decisions in a democratic constitutional state and that the scope for decision-making is constantly being further contoured in the face of current challenges.

This paper evaluates the freedom of trade, occupation, and profession in South Africa from a Covid-19 pandemic context. It does that by focusing on the pertinent provisions and rights contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) and relevant international and regional human rights instruments. It proceeds by discussing the interlinkage between (the freedom of trade, occupation, and profession and other pertinent fundamental) rights, limitation, enforcement, and interpretation of rights. This is followed by some final observations.

[AI generated:] This article explores the cultural dependencies and symbolic nature of the Rights of Nature (RoN) within the context of the European Union (EU). It argues that the successful implementation of RoN in regions like New Zealand and Ecuador is deeply rooted in indigenous cultural perspectives, which contrast sharply with the anthropocentric legal frameworks prevalent in Western industrialized nations. The article highlights how the recognition of non-human entities as legal subjects in these countries is often a socio-political strategy rather than a genuine shift towards ecocentrism. The case of illegal gold mining in Ecuador exemplifies the ongoing dominance of anthropocentric perspectives, where economic interests frequently undermine environmental protections. In contrast, the EU's approach to environmental justice is shaped by a lack of indigenous populations and the complexities of transposing EU law into national legislation. The EU primarily focuses on ecosystem services, emphasizing the necessity of environmental protection for human survival rather than granting rights to nature. This anthropocentric viewpoint is further reflected in societal attitudes towards environmental policies, where fears of economic disadvantage and social conflict hinder acceptance of transformative measures. The article concludes that the global community is at a historic crossroads regarding ecological transformation, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive approaches to avoid social resistance. In cultures where the protection of natural entities aligns with spiritual beliefs, RoN could be beneficial if implemented meaningfully. However, in EU countries where spirituality is diminishing and indigenous populations are scarce, adopting RoN may risk alienating the public and exacerbating political divisions. Therefore, enhancing existing environmental legislation is crucial to foster trust in its effectiveness and fairness, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected.

The purpose of this work is to critically examine and reflect on the feasibility of granting legal rights to nature within the context of the European social and legal reality. We aim to address the following question: Should we grant legal rights to nature? This is not merely a legal debate; rather, it extends to our fundamental understanding of the relationship between humanity and the environment. Some argue that we are at a turning point where granting rights to nature is the only way to protect our planet and ensure an environment suitable for future generations. Others, however, warn of the risks of creating a "legal chaos," considering the economic implications that such a radical shift might entail.

Conclusion: Perhaps a new Social Contract needs to be understood so that humans can operate more harmoniously with nature as well as with mankind. As long as the lens of life is only viewed through the interests that humans hold, the Rights of Nature cannot be actualized. This would cause chaos as climate change worsens, as less regard will be taken when more liberties are taken by harvesting the depleting resources. By taking action now, and giving nature personhood, humanity can have an intervention with itself and realize that taking advantage of entities that cannot speak for themselves, especially when it is extended to nature, is fundamentally wrong. As disputes over land and resources lessen as the lines of the Rights of Nature are followed, it will make the observance of the Social Contract easier to follow, therefore leading to a more pluralistic, peaceful society where the SDGs are closely adhered to, because nature will be granted rights at last.

Increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events are already affecting the European continent, posing serious threats to both the well-being of its citizens and its economies. Droughts are becoming more common and more intense, leading to reduced agricultural yields and higher rates of tree mortality (Buras et al., 2020). Coupled with rising temperatures, these conditions have resulted in an increase in wildfires, particularly in countries such as Greece and Portugal (European Forest Fire Information System, 2024). These fires not only devastate forests and biodiversity, but they also endanger public health and safety (European Climate and Health Observatory, 2024). Wildfires generally also release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, which exacerbates climate change and creates a dangerous feedback loop (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). While droughts and heatwaves are pressing issues, the opposite problem – excessive water – has be come a significant challenge as well, as flooding is the most frequent type of extreme weather event in Europe (CRED, 2021), with events like the 2021 floods in Germany and Belgium causing approximately 43 billion USD in damages. (Yale Climate Connections, 2022). The impact of these events could increasingly threaten Europe’s economic interests by destabilizing key industries, such as agriculture, tourism or health care, and damaging billions worth of properties and infrastructure as climate change progresses. (Ciscar et al., 2011) A study indicated that Germany alone might face economic costs of up to 920 billion Euros by 2050 because of climate change. (GWS et al., 2022). But more importantly, these events endanger basic survival, as they can undermine food and water security and create public health crises. As Europe struggles to adapt, the increasing costs and risks highlight the urgent need for more comprehensive and innovative legal protection for the environment. An innovative legal approach to better protect nature could be the concept of Rights of Nature (RoN). By granting natural entities “legal personhood” and therefore enabling them to have standing in court, it may become easier and more effective to protect the environment and climate from competing – often economic – interests. The following chapters will delve into the idea of awarding legal rights to natural entities within the European context, drawing inspiration from the story of “Run Run,” a fox in Peru that was granted subjective rights.

The debate surrounding the recognition of the Rights of Nature has gained global prominence, providing a legal and ethical approach that fundamentally reshapes societal perspectives on their connection with the natural world. This paper explores the challenges of aligning the Rights of Nature with European societal values, highlighting how conventional Western legal systems and cultural attitudes have limited public support for Rights of Nature initiatives. The Rights of Nature (RoN) grants natural entities—such as rivers, forests, and ecosystems—inherent rights, akin to human rights, to exist and thrive independently of human use or exploitation. This perspective, deeply rooted in ecocentric values and often influenced by Indigenous worldviews, diverges sharply from the anthropocentric frameworks that have historically shaped European legal and environmental policies (Kauffman & Martin, 2017). Influential milestones, such as Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and New Zealand’s 2017 Te Awa Tupua Act, have set significant precedents for RoN by recognizing ecosystems and natural entities as legal persons, affirming their intrinsic right to exist and regenerate without serving solely human interests (New Zealand Parliament, 2017; Constitution of Ecuador, 2008). However, these advances stand in contrast to Europe’s generally anthropocentric legal and cultural perspectives, which frame environmental protection as a means to safeguard human interests. The following section provides an overview of the global RoN movement, underscoring its ecocentric and animistic roots, which emphasize nature’s intrinsic value and agency beyond human utility. A closer look at Europe in section three reveals specific cultural, legal, and political barriers that hinder public support for RoN, including societal unfamiliarity with ecocentric ideals and an ongoing resistance to legal frameworks that prioritize nature's rights. This foundation helps illustrate why Rights of Nature remains an unfamiliar and often controversial concept in Europe, where environmental legislation predominantly supports human welfare and economic growth rather than advocating for nature's independent rights (de Lucia, 2015). The challenges faced by public advocacy for Rights of Nature in Europe are examined in section four through the case of the Mar Menor Lagoon in southeastern Spain. This coastal lagoon, severely impacted by agricultural runoff and nutrient pollution, sparked public campaigns and regional support for its protection. Yet, despite these efforts, proposals to establish the lagoon’s legal personhood encountered substantial resistance. Opposition stemmed from concerns over economic interests, political inertia, and a general lack of societal awareness regarding RoN concepts (García Ruales, Hovden, Kopnina, Robertson & Schoukens, 2023; Guaita-García, Martínez-Fernández, Barrera-Causil, & Fitz, 2022). In the fifth section, this paper advocates for a bottom-up, community-led approach to RoN in Europe, emphasizing the importance of decentralized solutions and public engagement as pathways to overcoming resistance. By fostering local awareness and encouraging grassroots movements, Europe may be better positioned to adopt Rights of Nature frameworks that reflect both ecological needs and societal values. Through this analysis, the paper seeks to provide insights into the interplay between cultural ideologies, legal frameworks, and public perceptions that influence RoN's potential to reshape Europe’s approach to environmental protection.

Conclusion: In short, individuals play an essential role in monitoring the way in which State regulations are put into practice in relation to the protection of nature and, although civil society has proposed the recognition of RoNs, it cannot lose sight of the fact that the ideal and most effective mechanism to achieve this is through ex ante and ex post protection by the States and their respective Public Administration, for which a greater development of Administrative Law and the rate of compliance of its entities is required, which is directly related to the political will of the authorities, against which action can be taken. Finally, opting for the judicial route as the only mechanism for the protection of nature is insufficient; however, if this is used in conjunction with the demand to the Public Administration indicated in the previous point, better results can be obtained. For this, instead of creating new judicial processes or subjects of rights, it is recommended to use legal figures that already have a doctrinal and legal development that allow achieving the same objectives as quickly as possible in time, such as the jurisdictional protection of diffuse interests.

As global environmental challenges intensify, the concept of granting rights to nature has gained attention not only as an ethical imperative, but as an economically viable solution. In economic terms, the ecosystem services provided by protected areas are worth several hundred billion dollars a year (McNeely, 2020). Recognizing nature's rights – particularly for critical natural resources such as rivers and other water ecosystems – may create the foundation for sustainable economic growth, resilience, and long-term prosperity. In Europe, the argument for legal rights for nature could find support in factors such as improved resource management, reduction of environmental degradation costs (Darpö, 2021), stimulation of green industries (European Economic and Social Committee et al., 2020), and alignment with the European Union’s commitment to environmental sustainability (European Economic and Social Committee et al., 2020), which will be elaborated in this paper.