During the last decades, several actions have been carried out to try to reduce and even stop the repercussions of climate change, such as the creation of politics, laws, treaties and diverse mechanisms of action to ensure the care and protection of nature, however, such measures have not been enough to reduce the diverse types of impacts that the planetary ecosystem suffers. Throughout this section, the integration of the ecocentric vision in the Law will be developed, with the main objective of recognizing the inherent rights of nature in Europe. This will be achieved through the use of existing legal and juridical figures, with special emphasis on Latin American latitudes, with the purpose of incorporating this modern advance of law in the European normative framework.

This chapter illustrates the interconnections between indigenous peoples’ rights, human rights, and environmental protection, highlighting their potential to reinforce each other within the context of the RoN. Through the case study of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, the discussion examines the implementation of RoN in Aotearoa, New Zealand, its alignment with Māori legal and spiritual traditions, and the broader implications for the country’s environmental policy, justice frameworks, and decolonization efforts.

This report summarizes the arguments presented by Prof. Dr. Milena Valeva during the second panel discussion, which was held in preparation for the planned simulated parliamentary debate of the students. The experts, Prof. Dr. Alexandra Aragão and Prof. Dr. Milena Valeva, shared their insights from the fields of political theory, environmental ethics, and human rights on the topic of Democracy, Rights of Nature (RoN) and social norm dynamics. The basis for Valeva’s arguments was provided by the central claim of Aragão to emphasize the role of Environmental Pragmatism, which rejects the notion that effective environmental action requires a radical transformation of human value systems or adherence to one ultimate ethical principle. Instead, it promotes open-ended inquiry and adaptive democratic decision-making to navigate complex, real-world ecological challenges. The Paris Agreement, which employs a bottom-up and iterative approach, favoring flexible “pledge and review” systems, is celebrated as an embodiment of pragmatic climate diplomacy that fosters ambition through mutual accountability and continuous reassessment. To further deliberate on this central claim, Valeva elaborated on the following two central questions, which refer to her paper titled “From Human Dignity and Human Rights to Sustainability within the Context of Democracy," published in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Interplay between Human Rights and Sustainability (Special Issue 2/2024). * What are the limits of liberal democracy in dealing with sustainability and RoN? * What is the potential of republican democracy for executing sustainability and RoN?

This issue presents the contributions of the participants of the international DAAD Blended Mobility Project “Giving nature its own rights - ethical and legal perspectives and the influence on the realization of selected SDGs” which took place in wintersemester 2025 at Trier University of Applied Science, Environmental Campus Birkenfeld (UCB) under the guidance of Prof. Valeva and Prof. Nitschmann and in collaboration with the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and the University of Coimbra supported by Prof. Zegarra (PUCP) and Prof. Aragão (University of Coimbra). The DAAD funded project used the concept of global education to strengthen students' democratic competences and social participation and integrates intercultural dimensions into teaching. Its content is in the context of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and is linked to the curricular content of the studies “Non-Profit Management”, “Environmental Economics and Environmental Law” and “Sustainable Business and Technology” at the UCB. As part of the project, students and professors from Peru and Portugal visited the UCB for a workshop week in the winter semester 2024/25. Understanding and methods for interpreting the global agenda of the UN regarding the SDGs were developed within the framework of this ESD project. Students worked together in teams virtually and in person under the guidance of experts to critically evaluate existing anthropocentric systems and their imbalances and to develop strategies for overcoming the challenges of an ecocentered approach for the law and the system in general (institutions, companies, civil society). Ahead of the mobility phase and the technical content on the SDGs and diverse Rights of Nature (RoN) perspectives, language and culture were key themes in the two virtual kick-off events. This approach made it possible to raise transcultural and ecological awareness and thus paves the way for interdisciplinary knowledge building in teams. The intense mobility week started off with creating international mixed teams which were the work groups for the whole week. Input was given by experts within moderated panel discussions referring to different perspectives such as ethics and society and law and culture. The project focused on the Hunsrück-Hochwald National Park as a natural entity and local example, serving as a starting point for case studies from selected countries to provide a broad basis for interpreting SDGs 13, 14, 15, and 16. Students were introduced to the biodiversity of the park by an expert ranger and used it as an experience-oriented and stimulating place to experience the intelligence of nature. To perform a well-prepared simulated parliament debate, four internationally composed teams were defined, whereby a particular real case study in the area of RoN was assigned to two teams. The preparation of the debate included the assignment of the debate’s roles to the team’s members and clarification of the functions of the given roles. The material preparation included research for and discussion about the relevant information, and the training of the argumentation scenarios. They prepared themselves or two possible scenarios: confirmation of the launching of RoN or rejection of it. The two case studies were defined as follows: 1. Grant legal rights to the Maranon River, demanding its protection as a rights-bearing entity, now! 2. Grant the status of a subject of rights to the little fox “Run Run”, now! The debate concept allowed the students to transfer their theoretic knowledge in practical skills and thus contributes to the learning outcome of defending democratic values by contributing actively in democratic processes. With the idea to perpetuate the outcome of the project this issue publishes the student works related to the final debate and is completed by professors’ perspectives. Content: CHAPTER 1 – Theoretical Impulses and Panel Discussions within the DAAD Rights of Nature Project 2024 (Report) Alexandra Aragão: Foundations for a theory of radical legal eco-innovation: the paradigm of Rights of Nature Milena Valeva: Panel Discussion on Democracy, Rights of Nature and Social Norm Dynamics Kathrin Nitschmann: Researching the problem: Would an Rights of Nature Concept be THE solution? Nina Giordano: The Te Awa Tupua Act: How Nature’s Legal Standing Strengthens Indigenous and Human Rights CHAPTER 2 – Part I – Case Study: Granting legal rights to the Maranon River as a rights-bearing entity Lynette Annau: Granting Rights to Naturals Objects: The Future of Environmental Protection or Cultural Mismatch? Jesus Bernal: Anthropocentrism – an Obstacle to the Protection of Nature Malika Arstan: Economic Advantages of Granting the Rights of Nature Claudia Rocio Crespo Chavez: Is Europe Ready to Embrace the Recognition of Nature’s Rights? CHAPTER 2 – Part II – Case Study: Granting legal rights to the Maranon River as a rights-bearing entity Ana Murhiel Diaz Aguilar: Going to the Court doesn’t ensure that the environment will be protected Lilly Roth: Legal Instruments to Protect the Environment outside of Rights of Nature Tobias Becker: Public Support and Challenges in Recognizing the Rights of Nature: A European Perspective Maria J. Paixão: Legal Fetishism in Times of Polycrisis CHAPTER 3 – Part I – Case Study: Granting a Status of a Subject of Rights to the Peruvian Little Fox “Run Run” Jamie Moser: The Case of Run Run and the Emergence of a Nature – Centered Legal Framework José Heleno P. Vanzeler: Ecological Awareness and the Power of Law in Realizing the Rights of Nature Roya Qazen: From the Rights of Man to the Social Contract for Geoethics toward the Rights of Nature Amanda Erin Regalado Romero: Foundations for the recognition of the Rights of Nature in the European Union CHAPTER 3 – Part II – Case Study: Granting a Status of a Subject of Rights to the Peruvian Little Fox “Run Run” Ronald Sebastián Yaipén Polo: The Rights of Nature: The Answer to a Poorly Framed Debate Maria Eduarda Terra e Zeitune: Economic Challenges and the Rights of Nature: A Conflict Between Sustainable Growth and Environmental Conservation Yannick Wagner: Culture matters – Why the Rights of Nature don't fit the European Union

This article aims to provide a concise yet comprehensive overview of the evolution of human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), tracing their historical development to the ongoing monitoring initiatives today. As we delve into the core of the discussion, a critical examination will be conducted to assess the alignment between the SDGs and human rights. The focal point will be a nuanced exploration of whether these two frameworks are in sync or if there are discernible deviations and potential conflicts of goals between them. To facilitate a more in-depth analysis, the SDGs will be systematically categorized into distinct clusters, enabling a clearer illustration of their compatibility or divergence from human rights principles. By breaking down the SDGs into specific thematic areas, we aim to shed light on both the areas where alignment is evident and those where disparities with human rights may exist. This comparative approach seeks to enhance our understanding of the interconnectedness and potential tensions between the SDGs and human rights. Moreover, the exploration will not only highlight the points of convergence but also delve into the complexities of ensuring a harmonious coexistence between these two vital frameworks. By examining the interplay of human rights principles with the diverse goals encapsulated within the SDGs, this article endeavors to contribute to a nuanced understanding of the broader implications for global development and social justice. In summary, this expanded article aspires to offer readers a more detailed exploration of the interrelationships between human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals, navigating through the clusters of SDGs to unveil areas of agreement and potential divergence. Through this analysis, we seek to foster a deeper appreciation for the complexities of aligning diverse global goals with fundamental principles of human dignity and equality.