Journal Article

Abstract

In this article we examine several Rights of Nature (RoN) initiatives. Building on previous research by Kahui et al. (2024), we focus on the question of how guardianship models that speak on behalf of nature and natural entities are legitimised and to which worldviews they are connected. We follow the understanding of O’Neill (2001) that nonhuman and inarticulate beings can only be represented by proxy and based on epistemic claims, combined with care. Our findings show that the cases rarely rely on one source of legitimation but often stem from a combination of care, epistemic claims and political authority. Rather than resolving the normative problem of representing nature, Rights of Nature initiatives institutionalise new configurations of legitimacy that reshape how environmental interests are articulated within political and legal processes. While frequently framed as a departure from anthropocentric governance, RoN initiatives remain embedded in political negotiations over authority, knowledge, and responsibility. Their potential therefore lies less in transcending politics than in redistributing power over how nature’s interests are defined and defended. These findings carry implications for public administration and institutional design: where guardianship responsibilities are clearly defined and distributed across multiple actors, RoN initiatives appear better equipped to translate legal recognition into effective environmental governance and accountability.