Is it becoming more difficult to build roads and dams? Considering the globally expanding "Rights of Nature" from Japan

Rivers and Forests with "Rights"—A Concept That Seems Unusual Becomes a Reality

"A river files a lawsuit," "a forest has rights," "nature is represented on a corporate board."

Hearing this, many might think of it as symbolic expressions within the realm of environmental philosophy.

However, these ideas are becoming more than mere metaphors. The concept known as "Rights of Nature" is beginning to be incorporated into the constitutions, laws, municipal policies, and courts of various countries.

Contrary to the traditional legal system where humans own and utilize nature, this theory considers that rivers, forests, mountains, ecosystems, etc., have interests in existing, regenerating, and maintaining a healthy state on their own. The Rights of Nature theory aims to treat these interests as legal "rights" under certain circumstances. Research in Japan has pointed out that since the 2000s, legislation has been expanding, particularly in Latin America and New Zealand.

Expressing strong caution towards this trend is Wesley J. Smith's essay "Using Mild Language to Push Radical Nature Rights," published in Science & Culture Today on August 18, 2026.

Smith's concern is not with nature conservation itself.

What he warns against is the potential introduction of systems that, through seemingly moderate and amiable language, could alter the very premises of law, corporate activities, land ownership, and infrastructure development.

The original article is a highly critical essay, positioning "Rights of Nature" as a radical environmental movement. While this evaluation should not be taken as fact, the issue it raises—considering how laws might specifically change under the seemingly unopposable goal of "protecting nature"—is something Japan cannot ignore.

From "Protecting Nature" to "Nature Itself Having Rights"

Understanding the Rights of Nature requires distinguishing it from conventional environmental regulations.

In general environmental law, humans are the primary subjects.

Governments set emission standards, require environmental impact assessments before development, and protect endangered species. Nature is a subject of protection but not necessarily a legal entity itself.

The Rights of Nature theory takes this relationship a step further.

In an interview with The Water Diplomat, Dutch lawyer Jan van de Venis outlines paths to integrate the Rights of Nature into society, including legal integration, participation of nature's representatives in decision-making, perspective shifts through art, and systemic approaches that encompass entire ecosystems.

The concept of "representation" is particularly important.

Since a river itself cannot attend meetings and speak, the idea of appointing a "guardian" to represent nature, similar to how guardians exist for human children, emerges.

When planning roads, bridges, factories, or mines, the idea is that not only businesses, governments, and residents but also representatives who argue "what benefits the river" participate in decision-making.

From the perspective of proponents, this is a system that incorporates the interests of ecosystems from the start of decision-making, rather than regulating after environmental destruction occurs.

However, from the perspective of opponents, the story looks entirely different.

There is a fundamental issue of "who decides the will of nature."

What Does Nature Want?

Suppose there is a plan to build a bridge near a river.

Residents seek to alleviate traffic congestion.

Businesses seek to improve logistics efficiency.

Local governments seek to revitalize the regional economy.

Environmental groups seek to protect ecosystems.

If "the rights of the river" are added to this, who will determine the river's interests?

Since the river cannot say "it's okay to build the bridge" or provide conditions like "this construction method is acceptable," ultimately, humans must interpret it.

If nature's representatives hold significant authority, is there a risk that their political or environmental ideologies will be spoken of as "the will of nature"?

This is one of the key points that people cautious about the Rights of Nature are most wary of.

On the other hand, proponents argue that the current system also judges the value of nature based solely on human interests.

Thus, the issue is not a simple binary choice of "human or nature."

Who legally represents nature's interests, to what extent, and through what procedures?

This is the core of the system.

In New Zealand, a River Has "Legal Personhood"

The Whanganui River in New Zealand frequently appears in discussions about the Rights of Nature.

The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, enacted in 2017, explicitly states that "Te Awa Tupua," including the Whanganui River, has legal personhood.

Legally granting "legal personhood" does not necessarily mean declaring the river to be the same as a human.

It is a legal mechanism to attribute specific rights and obligations, similar to how companies and foundations become legal entities.

In practice, New Zealand law treats Te Awa Tupua as a legal person with legal rights, powers, duties, and responsibilities.

This system is deeply connected to the historical and cultural relationship between the indigenous Maori and the Whanganui River.

Therefore, understanding it as "the river in New Zealand has exactly the same human rights as humans" is not accurate.

Nonetheless, it is certainly a significant shift towards treating nature as a legal entity rather than merely property or resources.

In 2026, "Rights of the River" in Cambridge, UK

Notably, this concept is no longer limited to regions closely related to South America or indigenous cultures.

On July 16, 2026, the Cambridge City Council in the UK approved a motion for the River Cam and its tributaries, advocating for rights such as "the right to flow," "the right to be free from excessive extraction," "the right to be free from pollution," "the right to native biodiversity," and "the right to restoration."

However, this example also requires careful observation.

It did not immediately establish legal personhood similar to New Zealand's Whanganui River, and the city council itself is premised on consistency with existing legal powers and responsibilities.

In other words, "Rights of Nature" encompasses significantly different systems, such as constitutional rights, legal personhood by law, and municipal-level policy principles, all discussed under the same term.

Considering everything as a "system where nature has human rights" could misinterpret the reality.

However, the 2026 movement in Cambridge is one of the latest examples showing that this philosophy is beginning to enter administrative decisions concerning urban development and water use, not just as an environmental movement slogan.

On Social Media: "If Companies Have Personhood, Why Not Rivers?"

Discussions on social media regarding the Rights of Nature are also intriguing.

Regarding the Science & Culture Today article itself, there is no situation confirmed through public searches where it "caused a huge uproar on social media" or "gathered a lot of pros and cons." Therefore, representative points from posts and comments about the Rights of Nature and legal personhood of rivers, published in recent years, are examined here.

A common argument among supporters is,

"If companies can be granted legal personhood, is it so absurd to grant it to rivers?"

This argument is often seen.

In discussions on Reddit about the legal personhood of Canadian rivers, comments expressing the sentiment "if companies are recognized, then rivers should be too," and reactions showing interest in treating nature as a subject to be protected rather than exploited, can be observed.

On the other hand, there are also many skeptical voices.

"Calling a river a person is itself roundabout."

"Do local governments have such legal authority?"

"What happens if a river floods and causes damage?"

"What if a dam is judged to obstruct a river's 'right to flow'?"

These are some of the questions raised.

While many responses are joking, the underlying questions are quite fundamental.

Where does symbolism end, and where does legal enforceability begin?

Who represents nature?

What happens when it conflicts with ownership rights?

Will it apply to existing facilities?

Without clarifying these, agreeing with the philosophy of "protecting nature" and deciding to "implement it as a legal system" must remain separate matters.

Conversely, on networks like LinkedIn, where professionals and activists gather, posts can be found evaluating the 2026 movement in Cambridge as progress in international Rights of Nature, with strong expectations for incorporating the Rights of Nature not only into environmental movements but also into urban planning and administrative governance.

As seen on social media, this issue is not a typical "environmentalists vs. developers" scenario.

"The idea is interesting, but the institutional design is unclear" is a common intermediate reaction.

Japan Also Has a History Where "Nature Became the Plaintiff"

Seeing these overseas discussions, it's premature to think "this is unrelated to Japan."

In Japan, lawsuits explicitly advocating for "Rights of Nature" have already occurred in the 1990s.

In 1995, a lawsuit was filed concerning a golf course development planned on Amami Oshima in Kagoshima Prefecture, with not only residents but also wildlife like the Amami rabbit as plaintiffs.

Japanese courts did not recognize this claim, stating that under current law, the subjects of rights and obligations are fundamentally natural persons or legal entities, and animals or nature itself cannot be treated as rights holders.

However, the question raised by this lawsuit—whether nature itself should continue to be considered merely an object of human ownership and use—remains a subject of research. A Japanese study published in 2024 also positions this Amami Oshima lawsuit as a significant case in the domestic Rights of Nature discourse.

Thus, Japan is not unrelated to this discussion.

In fact, similar issues were brought to court in Japan even before they were institutionalized worldwide.

What Issues Would Arise If Introduced in Japan?

So, what would happen if discussions on granting some legal rights to rivers and forests in Japan became serious?

The fields potentially affected are very broad.

There are hardly any large-scale projects that do not interact with the natural environment, such as dams, river improvements, roads, linear railways, airports, ports, renewable energy facilities, mines, forest development, agricultural water, industrial water, and urban redevelopment.

The important point here is that strengthening environmental protection itself is not the same as making nature a "rights holder."

There are ways to tighten existing environmental regulations.

There are ways to improve environmental impact assessments.

There are ways to increase the participation of residents and environmental groups.

There are ways to expand nature conservation areas.

If we are to give nature itself a legal status of "rights," it is necessary to clarify why the existing system is insufficient.

Five Key Points That Would Be Particularly Important in Japan

The first is,who represents nature.

Is it the government, local residents, environmental NGOs, researchers, or a committee of multiple entities?

If the system for selecting representatives becomes politicized, there is a risk that specific values will be prioritized under the name of "nature's voice."

The second is,the scope of rights.

If a river has "the right to flow," to what extent are hydroelectric dams permissible?

Is riverbank construction to prevent flooding an infringement of nature's rights, or is it justified for human safety?

The third is,coordination with existing ownership and economic activities.

Land use in Japan is extremely complex.

If the Rights of Nature have strong legal effects, how will conflicts with private land use and corporate activities be resolved?

The fourth is,the increase in lawsuits and standing to sue.

Expanding the entities that can sue on behalf of nature could enhance the effectiveness of environmental protection.

However, it could also increase the risk of lawsuits concerning roads, power plants, and housing developments.

The fifth is,democratic legitimacy.

In development projects, not only the environment but also employment, housing, electricity, disaster prevention, transportation, and local finances compete as public interests.

If the Rights of Nature are to be made de facto stronger than other public interests, the question of who decides this and to what extent it is entrusted to judicial judgment cannot be avoided.

Introducing a system solely for the reason of "protecting nature" without clear answers to these five points would be dangerous.