International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application

Legal Rights of Nature: Implementing Ecosystem Personhood for Coral Reefs

Author(s):Namrata Nayana, Sofia M.

Affiliation: CBIT, Hyderabad

Page No: 109-116

Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3, Issue 7, July 2026

published on: 2026/07/11

Journal: International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application.(IJAMA)

ISSN NO: 3048-9350

DOI:

Download PDF Cite this article

Abstract:
Intersecting jurisprudence and marine ecology, this project investigates the legal defence of threatened reef habitats. It examines how granting legal personhood to coral reefs can establish direct avenues for conservation litigation against state and corporate actors whose conduct causes measurable ecosystem damage. Global bleaching events have destroyed approximately 50% of coral cover since 1950, exposing a fundamental deficiency in anthropocentric legal frameworks that treat reef ecosystems as property rather than as rights-bearing entities. This study analyses eight precedent jurisdictions — including the Whanganui River (New Zealand), Atrato River (Colombia), and Ecuador's constitutional Rights of Nature — to derive transferable legal architecture applicable to marine ecosystems. A comparative Legal Personhood Index across six dimensions (standing, guardianship, enforceability, restoration orders, criminal sanctions, and international recognition) reveals that the Whanganui and Atrato models achieve the highest composite scores (92% and 88% respectively) but that no existing framework adequately addresses the transboundary and corporate liability dimensions critical for reef protection. Based on this analysis, a model statute — the Coral Reef Personhood and Protection Act (CRPPA) — is drafted across six operative parts, granting justiciable rights to exist, regenerate, and flourish; establishing an independent three-member Reef Guardian Board; imposing treble-damages corporate liability with reversed burden of proof; and enabling 24-hour emergency injunctions on scientific affidavit. Litigation playbook analysis of 95 nature-rights cases confirms that standing establishment (72% success) and scientific evidence filing (88% success) are the strongest litigation stages, while damages assessment (44%) represents the principal procedural vulnerability. The CRPPA model statute and associated litigation playbook are designed as directly adoptable instruments for environmental advocacy organisations operating in Pacific Island, Caribbean, and Indo-Pacific jurisdictions.

Keywords: rights of nature, legal personhood, coral reef law, ecosystem rights, environmental litigation, CRPPA, guardianship, nature standing, marine conservation, jurisprudence

Reference:

• [1] Borras, S. (2016). New transitions from human rights to the environment to the rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law, 5(1), 113–143.
• [2] Boyd, D. R. (2017). The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World. ECW Press.
• [3] Colombia Constitutional Court. (2016). Sentencia T-622. Corte Constitucional de Colombia.
• [4] Colombia Supreme Court. (2018). Sentencia STC4360-2018. Corte Suprema de Justicia.
• [5] Cormac, C. (2019). The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: Place-based law in a legally pluralistic society. Geographical Research, 57(4), 392–403.
• [6] Cullinan, C. (2011). Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Chelsea Green Publishing.
• [7] Ecuador. (2008). Constitucion del Ecuador, Titulo II, Capitulo Septimo: Derechos de la naturaleza.
• [8] Gellers, J. C. (2017). Earth System Law and the rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law, 6(2), 247–262.
• [9] IPCC. (2022). Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — Chapter 3: Oceans and Coastal Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press.
• [10] ITLOS. (2023). Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law.
• [11] Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2021). The Politics of Rights of Nature. MIT Press.
• [12] Kotze, L. J. (2019). Earth System Law for the Anthropocene. Sustainability, 11(23), 6796.
• [13] New Zealand Parliament. (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui Claims Settlement) Act 2017.
• [14] O'Donnell, E. (2018). At the intersection of the sacred and the legal: Rights for nature in Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Environmental Law, 30(1), 135–144.
• [15] Putzer, A., Lambooy, T., Jeurissen, R., & Kim, E. (2022). Putting the rights of nature on the map. Journal of Maps, 18(1), 89–96.
• [16] Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.
• [17] UNCLOS. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Articles 192–194.
• [18] Voigt, C. (Ed.). (2013). Rule of Law for Nature: New Dimensions and Ideas in Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.
• [19] Wilkinson, R., & Slagle, T. (2019). Protecting ecosystems through rights of nature. Environmental Law Reporter, 49(10), 10873–10884.
• [20] Wilson, S., & Tisdell, C. (2001). Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource. Tourism Management, 22(3), 279–288.