Linguistics

Western legal systems, universities, and international institutions are accustomed to translating other societies into their own language. Human rights, for example, emerged in a particular historical and cultural context, yet they have been adapted and interpreted across the world. What happened in Ecuador was the reverse.

For centuries, we learned to think about nature through Western concepts and translated those ideas into environmental law. But environmental law and the Rights of Nature are not the same thing. Environmental law is ultimately anthropocentric. It protects air, water, and ecosystems because they are necessary for human well-being. Air quality, water quality, land use — all these standards are designed primarily around human needs.

The Rights of Nature begin from a different premise. Nature is not simply something that serves humanity; it possesses value and rights of its own.

Translating that worldview into constitutional law required building bridges between Indigenous knowledge, environmental law, ecology, and biology. We needed a language that courts and policymakers could understand. That is why the Constitution speaks of vital cycles, regeneration, and ecological processes. Much of that language comes from biology and ecology.

In a sense, the Rights of Nature are an exercise in translation. They express an Indigenous understanding of the world through concepts that can operate within a modern legal system.

I believe this helps explain why humanity has struggled to respond effectively to climate change. We continue trying to solve a planetary crisis using legal and political tools designed for a very different relationship with nature.