From Rights of Man to Rights of Nature: Reimagining Constitutional Thought

Abstract

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the restructuring of the world under a unipolar, capitalist order have triggered not only political and economic transformations but also deep ecological crises. Among these, ecological destruction has long remained at the periphery of high politics and constitutional thought. Analyzing international environmental summits, from the 1972 Stockholm Conference to Rio+20 in 2012, reveals a persistent anthropocentric perspective framing nature in opposition to human needs, shaping policies and legal frameworks. At the national level, except for a few notable cases, most constitutions maintain an anthropocentric orientation, failing to meaningfully integrate the ecological crisis into constitutional norms. The liberal-individualist model, which defines rights through an abstract individual detached from social and ecological relations, renders the commodification and systemic dispossession of nature legally invisible. Although the Turkish Constitution addresses environmental issues, particularly through Article 56 linking a healthy environment to individual well-being, it does not confront the structural drivers of ecological collapse. Legislative amendments since 1982 have often exacerbated the crisis by aligning environmental law with market imperatives. This article critically examines the limitations of anthropocentric constitutional thought and explores alternative legal imaginaries in which nature is not merely an object of protection, but a legal and political subject. Within the frameworks of ecological citizenship, critical legal theory, and post-humanist thought, the article develops a theoretical inquiry into whether constitutional law can be reimagined to recognize non-human life forms as subjects of justice. Drawing on pioneering examples such as the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia, which grant legal personhood to nature, the article discusses the potential for a radical transformation of constitutional thinking beyond the confines of liberal property relations. Ultimately, this study aims to contribute to constitutional debates grounded in ecological democracy and collective responsibility, advocating the recognition of nature’s intrinsic and inherent value beyond its instrumental utility to capital.