The contemporary constitutional landscape is increasingly shaped by the global rise of environmental constitutionalism, a movement through which states seek to embed ecological protection at the highest normative level. At other legislative levels, a growing number of jurisdictions around the world have recognized that ecosystems may possess intrinsic rights, reflecting the broader shift toward understanding the environment not merely as an object of regulation but as a subject of law. This evolution is born from escalating ecological crises and a growing recognition that traditional anthropocentric legal frameworks are insufficient to safeguard the integrity of living systems. As such, environmental constitutionalism is now expanding to also include eco-centric clauses. France is not immune to this transformation. In 2004, under the impetus of the Chirac administration, the Charte de l’environnement was adopted and incorporated into the bloc de constitutionnalité, elevating environmental rights, duties, and principles to constitutional value. Yet, despite this significant innovation, the Charter remains anthropocentric: it protects the environment insofar as it contributes to human well-being, and its implementation by the Constitutional Council has been described as limited. Against this backdrop, a new proposition seeks to deepen France’s environmental constitutionalism whilst taking on an ecocentric approach. On 12 September 2025, Senator Monique de Marco (EELV) introduced “proposition de loi constitutionnelle n°891,” aiming to modify the Environmental Charter to explicitly recognize the rights of nature. Clearly, there seems to be a signal of the strengthening of the French debate on whether the legal system should evolve from protecting the environment for humans to recognizing ecosystems as subjects of law. A shift the European Hub advocates for, a shift that could enable environmental justice.
The French Environmental Charter: Anthropocentric Foundations and Limited Implementation
The Environmental Charter represents a pioneering attempt to integrate environmental protection into the French constitutional order. In 2005, it was incorporated into the constitutional block. This means it was granted the same constitutional value as the principles and rights enshrined in the Constitution. This incorporation was intended to elevate environmental protection to a fundamental normative level, ensuring that all public policies and legislation respect ecological imperatives.Despite this formal constitutionalization, the implementation of the Charter has been described as limited. Many remain skeptical of the constitutional block approach. Its implementation seems limited, as the Conseil Constitutionnel has approached the text with caution, interpreting its provisions primarily as guiding principles rather than directly enforceable rights. Nevertheless, the landmark case l’Affaire du Siècle illustrated the Charter’s latent potential: the administrative tribunal of Paris used its constitutional status to interpret ordinary legislation in light of environmental duties, effectively compelling public authorities to take concrete measures against climate change. These judicial applications demonstrate that, while cautious, the Charter may serve as a constitutional lever for environmental accountability. The instrument contains ten articles that articulate both rights and duties. For instance, Article 1 recognizes the right of every individual to live in a balanced environment respectful of health, while Articles 3 and 4 establish duties to prevent environmental harm and to repair damages when they occur. Other provisions, such as the precautionary principle (Article 5), provide a framework for environmental governance and risk management, reflecting a modern approach to sustainable development. These articles reflect its anthropocentric orientation. Its provisions are designed to protect human interests, recognizing the environment as valuable because of its contribution to human health and well-being. Consequently, nature itself does not possess legal personality or rights; it benefits only indirect protection through human-centered duties and safeguards. Under current French legal doctrine, “nature cannot be subject to French law,” meaning that ecosystems, species, and natural elements cannot independently invoke rights or bring claims in their own name.
Proposal n°891 : Constitutionalizing the Rights of Nature
Proposal of constitutional law n°891 consists of a single article that seeks to amend several provisions of the 2004 Charte de l’environnement, with the aim of constitutionalizing the rights of nature. In particular, Article 1 is amended to include the following sentences: “Nature and the elements that compose it have the right to exist and to evolve as an ecosystem. As such, they enjoy the rights to protection, conservation, maintenance, and, where appropriate, restoration.” This addition represents a clear shift from the Charter’s traditional anthropocentric approach toward an ecocentric vision, recognizing that ecosystems themselves benefit from inherent rights to exist, evolve, and be restored. Furthermore, Articles 3, 4 and 7 are modified by removing the phrases referring to “conditions defined by law.” By eliminating these legislative qualifications, the proposal seeks to render the duties to prevent environmental harm (Article 3), to repair environmental damage (Article 4) and to access information or participate in environmental matters (Article 7) directly enforceable, overcoming the inertia caused by reliance on specific implementing legislation. It seeks to avoid regulatory dilution, as many environmental matters are time sensitive. Article 6 is also revised: its second sentence, which required a “conciliation” between environmental protection, economic development, and social progress, is deleted, thereby emphasizing the primacy of ecological protection and potentially granting environmental considerations greater weight relative to economic or social objectives. Taken together, these amendments envision an attempt to constitutionalize the Rights of Nature. It signifies expanding constitutional protection beyond human-centered interests to include ecosystems as legal beneficiaries, and reinforcing the enforceability of environmental obligations.This constitutional momentum echoes parallel developments within ordinary legislation. Notably, an amendment introduced by Charles Fournier and members of the Écologiste et Social group during the 2026 Finance Bill debates proposes the creation of a territorial experimentation fund for the rights and governance of rivers and waterways. The goal of this amendment is to allow local territories to test new forms of ecological governance, inspired by initiatives in countries such as New Zealand, Colombia, Canada, and Spain, where natural entities have been recognized as legal subjects. The amendment allocates 5 million euros to these experimental projects, which bring together local authorities, public institutions, associations, scientists, and citizens. A key innovation is the creation of human representatives, “guardians,” of rivers and waterways, tasked with defending the intrinsic interests of these ecosystems, including before the courts. By fostering such representation, the initiative aims to achieve better protection of aquatic biodiversity and sustainable management of water resources. Thus, this initiative illustrates how the discourse on nature’s rights is spilling beyond constitutional theory into concrete mechanisms of territorial governance.
Pandora’s box and Incoherences
The proposal also raises several critiques and potential risks. First, from a political perspective, amending the Constitution carries a significant risk of opening a “political Pandora’s box,” as parliamentary debates could introduce counter-amendments that weaken existing environmental protections or alter the Charter in unforeseen ways. Indeed, the current political context in France is already quite tense and unstable, this proposal to integrate rights of nature into policy may only crystalize the debate and slow any future path towards reaching a paradigm shift. Second, the language of the amendment itself is ambiguous: the phrase “bénéficier des droits” (enjoy rights) leaves unclear whether nature is truly recognized as a legal subject or merely a beneficiary of rights exercised by humans, raising questions about representation and enforceability. Finally, it seems strange to delete exclusively the second sentence of Article 6 as it is the conciliation clause. The first sentence of the article still assumes sustainable development as an objective. Why delete the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic and social objectives? Such an edit may generate coherence issues with France’s broader commitment to sustainable development, potentially complicating the integration of ecological, social, and economic goals in public policy.
Conclusion
To conclude, such a proposal will be crucial in bringing the rights of nature to the forefront of the political debate in France. It offers potential pathways for strengthening justiciability of ecological claims, despite the risk of dilution of constitutional environmental norms. Yet, we must keep in mind this update is nothing but a proposal: the first step of possibly integrating more-than-human justice into constitutional thought. Should this amendment be accepted, it will undergo many undoubted transformations. Nevertheless, it still represents an important test for constitutional environmental norms.
