UGLC Methodology

A comparative method without a single legal model

The Global Rights of Nature Legal Library is hosted on the official DUDA website. UGLC structures a comparative reading of legal mechanisms; it is neither a rule of law nor a certification of sources. Selected materials may support, criticise or oppose Rights of Nature: inclusion does not mean endorsement.

Scholarship, constitutions, legislation, judgments and international instruments have different functions and authority. An academic proposal, a dissent and the operative part of a judgment do not have the same legal weight. The Library seeks to make those distinctions visible, including refusals and procedural barriers.

Eight independent axes, read together

The protected natural entity axis identifies the entity and its scope. Legal status records its qualification in the source. Substantive rights describe the content of protection. Access to justice examines who may bring proceedings and under what conditions. Representation identifies who acts for the entity and under which mandate. Obligations and duty-bearers distinguish what is required and from whom. Remedies and sanctions describe measures legally available or ordered. Litigation effectiveness traces the documented outcome and subsequent procedural developments.

These axes are not a ladder of progress. Legal personhood establishes neither unrestricted standing nor implementation of restoration. A right to restoration concerns substantive rights; an order to restore concerns remedies; documented implementation concerns effectiveness. The same expression can therefore require separate evidence and qualifications.

Protected natural entity

The natural entity, territory or ecosystem protected by the source.

Legal status

The legal status attributed to Nature. Subject-of-rights status and legal personhood are distinct classifications; personhood is one technique among others.

Substantive rights

The content of recognized rights or interests, independently of legal status.

Access to justice

Who may bring a claim and on what basis they may access a court.

Representation

Who speaks or acts for the natural entity, including guardians and collective bodies.

Obligations and duty-bearers

Who owes duties and which positive, negative, preventive or conservation obligations apply.

Remedies and sanctions

The protective measures, remedies and sanctions a competent authority can order.

Litigation effectiveness

Actual litigation outcomes and procedural obstacles, including dismissals, pending proceedings and failures of implementation.

Subject of rights, personhood, standing and representation

Describing an entity as a subject of rights does not by itself establish legal personhood. Each qualification must respect the wording, effects and limits of the applicable source. UGLC does not convert a general protective statement into implicit recognition of every attribute of a legal person.

Standing concerns entitlement to bring a claim; representation concerns the person or institution authorised to act for another entity. A guardian may be designated without every procedural condition being met. Conversely, citizen proceedings may be available without a permanent representative body. Earth jurisprudence and ecological jurisprudence are broader intellectual frameworks and do not automatically identify a positive-law mechanism.

Evidence for each assigned value

Each UGLC value must be linked to an identified source and a passage precise enough to check: an article, paragraph, page or operative provision where available. Verifying a link, date or title does not validate every legal qualification in a record.

The method distinguishes express source statements from editorial interpretation. An inference must be reasoned, disclosed and limited in scope. Evidence from an official summary remains evidence of that summary and does not become a reading of the full text.

Temporal, territorial, substantive and procedural scope is retained. An interim measure does not become a final judgment; admission of proceedings is not success on the merits; recognition does not prove enforcement. Appeals and subsequent decisions should be linked without erasing earlier stages.

Axis resolution: glossary and indicator

The absence of a classification must never be confused with the absence of a legal mechanism. Each UGLC axis receives an explicit resolution status.

Absence of information does not mean absence of a legal mechanism; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A non-applicable axis is not an unstudied axis; an indeterminable axis is not an axis awaiting research; a contested axis is not a data error.

QUALIFIED — Qualified: one or more values are established and supported by approved evidence. TO_RESEARCH — Research pending: information is missing or insufficient and further documentary research is reasonably possible.

TO_VALIDATE — Pending validation: a classification is proposed but its interpretation still requires human approval. This queue is separate from documentary research: a proposal is not an established classification.

NOT_APPLICABLE — Not applicable: the axis is legally irrelevant to this source or document type, with reasons required. For example, a scholarly article may have no litigation effectiveness of its own. This must never become a negative substantive finding about effectiveness.

INDETERMINABLE — Indeterminable from available sources: reasonable documented research has been performed but permits no reliable conclusion. Consulted sources, date and reasons are retained; new sources may reopen the assessment.

CONTESTED_OR_AMBIGUOUS — Contested / ambiguous classification: several legally plausible interpretations coexist, or sources contradict each other or are ambiguous. Hypotheses, sources and explanations are retained for human review. Public presentation never converts this ambiguity into a certain classification.

The indicator measures methodological resolution of all eight axes, rather than field completion. QUALIFIED, NOT_APPLICABLE and INDETERMINABLE count as resolved. TO_RESEARCH and TO_VALIDATE remain open. CONTESTED_OR_AMBIGUOUS counts as resolved only when the ambiguity is documented and human-validated. The objective is zero axes without an explicit status, then fewer research and validation tasks; it is not an artificial 100% QUALIFIED target. Historical classifications and their evidence are retained during reassessment.

Provenance, titles and translations

The original bibliographic title is preserved with its author or institution, date, document type and source. French and English titles and summaries are identified editorial translations or syntheses; they are not presented as official translations. A primary source is distinguished from commentary or a copy hosted by a third party.

Summaries should explain the legal question, relevant reasoning, outcome and limits without mechanically reproducing publisher abstracts. The Library links to original sources and does not redistribute external PDFs. Missing fields and unvalidated translations are not silently replaced with content in another language.

Legal pluralism and comparative limits

Indigenous legal systems cannot be reduced to state-law categories of personhood, property or guardianship. Classifying a state statute concerning a community is not a comprehensive account of that community’s own law. Original concepts and their context must be preserved.

The Library uses public documents and does not seek to reconstruct protected or non-public knowledge. Mention of a people in a source establishes neither consent nor the author’s representativeness. Disputes, geographical gaps and the need for contextual expertise must remain visible. Comparing mechanisms does not rank cultures or legal systems.

Selection, validation and publication

Selection considers legal relevance, verifiable identification, provenance and comparative value, including critical scholarship and unsuccessful litigation. A discovered or imported record remains subject to review until its data, translations, qualifications and evidence have been checked. PUBLISHED status is not conferred merely by import or an automated score.

An individual record intended for indexing must offer sufficient original synthesis, consistent metadata, traceable provenance and supported qualifications. A published record that remains too thin should not be individually indexed. Thematic and jurisdiction pages additionally require comparative synthesis, a sufficient corpus and editorial validation.

Automated tools may assist discovery, import, metadata normalisation and checks, and preparation of editorial work. They are not legal authorities. Real-time translation does not replace stored editorial versions; human validation of translations, interpretations and evidence remains necessary.

Responsibility and corrections

Institutional responsibility for the Library rests with the DUDA website that publishes it. This page assigns no title, qualification, scientific mandate or validation board to any individual without a documented appointment. Individual validation responsibilities should be recorded when actual reviews take place.

A correction can be requested through the website contact form, identifying the record, disputed passage, proposed correction and a verifiable source. It should be assessed against the source, then accepted, clarified or declined with reasons in the editorial record. An error affecting classification or provenance requires reconsideration of publication and indexing eligibility, as well as the displayed text.

Substantial corrections should retain a dated change record and trigger renewed checks of affected translations and relationships. A verification date describes the check actually performed; it guarantees neither completeness nor continuous monitoring of legal developments. This documentary resource does not replace advice tailored to a particular case.

DUDA contact form