Man's approach towards animals and wildlife in general is significant to cover a potential reformation of law enforcement on biodiversity loss and wildlife conservation. The philosophical aspects for regulating wildlife derive from the legal differential practice concerning wildlife which is highly connected to wildlife's value of utility to humans. The utility is based on the value a human can draw from the speciment, ultimately, anthropocentric values. This is also reflected in wildlife's legal status, as free-roaming wildlife is classified under the international law as property of the common and owned as a "resource" by the sovereign with jurisdiction over the land on which the free-roaming animals live. This affects the legal status of animals to be trumped by human interest whereby such legal entification legitimizes a genuine acceptance towars ignoring nature's interests when not profitable for humans. Quite contrary to the fact that wildlife has a high value for humans in terms of ecological balance and wildife's contribution to perpetuation of the life-support systems in which humans depend on. 

Despite having such a high value to humans, wildlife appears to be assigned with rights that subject it to legislation which seems not to acknowledge them as a sentient being with inherent interests. Such inconsistency paved the way for discussing whether using a legal measure such as environmental liability litigation in relation to wildlife extinction, could serve a deterrent role in changing the incentives and ground for the utilization of willdife and nature in general. Ultimately, acknowledging the Rights of Nature and it's importance to man's survival. 

The following description about Rights of Nature is with reference to Mr. Corman Cullinan, and his work " Wild Law -  A Manifesto for Earth Justice" (2011). 

The Rights of Nature 

• Legal recognition of nature - Antroprocentrism 

This is a question of whether nature should or could be given legal rights and recognized as a legal entity? Followed up by a question on how we challenge the belief that nature exists solely for human benefit?  

• What would Rights of Nature mean for animals?

Although most legislation has proven to be rather successful as a conservation tool (i.e. CITES) towards protecting wildlife against over-exploitaion such regulatory framework consitute a great deal of interpretation in the descision-making. This makes it vulnerable to illicit activities inflicted by human interests and biased motives, possible deleterious for nature and human-wellbeing. 

Even though most legislation observes the principles of sustainable use, the benchmark for whatever is considered sustainable is based on human interests rather than the intrinsic value of nature. And it leaves nature with a bad standing. 

Recognizing nature as a legal entity would mean an opportunity to pursue the goals og conserving wildlife with respect of both human and nature's interests.

• Corporate power

The Rights of Nature would limit the ability of cooporations to exploit 'free' natural resources upon which their profits depend. It will place new burdens on high-profile defendants to deter future harm and incentivise increased legal action, such as comprehensive and impartial descision-making, legal assessments and projects involving exploitation of nature. 

• Implementation and enforcement 

Even if Rights of Nature are recognized, implementation and enforcement would be significant challanges. As the world is witnessing severe biodiversity loss, it is a juncture for a paradigm shift in the legal instruments towards acknowledging the rights of nature and more rational ecocentric values.

How can we ensure that the rights of nature are respected and upheld? 

The current legal enforcements measures are undeveloped and not in line with present ambitions, prompting efforts to strengthen i.e. liability litigations. 

Environmental liability litigation offers potential advances for safeguarding biodiversity using legslation that is taking an anthroprocentric approach, but reflects ecocentric and biocentric values through the perception of the public's interests in conserving wildife. Thus, taking the point of view that man as a species has a spatio-temporal relationship with nature. Then, human's relationship with nature is essentially not a right, but a responsibility. Responsibility for environmental impacts to protect all species that exhibits the environment, including humans.

Ultimately, to motivate legitimate and sustainable wildlife utilizations patterns and help stem biodiversity loss originating from unsustainable utilization.

Man’s utilisation of nature is inevitable, so it’s our responsibility to ensure its done in the most sustainable way preferably favourable for nature. All this so that we can enjoy wildlife and the spectacular natural wonders of the world for many more years to come.

But how do we protect something so unmanageble as wildlife? How do we ensure that emerging nature markets for trade and utilization does so in favour of nature and deliver equitable outcomes? 

Investment in nature conservation is a vast and comprehensive business necessitating a global commitment to acceed and adjust to new perspectives. The lack of connection between legislative measures and global aspirations calls for new processes and change in attitude towards the protection of wildlife.

In legal assessments on sustainable trade and utilization one must take into account that such should be beneficial for both humans and wildlife. Furthermore, a clarification on potential alternative enforcement measures, centering on environmental liability litigation when discussing wildlife extinction, should be implemented in international law. 

A change in attitude could possible serve a deterrent role in conserving wildlide whereby implementing environmental liability litigation focusing on ecocentric values, could help speed up this process and letting legislatives measures suit up and cope with the main global activity of biodiversity loss. 

Implemeting environmental liability litigation emphazing, but not limited to, the protection of wildlife from over-exploitation deriving from unmanaged trade under CITES or unsustainable utilization as a whole is still in its early phase. The international community remain reluctant, which is why an environmental liability that reconcile anthroprocentrism as well as ecocentrism, thus taking a rational ecocentric approach that recognizes the rights of nature, could be the best viable option to obtain societal willingness and be an effective tool to conserve wildlife. 

As an example is the Environmental Liability Directive, established in the EU. This could be of inspiration for developing conservation lawsuits, because of its substantive character. It exemplifies that environmental liability litigation as remediation for biodiversity is possible, and that the social outcome would be optimistic. 

Although environmental liability litigation may challenge existing governance barriers, it will create new opportunities for conservation, and place new burdens on stakeholders as well as the public in general. Whether environmental liability litigation will be socially legitimized is ambiguous, considering the legal uncertainty such framework law generates, frequently resulting in inconvenient behavior from society. 

Nevertheless, a collective consciousness of approaching nature and wildlife with a more ecocentric approach is nascent, and the establishment of environmental liability litigation might speed up this process, as well as assist current legislation in being in line with present and global goals remedying biodiversity. This emerging international environmental jurisprudence might even indicate that prospects for enforcement are improving. 

Ultimately, it would lead legislation in a more modern way all to ensure that the natural wonders of the world are conserved.