Human pervasiveness on the Earth System, characterised by unprecedented social and environmental crises, demands a reimagining of human-Nature relations. Emerging from Earth Jurisprudence, a Rights of Nature (RoN) approach has been proposed as a legal and conceptual mechanism to interrogate exploitative human-Nature relations and facilitate an Earth-centric transition within Western systems of law and governance. While this concept has gained recent traction in Australia, RoN creation and recognition still faces significant practical and conceptual barriers. This article presents the results of an exploratory qualitative analysis articulating the perspectives of state members of parliament, local councillors, lawyers, academics, advocates, and community volunteers to provide insight and understanding into perceived obstacles to RoN creation and recognition in Australia. Twenty-five key barriers were identified and categorised into a novel taxonomy called the Barriers and Enablers to Rights of Nature (BERN) Framework, with the most salient including: (1) Dominant Paradigms, namely anthropocentrism, economic ideologies, political ideologies and partisanship, and social and political conservatism; (2) Regulatory Obstacles, including the existing regulatory system and rights structures; (3) Vested Interests; and (4) Power, including limited opportunity to participate in decision-making, access to decisionmakers, and government levels. In articulating these factors, stakeholder dissonance regarding the employment, definition, and framing of RoN was observed, indicating RoN functions as a boundary object in the Australian context. We consider how identifying RoN as a boundary object may impact advocacy, as well as the implications it may have for overcoming barriers to RoN creation and recognition.
