Environmental justice (EJ) groups are increasingly turning to courts to address socio-ecological conflicts. Central to these efforts is the production of evidence and the translation of collective grievances into arguments recognized by judicial institutions. This article develops the concept of ‘science-based legal mobilization’ to capture the strategic use and foregrounding of scientific knowledge and expert testimony to meet evidentiary standards and advance EJ claims. Drawing on a qualitative case study of rights of nature litigation in Intag, Ecuador, the article examines how community members, activists, scientists, and legal actors assemble and mobilize diverse forms of knowledge. These include local knowledge, science, regulatory administrative knowledge and legal knowledge. Focusing on a key moment in the legal defense of territory through rights of nature—centered on the protection of threatened species such as the long-nosed harlequin frog and the confusing rocket frog—the study traces how knowledge is co-produced, legitimized, and presented in court. The findings show that, while rights of nature frameworks signal openness to plural knowledge systems science and credentialed expertise continue to play a central role in engaging the judiciary and shaping legal arguments and judicial reasoning. Science based legal mobilization enables EJ groups to meet legal standards and secure ecological protection, yet it also reinforces epistemic hierarchies by privileging knowledge forms that are traditionally recognized as authoritative. As a result, local perspectives and broader socio-cultural harms risk being marginalized. The article concludes that the transformative potential of rights of nature litigation depends on confronting these epistemic hierarchies. Advancing knowledge pluralism requires not only the strategic use of science but also greater recognition of diverse ways of knowing in legal processes, which shape both what counts as evidence and which ‘natures’ are ultimately protected.
AffolterL (2020) The responsibility to prevent future harm: Anti-mining struggles, the state, and constitutional lawsuits in Ecuador. Journal of Legal Anthropology4(2): 78–99.
2.
AffolterL (2024) Humans as those who must care and act: Mobilizing rights of nature in anti-mining struggles in Ecuador. Journal of Social & Cultural Anthropology / Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (ZfE)149: 297–312.
3.
AkchurinM (2023) Environmental justice at the environmental courts? Mining, socioenvironmental conflicts, and environmental litigation in northern Chile. The Extractive Industries and Society15: 101279.
ArancibiaF (2016) Rethinking activism and expertise within environmental health conflicts. Sociology Compass10(6): 477–490.
9.
ArancibiaFMottaR (2019) Undone science and counter-expertise: Fighting for justice in an Argentine community contaminated by pesticides. Science as Culture28(3): 277–302.
10.
ArselMHogenboomBPellegriniL (2016) The extractive imperative and the boom in environmental conflicts at the end of the progressive cycle in Latin America. The Extractive Industries and Society3(4): 877–879.
11.
Asamblea Nacional (2008) Constitución de la República del Ecuador (Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador). Montecristi.
12.
AvcıDFernández-SalvadorC (2016) Territorial dynamics and local resistance: Two mining conflicts in Ecuador compared. The Extractive Industries and Society3(4): 912–921.
13.
BarandiaranJRubiano-GalvisS (2019) An empirical study of EIA litigation involving energy facilities in Chile and Colombia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review79: 106311.
14.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHL, et al. (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
15.
BorràsS (2016) New transitions from human rights to the environment to the rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law5(1): 113–143.
16.
Bretón Solo de ZaldívarV (2017) Three divergent understandings of Buen Vivir in the Ecuador of the Citizens’ Revolution. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies12(2): 188–198.
17.
BridgeG (2004) Mapping the bonanza: Geographies of mining investment in an era of neoliberal reform. The Professional Geographer56(3): 406–421.
BuchananKS (2013) Contested discourses, knowledge, and socio-environmental conflict in Ecuador. Environmental Science & Policy30: 19–25.
20.
BurchardtHJ (2016) El neo-extractivismo en el siglo XXI. Qué podemos aprender del ciclo de desarrollo más reciente en América Latina. [Neo-extractivism in the XXI century]. In: BurchardtHJDomínguezRLarreaCPetersS (eds) Nada dura para siempre. Neo-extractivismo tras el boom de las materias primas [Nothing Lasts Forever. Neo-Extractivism After the Resource Boom]. Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, International Center for Development and Decent Work Universität Kassel, 55–87.
21.
Bustamante SáenzS (2020) Letter to Dra. Carmen Inés Jaramillo Cevallos, Judge of the Unidad Judicial Multicompetente con sede en el cantón Cotacachi.
22.
CEDENMA, Asociación de Propietarios de Tierras Rurales del Norte, Amazon Frontlines, Intag Santuario de Vida, Alianza por los Derechos Humanos Ecuador, Jambatu, . . . DECOIN. (2023). Victoria judicial de la resistencia antiminera en Intag. https://alianzaddhh.org/victoria-judicial-de-la-resistencia-antiminera-en-intag/.
23.
ColeSABertenthalA (2017) Science, technology, society, and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science13: 351–371.
24.
ColomaLADuellmanWE (2024) An Introduction to the Amphibians of Ecuador: Diversity, Conservation, and Cultural History. Boca Raton, FL and Abingdon, Oxon: CRC Press.
CondeMWalterMWagnerL, et al. (2023) Slow justice and other unexpected consequences of litigation in environmental conflicts. Global Environmental Change83: 102762.
27.
Delgado GarridoJA (2020) Recurso de apelación. Process No.: 10332-2020-00418. Cotacachi.
28.
Dominguez-RendónEVillada-CanelaMMuñoz-PizzaDM (2024) Community strengthening through citizen monitoring of water quality: A systematic review. PLOS ONE19(7): e0305723.
29.
DoughertyML (2016) From global peripheries to the earth's core. The new extraction in Latin America. In: DeonandanKDoughertyML (eds) Mining in Latin America: Critical Approaches to the New Extraction. Florence: Tylor and Francis, 5–24.
EpsteinYEllisonAMEcheverríaH, et al. (2023) Science and the legal rights of nature. Science380(6646): eadf4155.
32.
EspinosaC (2019) Interpretive affinities: The constitutionalization of rights of nature, Pacha Mama, in Ecuador. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning21(5): 608–622.
33.
EspinosaC (2022) Reducing power disparities in large-scale mining governance through counter-expertise: A synthesis of case studies from Ecuador. The Extractive Industries and Society9: 101000.
34.
EspinosaCRodríguezF (2025) Rights of nature and world order: Reimagining socioecological futures. Global Environmental Politics25(3): 55–77.
35.
FisherL (2021) Environmental law, scholarship, and epistemic responsibility. Journal of Environmental Law33(3): 521–529.
36.
FlickU (2022) Doing Interview Research. The Essential How To Guide(A. Owen Ed.). Los Angeles; London; New Dehli; Singapore: Sage.
37.
FrickelSGibbonSHowardJ, et al. (2010) Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(4): 444–473.
Gálvez MancillaE (2025) Patrimonios vivos: Diálogo intercultural y defensa territorial en la formación de peritos comunitarios en Ecuador. Andares. Revista de Derechos Humanos y de la Naturaleza (8): 37–47. https://doi.org/10.32719/29536782.2025.8.3.
40.
GilbertJSolievIRobertsonA, et al. (2023) Understanding the rights of nature: Working together across and beyond disciplines. Human Ecology51(3): 363–377.
41.
GodinM (2022) The fight to save Ecuador’s sacred Piatúa River.
42.
González-SerranoMX (2025) Rights of nature, an ornamental legal framework: Water extractivism and backbone rivers with rights in Colombia. The Journal of Peasant Studies52(2): 322–342.
43.
GreeneNMuñozG (2013) Los derechos de la naturaleza son mis derechos. Manual para el tratamiento de los conflictos socioambientales bajo el nuevo marco de derechos constitucionales. Quito: Plataforma de Acuerdos Socio Ambientales - PLASA, Colectivo Nacional por los Derechos de la Naturaleza, Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones del FMAM - PPD/ FMAM/PNUD.
GudynasE (2009) Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo [Ten urgent hypotheses about the new extractivism]. Extractivismo, política y sociedad, 187-225.
GuzmánJJ (2019) Decolonizing law and expanding human rights: Indigenous conceptions and the rights of nature in Ecuador. Deusto Journal of Human Rights (4): 59–86. doi:10.18543/djhr-4-2019pp59-86.
48.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
49.
HardingS (2016) Latin American decolonial social studies of scientific knowledge: Alliances and tensions. Science, Technology, & Human Values41(6): 1063–1087.
50.
HessDJ (2016) Undone Science, Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: MIT Press.
51.
HimleyM (2014) Monitoring the impacts of extraction: Science and participation in the governance of mining in Peru. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space46(5): 1069–1087.
52.
HogenboomB (2012) Depoliticized and repoliticized minerals in Latin America. Journal of Developing Societies28(2): 133–158.
53.
HouartCHoogestegerJBoelensR (2025) Multispecies imaginaries for river justice: Mobilising in defence of the Piatúa River, Ecuador. Political Geography118: 103296.
JasanoffS (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: States of Knowledge. London, New York: Routledge, 13–45.
56.
JasanoffS (2008) Representation and re-presentation in litigation science. Environmental Health Perspectives116(1): 123–129.
57.
JasanoffS (2011) The practices of objectivity in regulatory science. In: CamicCGrossNLamontM (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 307–337.
58.
KauffmanCMMartinPL (2018) Constructing rights of nature norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand. Global Environmental Politics18(4): 43–62.
59.
KauffmanCMMartinPL (2021) The Politics of the Rights of Nature. Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future. Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT Press.
60.
KauffmanCMMartinPL (2023) How Ecuador's courts are giving form and force to rights of nature norms. Transnational Environmental Law12(2): 366–395.
KirschS (2014) Corporate science. In: Mining Capitalism. 1st ed.Oakland: University of California Press, 127–158.
63.
KnaußS (2018) Conceptualizing human stewardship in the anthropocene: The rights of nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics31(6): 703–722.
64.
KretschmannAMouralisGZeigermannU (2024) Laypeople in Law: Socio-Legal Perspectives on Non-Professionals. London: Routledge.
65.
KueckerGD (2007) Fighting for the forests: Grassroots resistance to mining in northern Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives34(2): 94–107.
66.
LattaA (2014) Matter, politics and the sacred: Insurgent ecologies of citizenship. Cultural Geographies21(3): 323–341.
67.
LiF (2015) Unearthing Conflict: Corporate Mining, Activism, and Expertise in Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
68.
Martínez NovoC (2021) Undoing Multiculturalism Resource Extraction and Indigenous Rights in Ecuador. In Pitt Latin American Ser. (pp. 1 online resource (313 pages)).
69.
MendelsonJRMIIII (2024) Foreword. In: ColomaLADuellmanWE (eds) An Introduction to the Amphibians of Ecuador: Diversity, Conservation, and Cultural History. Boca Raton, FL and Abingdon, Oxon: CRC Press, 1.
70.
MooreJVelásquezT (2012) Sovereignty negotiated: Anti-mining movements, the state and multinational mining companies under ‘Correa's twenty-first century socialism’. In: BebbingtonA (eds) Social Conflict, Economic Development and Extractive Industry. Evidence from South America. London; New York: Routledge, 112–133.
71.
NegevMTeschnerN (2013) Rethinking the relationship between technical and local knowledge: Toward a multi-type approach. Environmental Science & Policy30: 50–59.
72.
Ortiz DuránR (2020) Letter to Dra. Carmen Inés Jaramillo Cevallos, Judge of the Unidad Judicial Multicompetente con sede en el cantón Cotacachi.
73.
OttingerG (2024) Careful knowing as an aspect of environmental justice. Environmental Politics33(2): 199–218.
74.
PacariN (2009) Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indígenas. In: AcostaAMartínezE (eds) Derechos de la Naturaleza, el futuro es ahora. Quito: Abya-Yala, 31–38.
75.
PanikkarB (2020) “Litigation is our last resort”: Addressing uncertainty, undone science, and bias in court to assert indigenous rights. Nature and Culture15(2): 173–198.
76.
PellowDN (2016) Toward a Critical Environmental Justice Studies: Black lives matter as an environmental justice challenge. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race13(2): 221–236.
RadcliffeSA (2018) Tackling complex inequalities and Ecuador's Buen Vivir: Leaving no-one behind and equality in diversity. Bulletin of Latin American Research37(4): 417–433.
79.
RamírezN (2020) Amicus curiae dentro de la causa 10332-2020-00418.
80.
RawsonAMansfieldB (2018) Producing juridical knowledge: “Rights of Nature” or the naturalization of rights?Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space1(1-2): 99–119.
RiofrancosT (2020) Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
83.
RiofrancosT (2023) The security–sustainability nexus: Lithium onshoring in the Global North. Global Environmental Politics23(1): 20–41.
84.
Equipo de Monitoreo Comunitario de Junín and SacherW (2016) ¿Minería Responsable? Codelco contamina las cascadas de Junín. In: ZorrillaCSacherWAlvarezPAcostaA (eds) Los Nuevos Versos Perversos de la Minería en el Ecuador. Quito: Acción Ecológica, 1–5.
85.
SacherWChopardA (2017) Megaminería y agua en Íntag: una evaluación independiente. Análisis preliminar de los potenciales impactos en el agua por la explotación de cobre a cielo abierto en Junín, zona de Intag, Ecuador. Apuela.
86.
Sánchez-VázquezL (2020) ¿Ciencia de resistencia? Monitoreos ambientales participativos en contextos de conflicto ambiental. Reflexiones Desde una Mirada Decolonial. Revista de Paz y Conflictos12(2): 57–79.
87.
ScheidelATemperLDemariaF, et al. (2018) Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability: An overview and conceptual framework. Sustainability Science13(3): 585–598.
88.
SchlosbergD (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics13(3): 517–540.
SiederR (2022) The juridification of politics. In: FobletsM-CGoodaleMSapignoliM, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198840534.013.41.
91.
SiederRBarrera ViveroA (2017) Legalizing indigenous self-determination: Autonomy and Buen Vivir in Latin America. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology22(1): 9–26.
92.
Summary minutes of the public hearing for the constitutional protection action. Process No.: 10332-2020-00418 (2020) Unidad Judicial Multicompetente con Sede en el Cantón Cotacachi. Cotacachi.
93.
TănăsescuM (2015) Nature advocacy and the indigenous symbol. Environmental Values24(1): 105–122.
94.
TănăsescuM (2020) Rights of nature, legal personality, and indigenous philosophies. Transnational Environmental Law9(3): 429–453.
95.
TapiaEEColomaLAPazmiño-OtamendiG, et al. (2017) Rediscovery of the nearly extinct longnose harlequin frog Atelopus longirostris (Bufonidae) in Junín, Imbabura, Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity Journal3(1): 157–167.
96.
TemperL (2019) Blocking pipelines, unsettling environmental justice: From rights of nature to responsibility to territory. Local Environment24(2): 94–112.
97.
TeránA (2020) Documento dirigido al Señor Juez Constitucional de la Unidad Judicial Multicompetente con sede en el Cantón Cotacachi. Cotacachi.
98.
Terán v. Ministerio del Ambiente y Procuraduría General del Estado (2020) Juicio Especial No. 10332202000418. Unidad Judicial Multicompetente, Cotacachi, Ecuador.
99.
TollefsonJPanikkarB (2020) Contested extractivism: Impact assessment, public engagement, and environmental knowledge production in Alaska's Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Journal of Political Ecology27(1): 1166–1188.
100.
TopçuS (2008) Confronting nuclear risks: Counter-expertise as politics within the French nuclear energy debate. Nature and Culture3(2): 225–245.
101.
TsosieR (2015) Indigenous peoples and the ethics of remediation: Redressing the legacy of radioactive contamination for native peoples and native lands symposium: Environment and human rights. Santa Clara J. Int'l L.13: 203.
102.
UlloaA (2019) Indigenous knowledge regarding climate in Colombia. In: FeolaGGeogheganHArnallA (eds) Climate and Culture: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on a Warming World. Vol. 68.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–92.
103.
VanhalaL (2022) Environmental legal mobilization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science18: 101–117.
104.
VelásquezT (2012) The science of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Contamination and conflict in a mining project in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. Resources Policy37(2): 233–240.
105.
VermeylenS (2019) Special issue: Environmental justice and epistemic violence. Local Environment24(2): 89–93.
106.
ViaeneL (2022) Can rights of nature save us from the anthropocene catastrophe? Some critical reflections from the field. Asian Journal of Law and Society9(2): 187–206.
107.
WidenhornS (2013) Towards epistemic justice with indigenous peoples’ knowledge? Exploring the potentials of the convention on biological diversity and the philosophy of Buen Vivir. Development56(3): 378–386.
108.
YanowD (2003) Accessing local knowledge. In: HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 228–246.
109.
YoungIM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
