<![CDATA[The global emergence of Rights of Nature (RoN) jurisprudence represents a fundamental paradigm shift in modern legal systems, transitioning environmental governance from an anthropocentric model of resource exploitation to an ecocentric framework that recognizes nature as a legal subject (subjecto de derechos). Crucially, the legal vanguard of this movement has developed within resource-rich developing states across Latin America, South Asia, and Africa. However, the recognition of Earth jurisprudence in these jurisdictions generates a profound institutional paradox. These states possess political economies fundamentally anchored in extractivism, where fiscal stability, statehood, and national development agendas rely heavily on primary commodity extraction. This study conducts a qualitative normative-legal analysis and comparative socio-legal evaluation of this tension across two primary analytical themes: first, the structural friction between Earth jurisprudence and the political economy of neo-extractivism, including administrative governmentality, regulatory capture, and foreign investment protections; and second, the judicial reception of ecocentric doctrines across key jurisdictions alongside the post-litigation execution bottlenecks that impede ground-level ecological protection. The findings demonstrate that while constitutional courts have developed sophisticated doctrines such as biocultural rights and precautionary ecosystem protection, their practical efficacy remains severely constrained by executive inertia, resource dependency, and judicial backlash. Reconciling this friction requires constructing robust anti-capture administrative architectures, establishing autonomous enforcement channels, and securing dedicated funding for legal guardianship bodies.]]>
