A court in Peru decided that the River Marañón has "intrinsic rights".

In philosophical terms, that is absurd, because exercising rights requires volition, and the river is not capable of that.

The practical content of the decision is good. To preserve the river's existence, ensure it continues to flow, restore damage, reduce pollution in it, and protect it's ecosystems are legitimate and important responsibilities — of humans, including the state.

However, to call those goals "rights" of the river itself is absurd, because the river cannot think, want, or decide anything. It is not in fact capable of exercising rights.

There is no need to base policies to protect nature on an incoherent philosophical foundation. We can establish a responsibility to protect rivers without asserting that they have rights.