The growing ecological crisis, characterized by climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, and degradation of freshwater ecosystems, has prompted renewed debate regarding the adequacy of conventional environmental law. Traditional legal systems generally treat nature as property or a resource subject to human ownership and exploitation, providing protection primarily through regulatory mechanisms designed to control environmental harm. In recent decades, however, several jurisdictions have adopted an innovative legal approach by recognizing rivers, forests, ecosystems, and other natural entities as legal persons possessing enforceable rights. This emerging doctrine, commonly known as the Rights of Nature, represents a significant shift from anthropocentric environmental governance toward an ecocentric legal framework that acknowledges the intrinsic value of the natural world. This paper critically examines the evolution of legal personhood for nature from the perspectives of environmental law, constitutional law, jurisprudence, and comparative legal studies. It analyses the philosophical foundations of the Rights of Nature movement, evaluates judicial and legislative developments in jurisdictions including Ecuador, New Zealand, Colombia, India, and the United States, and assesses the legal implications of granting personhood to rivers, forests, and ecosystems. The paper further explores the challenges associated with representation, enforcement, constitutional compatibility, indigenous rights, property ownership, and environmental governance. Finally, it proposes legislative and institutional reforms aimed at developing a coherent legal framework capable of recognizing the rights of nature while balancing ecological protection, sustainable development, and human interests.