The relevance of environmental rights, from different perspectives, at the international, regional, state levels, and some local references, was discussed in this chapter. A brief and rather humble identification of different possible classifications was presented, with the intent of finding evidence that disparate legal systems may provide, in different ways, norms and principles which aim to protect the environment and the citizens (and their communities) living in certain territories. Facing different legal traditions, such as Roman and German influenced Civil Law or British and American influenced Common Law, it is complex to find absolute isometric similarities or distinctions. In effect, the aim of this work was again not to develop a comparative study, but only to demonstrate and to map some possible paradigmatic examples on both sides of the Atlantic, from federal or supranational and state or Member State perspectives, on how environmental law can deal with rights and what mechanisms it uses to protect them. The effectiveness of environmental rights can be questioned in some cases, especially when they are enshrined by constitutions and not so effectively provided in statutory law or implemented in practice. On the other hand, some examples can be presented of situations where constitutions do not provide environmental rights, but ordinary statutory law enshrines the protection of those rights, such as the case of Washington state. These differences and the problems resulting from them are some of the main motivations for this study, and they are also the reason why the element of resilience justice is needed, as a complementary way to find an effective protection of those rights, especially for those people who find it more difficult to be protected.