Call for Papers: Constitutions and Intergenerational Justice

Call for Papers: Constitutions and Intergenerational Justice

It is recalled that serious doubts can be raised concerning the status of theories such as those pertaining to the rights of future generations, or the constraints imposed on us by theories of intergenerational justice. At the same time, we do have moral obligations to future generations. But these must be based on an appraisal of what are likely to be the main interests that future generations will have and which of these are most likely to be under permanent threat. These, it is argued, will be in the field of human relations rather than in the field of the environment. It is concluded, therefore, that the most important bequest we can make to future generations is to leave them a society in which there is a greater respect for basic human rights than is the case today throughout most of the world. And since the best way of bequeathing a more decent society to future generations is, of course, to improve the respect for human rights today, there is no conflict of interest between the present generation and future generations. Hence, theories of intergenerational distributive justice are not only untenable but are also unnecessary.

The questions of whether we have obligations towards future generations, why we have such obligations and what these obligations entail, are important topics of discussion in contemporary moral and political philosophy. While there seems to be political consensus on the view that we are obligated to adopt a policy of sustainability, the reasons why we should endorse such an obligation are highly contested. The dominant argument can be found in the so-called 'Brundtland definition' of 'sustainable development': 'sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' (United Nations 1987: 37). In this line of thought, the obligation towards future generations is a normative reason for a sustainable politics. Of course, we also have reasons to act sustainably because of the rights of current (particularly the younger) generations, but various aspects of a sustainable politics are only necessary if we take future generations into account. Such an obligation to a long-term sustainable policy would assume that there is something about future generations that gives us obligations towards them. But if we attribute rights to future generations, we would assume that human rights should be attributed to beings that do not and may never exist. This problem is quite extensively discussed in terms of 'rights of future generations' or 'intergenerational justice' (for example, Grosseries and Meyer 2009; Hiskes 2009) but the concept of human dignity is hardly ever referred to. In the following I will briefly explain (1) the obstacles we are facing if we talk about human dignity in the context of future generations; (2) what such a conceptualization could look like; and (3) what further philosophical and practical issues arise from this.

Call for Papers: Demography Prize for Young Researches 2016/2017

Some key political challenges today, e.g. climate change, are future oriented. The intergenerational setting differs in some notable ways from the intragenerational one, creating obstacles to theorizing about intergenerational justice. One concern is that as the circumstances of justice do not pertain intergenerationally, intergenerational justice is not meaningful. In this paper, I scrutinize this worry by analysing the presentations of the doctrine of the circumstances of justice by David Hume and John Rawls. I argue that we should accept the upshot of their idea, that justice is context sensitive, even if this at first sight seems to invalidate intergenerational justice. On the basis of moral constructivism, I subsequently provide a fresh reading of the doctrine according to which it conveys the idea that justice is the solution to a practical problem. However, as the problem background is evolving, we need to properly characterize the relevant practical problem in order to make ethical theorizing relevant. Contrary to what has been claimed, the circumstances of justice do not then clash with intergenerational justice, but are the necessary presuppositions for its advancement.

Intergenerational environmental justice arguably requires ensuring that future generations have similar opportunities to benefit from and to enjoy the natural environment as current generations have. Direct government regulation may be insufficient to fulfill this requirement of justice, necessitating the search for additional means for controlling environmental harm. I argue that expanding the fiduciary duty of directors under corporate law to include a duty to minimize the corporation’s environmental impacts is one way to fill the gap left by direct government regulation. This approach challenges the shareholder primacy approach to corporate governance dominant in North America. The shareholder primacy approach would foreclose any role for corporate directors in reducing the corporation’s environmental impacts beyond ensuring compliance with government regulations. This paper calls into question the assumptions underlying shareholder primacy in order to open up the parameters of the debate about the role of corporations and their boards of directors in fulfilling our obligations to future generations. Although the shareholder primacy approach may be less dominant outside of North America, the global reach and influence of transnational corporations based in North America gives this question international relevance. The arguments made here in favor of a fiduciary duty to future generations may also be more widely applicable to other corporate governance regimes.The predicted environmental impacts of climate change and ongoing loss of biodiversity mean that current generations can no longer assume that the benefits to future generations of today’s economic development will outweigh the costs of the long-term environmental harm. Our increasing understanding of these environmental harms and their long-term consequences require that we move away from traditional approaches to intergenerational justice, which allow for the substitution of destroyed natural capital with man-made capital so long as total 'capital', both natural and man-made, passed on to future generations is not depleted. A more just approach is one that requires current generations to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that future generations have the same opportunities to benefit from and to enjoy the natural environment as current generations have. Direct government regulation of private economic activity, even if properly enforced, may be insufficient to meet the demands of this new understanding of intergenerational justice for two main reasons. First, as a by-product of otherwise desirable conduct, environmental harm is difficult to regulate by prohibitions. Second, the information required by regulators to control adequately the environmental harm caused by corporate activity is more easily obtained by officials or employees within the corporation. Filling these gaps requires corporations to play a greater role in controlling their own environmental impacts.One way in which corporations could be required to play this role is by expanding the fiduciary duty of directors to include a duty to future generations to minimize the corporation’s environmental impacts. This suggestion is a direct challenge to the shareholder primacy approach to corporate governance, currently dominant in North America. Under this approach to corporate governance, the role of corporate directors and managers is to maximize profits and the role of corporate law is to try to ensure that they do so; it is the role of government to take into account and regulate the broader social impacts of corporate activity. It is nonsensical, under this approach, to speak of the board of directors as having any legal duties to anything or anyone other than to the corporation and its shareholders. The shareholder primacy approach to corporate governance therefore appears to foreclose completely the possibility of requiring the corporation to play a greater role in reducing its own environmental impacts.The principle argument in favor of shareholder primacy is that it is the best way to maximize social wealth or welfare. I suggest that, given the delay between the causes and effects of many environmental problems, shareholder primacy may not be maximizing wealth, but merely transferring it from future generations to present ones by externalizing the costs of environmental harm onto future generations. Another argument in favor of shareholder primacy is that focusing directors and managers on maximizing profits ensures that assets are allocated to their “most valued use”. This argument is also problematic from the point of view of intergenerational environmental justice, since markets may undervalue many environmental goods and services. Moving resources to their “most valued use” according to existing market values therefore may work against fulfilling our obligations to future generations. For these reasons, it cannot be said that shareholder primacy maximizes wealth or welfare when the interests of future generations are taken into account. By challenging the primary assumptions underlying the shareholder primacy approach to corporate governance, I hope to expand the range of policy options for filling the gap left by direct government regulation to include a duty to future generations to minimize environmental harm as something conceivably within the scope of corporate governance and corporate law.

In the realm of intergenerational justice, green constitutionalism underscores the necessity for present generations to make choices that do not jeopardize the capacity of future generations to fulfill their needs independently. The climate verdict defending the rights of future generations by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of March 2021 was a game changer in that regard. For the first time in Germany’s climate litigation, the fundamental rights of future generations were subject to constitutional claim and enforceable. They were no longer just a normative claim. Constitutional courts can be seen as defenders of the fundamental rights of future generations where constitutions include such normative perspectives. While the Court upheld the infringement of the fundamental rights of the adolescent plaintiffs in the future, the representation of not-yet-born generations remains unclear. This article examines how the 2021 German climate verdict and constitutional provisions address the representation and protection of the interests of future generations represented by the plaintiffs concerning climate change on the one hand and discusses the potential of protecting the fundamental rights of not-yet-born future generations. The article considers the implications for intergenerational justice and explores how these legal frameworks provided by the Constitution may contribute to the formulation of sustainable policies aimed at ensuring the long-term well-being of future generations. There is an urgent need to develop an institutional regime where the needs and rights of future generations are being considered and included in decision-making processes.

The protection of the interests and rights of future generations, which are being progressively influenced by the actions of the present, has become a pressing global concern. Since 2021, the United Nations has intensified its efforts to cope with this issue, particularly through Our Common Agenda. Space has been identified as a priority within the Pact for the Future, adopted in September 2024, as part of this broader initiative. This study explores sustainable space governance and its potential to advance the rights of future generations and promote intergenerational justice. Key areas such as regulating space traffic, mitigating space debris, and ensuring equitable access to space resources are identified as critical for the sustainable use and governance of space for both present and future generations. The study argues that protecting future generations’ rights has become a global gridlock. In the context of global politics, sustainable space governance provides a pathway to addressing complex, interconnected challenges while safeguarding these rights. Intra- and intergenerational justice is already a component of existing space governance frameworks. Nevertheless, the advancement of these frameworks necessitates the prioritization of Wendt's concept of the internationalization of the state and the contributions of epistemic communities. This study synthesizes the four essential policy goals for future generations adopted in 2023 with gridlock pathways and suggests that the adaptation of these principles to space policies is crucial to address emerging challenges and secure a just future.

This book presents an argument for environmental human rights as the basis of intergenerational environmental justice. It argues that the rights to clean air, water, and soil should be seen as the environmental human rights of both present and future generations. It presents several new conceptualizations central to the development of theories of both human rights and justice, including emergent human rights, reflexive reciprocity as the foundation of justice, and a communitarian foundation for human rights that both protects the rights of future generations and makes possible an international consensus on human rights, beginning with environmental human rights. In the process of making the case for environmental human rights, the book surveys and contributes to the entire fields of human rights theory and environmental justice.

Economic implications of intergenerational equity for biodiversity conservation

Climate litigation based on the constitutional rights of future generations is an emerging and promising approach to enforcing long-term policies based on intergenerational and climate justice. In Germany, a high-profile constitutional judgment triggered by climate activists ruled that the German climate policy infringes future freedom rights. Based on an assessment of legal opportunity structures and interviews with key actors, this research finds that the complainants utilised the opportunity to facilitate a strong public perception of intergenerational injustice set by the Fridays for Future movement. While the court’s response in the form of the intertemporal effect doctrine is ambiguous and does not constitute clear fundamental rights of future generations, the complainants reached their strategic goal to directly influence policymakers and draw public attention to the issue of climate protection as an intergenerational responsibility. An interplay of four different legal arguments and numerous actors associated with the climate movement was crucial to triggering this outcome. These findings from a sociolegal bottom-up perspective are of great relevance as they show that impactful climate litigation through intergenerational principles relies on the strategic utilisation of the cultural context beyond the legal sphere.

The global transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is one of the most pressing environmental and social challenges of the 21st century. From an ecological jurisprudential perspective, this process is closely linked to the principle of intergenerational justice, which requires states to guarantee the environmental rights of future generations. This study aims at two things: first, to provide a critical legal analysis of Uruguay's fossil fuel transition within the framework of intergenerational justice; and second, to develop a replicable analytical model for assessing energy transitions in developing and middle-income countries, with implications for global debates on sustainability, ecological ethics, and intergenerational equity. The research method uses an interpretive qualitative paradigm with a case study design in Uruguay, through semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and analysis of legal-policy documents, accompanied by data triangulation and thematic analysis. The results reveal two main findings. First, there is a tension between substantive success, nearly 98% of Uruguay's electricity is based on renewable energy and normative weakness in the absence of explicit protection of the rights of future generations in the legal framework. This indicates a strong de facto sustainability but a fragile de jure one heavily dependent on political commitment. Second, this research produces the IEJET (Intergenerational Ecological Justice Energy Transition) Model, which assesses the energy transition through four stages: national context, legal framework, substantive-normative dimensions, and the principle of intergenerational justice. The research's limitation lies in its focus on the electricity sector, thus under-exploring aspects of transportation, industry, and global political economy. Consequently, the technical success of the energy transition is insufficient without strengthening laws, institutions, and intergenerational participation. An original contribution of this research is developing the IEJET conceptual framework as an evaluation tool that strengthens the discourse of global ecological justice.

The Stuttgart-based Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) and the London-based Intergenerational Foundation (IF) jointly award the biennial Intergenerational Justice Prize, endowed with EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in total prize-money, to essay-writers who address political and demographic issues pertaining to the field of intergenerational justice. The prize was initiated and is funded by the Apfelbaum Foundation. For the 2020 prize, the FRFG and IF call for papers on the following topic: Intergenerational wealth transfers through inheritance and gifts Topic abstract Wealth transfers across generations combine justice between past, present and future generations (intergenerational justice) with justice within the present generation (intragenerational justice) as a major reason for the increasing inequality in a society is the accumulation of wealth within families over time. Inheritance taxes deprive the testator of the opportunity to pass on their assets to their direct descendants. Instead, the state distributes them to all citizens. On the one hand, there is the view that the acceptance of private property implies that it should also be allowed in family relationships: wealth may accumulate along family lines, instead of being redistributed to society as a whole at every change of generation. Conversely, it is maintained that the birth lottery (the question of being born into a poor or rich family) should not affect the life chances of the youngest generation. Undoubtedly, intergenerational transfers of wealth by inheritance and gifts (and related issues of inheritance and gift tax) are a complex issue that has been the subject of many political and philosophical discussions. In this Call for Papers we invite contributions that consider and analyse the topic from various perspectives of intergenerational justice. For instance: Is it legitimate for wealth to remain within families, generation after generation? Or should the wealth be taxedby the state, for greater redistribution? Which philosophical arguments speak in favour of the dynastic approach, which ones support the societal approach? To what extent do inheritance (and gift) tax systems differ in terms of tax rates and allowances according to degree of kinship in OECD countries or beyond? What percentage of the population is liable to these taxes? How are business assets handled? How does inheritance tax relate to the welfare state? Does a higher inheritance tax empirically actually lead to less inequality? How (un)popular are (high) inheritance and gift taxes among voters? Can this topic be used to win elections? Are there different opinions depending on age/generation? Which relevant narratives and argumentation strategies can be identified in politics, business, society and the media, and where do they converge? Formalities The Intergenerational Justice Prize is endowed with EUR 10,000. The prize money will be distributed proportionally among the best submissions, which can be more or less than the top three submissions. Winning submissions will be considered for publication by the editorial team of the Intergenerational Justice Review (IGJR; www.igjr.org) for the summer issue 2021. For full entry requirements (details of required formatting, addresses for submissions etc, and an official entry form) email Maria Lenk (kontakt@srzg.de) or Antony Mason (awards@if.org.uk). Closing date for prize submissions: 1 July 2020, 23:59 (GMT+1)

This chapter examines the role of the United Nations (UN) in fulfilling the concept of intergenerational equity as it relates to ocean governance. The concept of intergenerational equity is inexorably linked to the principle of sustainable development. Three basic principles underpin intergenerational equity: conservation of options, conservation of quality, and conservation of access. The chapter first considers the concept of intergenerational equity within the context of sustainable development and environmental protection before discussing international conventions and soft law instruments including the principle of intergenerational equity. It then explains how the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) takes into account intergenerational equity and goes on to review national and international case-law concerning intergenerational equity and the rights of future generations. It also analyses constitutional and institutional protection of the rights of future generations and concludes with an assessment of UN approaches addressing the needs of future generations.

Finding a fair balance between present needs and the rights of future generations is a fundamental ethical challenge caused by the increasing threat of climate change. Titled "A Sustainable Legacy: Navigating Climate Change Through the Lens of Intergenerational Justice," this paper delves into the complex connection between climate action and intergenerational justice, drawing attention to the moral duty of present-day societies to protect the social and environmental conditions that future generations will need to thrive. This paper offers a critical examination of the responsibilities of current generations in reducing climate risks and ensuring sustainability for future generations. It draws on ethical frameworks such as John Rawls' theory of justice, the capabilities approach by Amartya Sen and the precautionary principle. This approach revolves around the idea of intergenerational justice, which states that we have an ethical obligation to ensure that future generations have access to healthy ecosystems, abundant natural resources, and a predictable climate. Using arguments from deontological and consequentialist theory, the article contends that the right to life, health, and wellbeing of future humans will be violated if we do nothing to combat climate change. Applying Rawls' "veil of ignorance," the study shows that decision-makers would prioritize long-term environmental sustainability without knowing which generation they belong to, therefore promoting a fair allocation of risks and resources across time. Furthermore, the capacities approach lends credence to the moral imperative to combat climate change by stressing the importance of preserving fundamental human rights and opportunities, which are in grave danger from the effects of climate change. In addition, the report takes into account the precautionary principle, which states that strong climate measures should be implemented regardless of the level of scientific confidence, because failing to do so could result in permanent damage to generations to come. An everlasting dedication to sustainability as a foundation of justice is highlighted by this confluence of ethical theory and environmental governance. Modern climate policy, global accords such as the Paris Accord, and the inadequacy of present economic systems in addressing environmental consequences over the long run are all examined in the article. It argues that political and economic systems are too focused on the here and now to think about the planet's long-term viability. By combining policy analysis with ethical discourse, the study urges national and international governing bodies to recast climate change as a justice concern, with obligations that go beyond generations. Finally, this study concludes that if we want to leave a lasting legacy, we must tackle climate change from an ethical perspective of intergenerational justice. In order to leave the earth habitable for generations to come, it says that our generation must put aside its narrow interests and enact comprehensive policies. In order to take ethical climate action, the report recommends rethinking society values with an eye on intergenerational equality and moving towards sustainable development and long-term climate governance.