Representation Of Future Generations Research Articles

The representation of future generations in newspaper coverage of climate change: A study of the UK press

AbstractClimate change will rob future generations—today's children and those yet to be born—of the stable climate that previous generations have enjoyed. The article explores how future generations are represented in climate change coverage in the UK national press. We examine the ‘popular’ (Mail, Mirror) and ‘quality’ (Guardian, Telegraph) press from 2010 to March 2019. We found that little attention was given to future generations; young people rarely spoke and, along with those yet to be born, were represented in ways that obscured the temporal and social inequalities that are built into climate change.

Enfranchising the future: Climate justice and the representation of future generations

AbstractRepresenting unborn generations to more suitably include future interests in today's climate policymaking has sparked much interest in recent years. In this review we survey the main proposed instruments to achieve this effect, some of which have been attempted in polities such as Israel, Philippines, Wales, Finland, and Chile. We first review recent normative work on the idea of representing future people in climate governance: The grounds on which it has been advocated, and the main difficulties that traditional forms of representation have encountered when applied to this particular case. We then survey existing institutional means to represent generations to come. We separate out representation in courts, in parliament, and by independent bodies, and review specific instruments including climate litigation, parliamentary commissions, future representatives, youth quotas, and independent offices for future generations. We examine the particular forms whereby each of these may suitably represent future people, including audience representation, surrogate representation, and indicative representation, and discuss the main challenges they encounter in so doing.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Human Rights

인구의 정치학: 실버민주주의의 도래와 세대 간 정의

인구의 정치학: 실버민주주의의 도래와 세대 간 정의

“The First Generation to End Poverty and the Last to Save the Planet?”—Western Individualism, Human Rights and the Value of Nature in the Ethics of Global Sustainable Development

The UN Agenda 2030 lends itself to an interpretation in light of the human rights framework and related contractualist ethical theories. These frameworks have been developed in the context of Western individualism. This paper analyses the sustainable development goals in light of the debate between human rights on the one side and the rights of nature on the other side. It argues that human rights are often (though not exclusively) linked to social contract theories. The paper points out strengths and weaknesses of contractualist individualism. It discusses various challenges to the contractualist framework. How can contractualist individualism deal with the representation of future generations? What assumptions does the social contract make with regard to the nature of the individual? Should we conceive of them, e.g., as utility maximizers or as idealized rational agents? A final weakness of the framework is that contractualism seems to ignore other values, especially the value of nature. The paper therefore sketches recent developments in ethical theory that attempt to go beyond Western individualism.

Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making

Global existential and catastrophic risks, particularly those arising from technological developments, present challenges for intergenerational justice. We aim to present a solutions-based approach to the challenge of intergenerational inequality. We examine options for representing future generations in our present policymaking structures, drawing on case studies from Singapore, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Scotland and Wales. We derive several factors which contribute to the success of some of these institutions, and discuss reasons for the failure or abolition of others. We draw out broad lessons which we can apply to policymaking in England, and make policy recommendations based on these findings.

Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework

International climate litigation is an important supplement to the global United Nations negotiating process. Establishing a normative basis for such litigation is important in terms of its legitimacy. Rehfeld’s concept of representation is used in this article to argue that it is coherent to talk about representation of future generations in relation to climate change-related claims brought by States on behalf of their citizens and future generations before international tribunals. The article argues that international law ought to promote justice (following Buchanan and Ratner) – but extended to include intergenerational justice defined as an obligation on current generations to ensure subsistence enjoyment of core human rights by future generations. It is further argued that international tribunals ought to represent future generations as a vehicle for promoting intergenerational justice, given the massive bias against future generations in current law-making and institutions. How this would translate into a concrete case is illustrated by discussion of a potential advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The normative framework is utilised to illustrate how the Court should 1) interpret some selected general principles of international environmental law in relation to the Paris Climate Agreement and 2) take a liberal interpretation of its procedural rules to allow amicus curiae briefs by international organisations purporting to represent or highlight the interests of future generations in the climate context.

Litigation in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement

The fossil fuel divestment movement has been described as the fastest‐growing disinvestment movement in history, and in recent years it has continued to expand. Despite its growth, however, the movement has made little use of legal action, instead utilizing tactics of public pressure and persuasion, and the future role of litigation in the movement is unclear. To consider litigation's potential role in the movement and the challenges it may face, I examine the first and only case of litigation in the fossil fuel divestment movement thus far: Harvard Climate Justice Coalition et al. v President and Fellows of Harvard College et al. (2015), in which seven Harvard students (including the author) filed suit to compel the university to divest its endowment from fossil fuel companies. I examine motivations for filing the suit in the context of the broader fossil fuel divestment movement, the case's history, and the challenges faced by the suit, including arguments surrounding causation, particularization, representation of future generations, limiting principles, and framing. I then discuss potential opportunities for fossil fuel divestment litigation in the future. As the field of climate change law develops further, litigation over fossil fuel investments could grow in frequency and importance.

Political Representation of Future Generations and Collective Responsibility

The political representation of future generations would change the relationship between public decisions and the members of democratic political systems. In this paper we examine the implication of these changes on the responsibility of the living members for the future effects of current polices with special reference to climate change. The claim defended is that the collective responsibility of the living members for future outcomes diminishes when public decisions are made less responsive to them. In order to explain why this is the case a ‘participatory account' of collective responsibility is developed according to which collective responsibility is premised on the extent to which public decisions depend on their members. The paper concludes with a discussion on the grounds for valuing collective outcome responsibility and why the conflict between this norm and the claim that future generations should be granted political representation poses fundamental questions about the value of democracy.

Do global climate change and the interest of future generations have implications for democracy?

The inability of democratic governments to launch effective policies tackling global climate change has triggered criticism of democratic institutions and calls for increasing representation of future generations. In this article it is argued that introducing constraints on democratic institutions may sometimes conflict with the democratic interests of the generations to come. The potential conflict between environmental and political interests is further analysed using a contractualist framework. Contrary to what some contractualists have previously argued, it remains an open question to what extent we could reasonably expect future people to accept some constraints on the democratic process in return for more effective environmental policies.

Formal Welfarism and Intergenerational Equity

Intergenerational justice is a matter that should primarily concern the present generation, since the individuals living now are those to take immediate decisions affecting generations that will be living in the future, and even in the far future, as we know, for example, from the exhaustibility of some resources or from the long-term effects of pollution such as global warming. Of course, each future generation will become ‘present’ at some point in time, and the reasoning followed for the present ‘present generation’ about intergenerational justice could be repeated at that point in time. But, to develop this reasoning, each present generation should have a representation of future generations’ interests. In that respect, a simple formulation of the problem that has been extensively analyzed consists in trying to find, under equity and efficiency conditions, an ordering of the set of possible ‘infinite utility streams’, that is, of the set of possible infinite sequences of utility levels attached to the successive generations starting with the present generation. In such a formulation, the welfare of each generation is represented by a single utility level, as if a generation were composed of a single individual or of a cohort of identical individuals with identical allocation.