Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:31:13.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justifying Representation of Future Generations and Nature: Contradictory or Mutually Supporting Values?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2022

Peter Lawrence
Peter Lawrence*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart (Australia).
*
Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At first blush, normative arguments justifying representation of future generations and nature appear to rest on contradictory values. This article argues, however, that there are strong synergies between these discourses. Arguments for institutions for future generations based on human rights are compared with justifications for proxy representation of nature based on ecological justice, Indigenous ecological justice and socio-ecological justice. Case studies involving the Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations, the Aotearoa New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and ascribing legal personality to rivers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, are presented to demonstrate that representing future generations and nature reflect mutually supporting values. Building on these synergies is vital for reform efforts.

Keywords

Future generationsIntergenerational justiceProxy representationCommissioners for future generations and natureRights of nature
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , November 2022 , pp. 553 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Michael Reder, Jonathan Boston, Jonathan Pickering, the anonymous TEL reviewers, and the audience at a session of the Earth Systems Governance Conference in Oaxaca (Mexico), 7 Nov. 2019, for their helpful suggestions in relation to this article. All errors remain the responsibility of the author.

Section 2.1 is based on P. Lawrence, ‘Justifying Institutions for Future Generations Based on the Correction of Bias and Intergenerational Justice', in J. Linehan & P. Lawrence (eds), Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice (Edward Elgar, 2021), pp. 22–41. Section 2.2 relies upon P. Lawrence & L. Köhler, ‘Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework’ (2018) 60 German Yearbook of International Law, pp. 639–66.

References

1 J. Dryzek & J. Pickering, The Politics of the Anthropocene (Oxford University Press, 2019).

2 Baxter, B., ‘Ecological Justice and Justice as Impartiality’ (2000) 9(3) Environmental Politics, pp. 43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 54.

3 J. Passmore, Man's Responsibility for Nature (Duckworth, 1974), p. 32 (cited in A. Krebs, Ethics of Nature: A Map (De Gruyter, 1999), p. 6).

4 D. Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 166–7.

5 B. Baxter, A Theory of Ecological Justice (Routledge, 2005), p. 161.

6 J. Dewey, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry – The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925–1953 (South Illinois University Press, 1986).

7 Rehfeld, A., ‘Towards a General Theory of Political Representation’ (2006) 68(1) The Journal of Politics, pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 8.

8 E.g., H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (University of California Press, 1967), p. 209.

9 See Bodansky, D., ‘The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law? (1999) 93(3) American Journal of International Law, pp. 596–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 A. Karnein, ‘Can We Represent Future Generations?’, in I. Gonzalez-Ricoy & A. Gosseries (eds), Institutions for Future Generations (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 83–97, at 90. Karnein provides, as an example of a ‘shared background norm’, the norm that a representative of a member state of the World Trade Organization (WTO) reflects the concept of sovereignty – thus a person in charge of the military in a particular state could be accepted as a representative of the particular country by WTO members, but not the manager of the local convenience store a block away from the UN headquarters: ibid., p. 90.

11 O'Neill, J., ‘Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World’ (2001) 19(4) Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, pp. 483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 495.

12 Representation in this context might also include representation of our ‘future selves’, in that many people alive today will be alive in 90 or 100 years’ time and/or may have a strong interest in a safe future for the next few generations from now. Thank you to Jonathan Boston for pointing this out.

13 M. Bostrom, Y. Uggla & V. Hansson, ‘Environmental Representatives: Whom, What, and How Are They Representing? (2018) 20(1) Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, pp. 114–27, at 115.

14 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text.

15 Cf. utilitarian views: J. Driver, ‘The History of Utilitarianism’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2014, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history.

16 Tănăsescu, M., ‘Rethinking Representation: The Challenge of Nonhumans’ (2014) 49(1) Australian Journal of Political Science, pp. 40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Ibid..

18 R. Eckersley, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty (The MIT Press, 2004), p. 121.

19 E. Kohn, How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human (University of California Press, 2013), pp. 8 and 144.

20 Ibid., p. 218.

21 Ibid. See also Parijs, P. van, ‘The Disenfranchisement of the Elderly, and Other Attempts to Secure Intergenerational Justice’ (1998) 27(4) Philosophical and Public Affairs, pp. 292–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and I. Gonzalez-Ricoy & F. Rey, ‘Enfranchising the Future: Climate Justice and Representation of Future Generations’ (2019) 598 WIREs Climate Change, pp. 1–12, at 7.

22 H. Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and US Foreign Policy, 2nd edn (Princeton University Press, 1996). For arguments that international law ought to promote justice defined as core human rights, see A. Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford University Press, 2004), and S.R. Ratner, The Thin Justice of International Law: A Moral Reckoning of the Law of Nations (Oxford University Press, 2015).

23 S. Caney, ‘Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds’, in S. Humphreys (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 163–77, at 166. Some economists have argued that one should adopt high discount rates (e.g., 8% plus) in the context of climate change policymaking, taking the view that in converting the value of damages in the future into dollar values today, one should take into account the fact that generally people prefer to have goods now rather than in the future, as well as the risk that a person (or all persons) may not exist at some point in the future; see, e.g., W.D. Nordhaus, ‘The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ (2007) 45(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 686–702. However, other economists have argued against this, pointing out that the costs of inaction are much higher for future generations; see N. Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Most economists today support low discount rates in the climate change context; see M.A. Drupp et al., ‘Discounting Disentangled’ (2018) 10(4) American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, pp. 109–34.

24 D. Moellendorf, Global Inequality Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

25 J. Boston, Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow (Emerald, 2016), p. 138.

26 S. Caney, ‘Climate Change and the Future: Discounting for Time, Wealth and Risk’ (2009) 40(2) Journal of Social Philosophy, pp. 163–86, at 168.

27 See A. Gosseries & L.H. Meyer (eds), Intergenerational Justice (Oxford University Press, 2009).

28 E. Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity (Transnational, 1989).

29 See, e.g., Norton, B.G., ‘Environmental Ethics and the Rights of Future Generations’ (1982) 4 Environmental Ethics, pp. 319–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Caney, n. 23 above, p. 166.

31 J.C. Tremmel, A Theory of Intergenerational Justice (Routledge, 2009).

32 Dryzek & Pickering, n. 1 above, p. 67.

33 Paris (France), 12 Dec. 2015, in force 4 Nov. 2016, available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

34 UN Environment Programme, Global Environment Outlook (Cambridge University Press, 2019), p. 7. The Paris Agreement requires parties to ‘hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’ and pursue ‘efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’ (Art. 2(1)(a)).

35 The Paris Agreement (n. 33 above) acknowledges that parties should consider ‘intergenerational equity’ (Preamble, recital 11) and refers to ‘equitable access to sustainable development’ (Preamble, recital 8).

36 P. Lawrence, Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law (Edward Elgar, 2014), pp. 113–4.

37 D. Ciplet, J. Timmons Roberts & M.R. Khan, Power in a Warming World (The MIT Press, 2015).

38 F. Capra & U. Mattei, The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community (Berrett-Koehler, 2015), p. 71.

39 Dryzek & Pickering (n. 1 above, pp. 84–94) argue that, although the concept of sustainability has been co-opted by those whose interests are inconsistent with it, the concept should not be abandoned, but interpreted in a manner which is ecologically grounded and strongly oriented to the future.

40 P. Lawrence & M. Reder, ‘Equity and the Paris Agreement: Legal and Philosophical Perspectives’ (2019) 31(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 511–31.

41 Oxford Martin School, Now for the Long Term: The Report of the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations (Oxford Martin School, 2013), p. 46, available at: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/commission/Oxford_Martin_Now_for_the_Long_Term.pdf; J. Boston, Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow (Emerald, 2016).

42 Eckersley, n. 18 above, p. 121.

43 J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev'd edn (Harvard University Press, 1999); B. Barry, Justice as Impartiality (Oxford University Press, 1995).

44 Baxter, n. 5 above.

45 Eckersley, n. 18 above, p. 138.

46 Baxter, n. 5 above, p. 4.

47 Ibid., p. 119.

48 Ibid., p. 52.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., p. 54.

51 Ibid., p. 82.

52 Ibid., p. 46.

53 Ibid., p. 71.

54 B. Devall & G. Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered (Peregrine Smith, 1985), pp. 66–7; also cf. R. Sylvan, ‘A Critique of Deep Ecology’ (1985) 40(2) Radical Philosophy, pp. 2–12, at 7.

55 N. 14 above.

56 L. Kotzé, ‘A Global Environmental Constitution for the Anthropocene?’ (2019) 8(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 11–33, at 24.

57 Ibid., p. 17.

58 T. Stephens, ‘Reimagining International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene’, in L. Kotzé (ed.), Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene (Hart, 2017), pp. 31–54, at 34–47.

59 P. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton University Press, 1986).

60 R. Attfield, The Ethics of Environmental Concern (University of Georgia Press, 1991).

61 F. Matthews, The Ecological Self (Barnes & Noble, 1991).

62 H. Rolston, Philosophy Gone Wild (Prometheus Books, 1989).

63 R. Elliot, Faking Nature (Routledge, 1997).

64 R. Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory (State University of New York Press, 1992).

65 G. Smith, Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Routledge, 2003), p. 10.

66 Ibid.

67 J. O'Neill, ‘The Varieties of Intrinsic Value’ (1992) 75(2) The Monist, pp. 119–37, at 132.

68 Smith, n. 65 above, p. 11.

69 The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), ‘Summary for Policy Makers’, in S. Díaz et al. (eds), Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019), p. 12, available at: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf.

70 It is beyond the scope of this article to explore this argument further; for more details, see P. Lawrence, ‘Justifying Institutions for Future Generations based on the Correction of Bias and Intergenerational Justice’, in J. Linehan & P. Lawrence (eds), Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice (Edward Elgar, 2021), pp. 22–41.

71 Schlosberg, n. 4 above, pp. 14 ff.

72 Ibid., p. 129.

73 Ibid., pp. 136 ff.

74 Ibid., p. 194.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid. p. 183.

77 Ibid. p. 178.

78 Ibid., pp. 183–4.

79 M. Parsons, K.T. Fisher & R. Crease, ‘Environmental Justice and Indigenous Environmental Justice’, in M. Parsons, K. Fisher & R.P. Crease (eds), Decolonising Blue Spaces in the Anthropocene (Palgrave, 2021), pp. 39–73, at 53 ff.

80 D. McGregor, S. Whitaker & M. Sritharan, ‘Indigenous Environmental Justice and Sustainability’ (2020) 43 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 35–40, at 37.

81 Ibid, p. 36.

82 D. McGregor, ‘Indigenous Environmental Justice, Knowledge, and Law’ (2018) 5(2) Kalfou, pp. 279–96, at 282.

83 A. Mills, ‘The Lifeworlds of Law: On Revitalizing Indigenous Legal Orders Today’ (2016) 61(4) McGill Law Journal, pp. 847–84, at 865 (writing from the perspective of an Anishinaabe First Nation person).

84 McGregor, n. 82 above, p. 291.

85 J. Mandamin, ‘2005 Lake Hurin’, Mother Earth Water Walks (2005), available at: http://www.motherearthwaterwalk.com/?page_id=2180 (quoted in McGregor, n. 82 above, p. 292.

86 K. Anker, Declarations of Interdependence: A Legal Pluralist Approach to Indigenous Rights (Routledge, 2014), pp. 28–9.

87 Ibid., p. 57.

88 Ibid., p. 57 and Ch. 6.

89 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992.

90 Indigenous Peoples International Declaration on Self-Determination and Sustainable Development (Lima Declaration), adopted Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 19 June 2012, available at: https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/indigenous-peoples-international-declaration-self-determination-and-sustainable-development.

91 T. Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Bell Power Press, 1999) (cited in M. Petel, ‘Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution for Ecological Justice’, in E. Gaillard & D.M. Forman (eds), Legal Actions for Future Generations (Peter Lang, 2020), pp. 211–41, at 216).

92 Earth Law Alliance, available at: https://earthlawyers.org/earth-law; Australian Earth Laws Alliance, available at: https://www.earthlaws.org.au.

93 Earth System Governance, available at: https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/research/taskforce-on-earth-system-law.

94 McGregor, Whitaker & Sritharan, n. 80 above, p. 37.

95 Ö. Yaka, ‘Rethinking Justice: Struggles for Environmental Commons and the Notion of Socio-Ecological Justice’ (2019) 51(1) Antipode, pp. 353–72.

96 Ibid., p. 357.

97 Capra & Mattei, n. 38 above, p. 136.

98 N. Fraser, Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalising World (Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 17 (quoted in Yaka, n. 95 above, p. 358).

99 Kotzé, n. 56 above.

100 J. Dryzek, Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy (Blackwell, 1987), p. 34 (quoted in Smith, n. 65 above, p. 14).

101 B. Norton, ‘Intergenerational Equity and Environmental Decisions: A Model Using Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance’ (1989) 1(2) Ecological Economics, pp. 137–59, at 153.

102 Ibid., p. 155.

103 Dryzek & Pickering, n. 1 above, p. 89.

104 UN General Assembly Res. 72/277 ‘Towards a Global Pact for the Environment’, 10 May 2018, UN Doc. A/RES/72/277, available at: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/72/277.

105 D. French & L. Kotzé, ‘Towards a Global Pact for the Environment: International Environmental Law's Factual, Technical and (Unmentionable) Normative Gaps’ (2019) 28(1) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 25–32.

106 E. Fernández Fernández & C. Malwé, ‘The Emergence of the “Planetary Boundaries” Concept in International Environmental Law: A Proposal for a Framework Convention’ (2019) 28(1) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 48–56.

107 Eckersley, n. 18 above, p. 123.

108 New York, NY (US), 13 Dec. 2006, in force 3 May 2008, available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.

109 See Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Communication No. 4/2011, 16 Oct. 2013, CPRD/C/10/D/4/2011, paras 9.4 and 9.6.

110 Baxter (n. 5 above, p. 146) discusses the possibility of a Guardian for Apes.

111 P. Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 2.

112 Dewey, n. 6 above.

113 J. Boston, Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow (Emerald, 2016), p. 197.

114 J. Boston, ‘Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, New Zealand’, in M.-C. Cordonier Segger, M. Szabo & A.R. Harrington (eds), Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementation (Cambridge University Press, 2021), pp. 434–60.

115 Ibid., p. 444.

116 Ibid., p. 448.

117 See website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, New Zealand, available at: https://www.pce.parliament.nz/about-us/functions-powers.

118 Interestingly, there is no explicit right of future generations or environmental rights set out in the New Zealand Constitution, but the Department of Conservation, created in 1987, has the mandate to act as an advocate for the conservation of natural and historic resources ‘for the benefit of present and future generations’: Conservation Act 1987 (NZ), s 6, available at: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/DLM103610.html.

119 Environment Act 1986 (No. 127 1986).

120 Boston, n. 114 above, p. 451.

121 Ibid., p. 452.

122 See report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, ‘A Zero Carbon Act for New Zealand: Revisiting Stepping Stones to Paris and Beyond’, 7 Mar. 2018, available at: https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/a-zero-carbon-act-for-new-zealand-revisiting-stepping-stones-to-paris-and-beyond.

123 Boston, n. 114 above, p. 460.

124 Conservation Act 1987 (NZ), s. 6.

125 Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (2015 anaw 2), available at; https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WFGAct-English.pdf.

126 Ibid., s. 1.

127 Ibid., s. 4.

128 Ibid., s. 5(1).

129 Ibid., s. 5(2)(a).

130 Ibid., s. 18.

131 Ibid., s. 19.

132 S. Howe, ‘Future Generations Commissioner Welcomes Move to Reduce M4 Congestion with Public and Active Travel’, Press Release, 16 July 2020, available at: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/news/future-generations-commissioner-welcomes-moves-to-reduce-m4-congestion-with-public-and-active-travel.

133 Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, ‘10 Point Plan to Fund Wales’ Climate Emergency’, available at: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/resources_posts/10-point-plan-to-fund-wales-climate-emergency; see generally Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, ‘Future Generations Report 2020’, available at: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FGC-Report-English.pdf.

134 Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, ‘Priority Areas’, available at: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/fgcw-priority-areas.

135 J. Linehan, ‘Safeguarding and Promoting the Rights of Future Generations’, ACHRA Conference, Hobart (Australia), 18 Oct. 2019, published 6 Nov. 2019, available at: https://www.climatejustice.network/blog. However, there are signs that considerable work is still needed to embed a long-term perspective within the thinking and practices of Welsh public institutions; see A. Netherwood & A. Flynn, ‘A Shift in Public Policy for Future Generations in Wales? Future Generations and Well-being Planning’, in Linehan & Lawrence, n. 70 above, pp. 149–68.

136 UK Government, ‘Devolution Settlement: Wales’, available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-wales.

137 C. Iorns Magallanes, ‘From Rights to Responsibilities: Using Legal Personhood and Guardianship for Rivers’, in B. Martin, L. Te Aho & M. Humphries-Kil (eds), Responsibility: Law and Governance for Living Well with the Earth (Routledge, 2018), pp. 216–39. See also Martuwarra RiverOfLife et al., ‘Recognizing the Martuwarra's First Law Right to Life as a Living Ancestral Being’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 541–68; and P. Villavicencio Calzadilla & L.J. Kotzé, ‘Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia’ (2018) 7(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 397–424.

138 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, s. 14, available at: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html.

139 Tănăsescu, M., ‘Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies’ (2020) 9(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 429–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 442.

140 Ibid., p. 444. See also Iorns Magallanes, n. 137 above, p. 222.

141 Iorns Magallanes (n. 137 above, p. 223) argues that this reflects the Māori principle of kaitiakitanga (guardianship), but Tănăsescu has recently challenged this interpretation, arguing that ‘Māori philosophy does not place humans as guardians of the environment’, noting that for Māori places are inhabited by kaitiaki, which are specifically not human; see Tănăsescu, n. 139 above, p. 446.

142 Te Awa Tupua Act, n. 138 above, s. 13.

143 Ibid., s. 13c.

144 Ibid., ss. 32 and 36.

145 Tănăsescu, n. 139 above.

146 Yarra River Act, s. 48, available at: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/yarra-river-protection-wilip-gin-birrarung-murron-act-2017/005.

147 Ibid., s. 17.

148 Ibid., Preamble, recital 1.

149 Ibid., s. 8(1).

150 Ibid., s. 8(2).

151 Ibid., s. 8(5).

152 Ibid., s. 12(2).

153 For the interconnections between cultural and environmental protection, see generally B. Boer, ‘The Environment and Cultural Heritage’, in F. Francioni & A. Filipa Vrdoljak (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 318–46.

154 A similar assumption lies behind the Rights of Nature and Future Generations Bill introduced into the Western Australian Parliament in 2019, which aims to recognize the inherent rights of nature, the right of First Nations peoples to speak for country, and to recognize the rights of all present and future generations to live in a healthy world (s. 3(1)). The further development of this initiative would provide an excellent further case study for those researching this area. See Rights of Nature and Future Generations Bill 2019 (Western Australia), available at: https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/A83E23DAE4373236482584AB002386A7/$File/Bill151-1.pdf.

155 Lawrence, n. 36 above, p. 17.

156 UN, Our Common Agenda, Report of the Secretary-General (UN, 2021), p. 45, available at: https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf. The report mentions the possibility of repurposing the Trusteeship Council to serve as a body to represent future generations and also the possible development of a Declaration of Future Generations (ibid., p. 45).

157 UN, ‘Intergenerational Solidarity and the Needs of Future Generations: Report of the Secretary-General’, 15 Aug. 2013, UN Doc. A/68/322.

158 Mary Robinson Foundation, Climate Justice, ‘Global Guardians: A Voice for Future Generations’, Policy Brief, Jan. 2018, available at: https://www.mrfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Global-Guardians-A-Voice-for-Future-Generations-Position-Paper-2018.pdf. See P. Lawrence, ‘Global Guardians for Future Generations: Remedying a Blind Spot of Democracy?’, in N. Tamoudi, S. Faets & M. Reder (eds), Politik der Zukunft: Zukunftige Generationen als Leerstelle der Demokratie (De Gruyter, 2020), pp. 191–211.

159 Stone, C.D., ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review, pp. 450–501Google Scholar.

160 New York, NY (US), 16 Dec. 1966, in force 3 Jan. 1976, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx.

161 World Future Council, available at: https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/de/ratsmitglieder-2.

162 Schlosberg, n. 4 above, p. 166.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid., p. 172.

165 Capra & Mattei, n. 38 above, p. 162. See the call for an earth systems law in L. Kotzé & R. Kim, ‘Earth System Law: The Juridical Dimensions of Earth System Governance’ (2019) 1 Earth System Governance, pp. 1–12; and the website of the Taskforce on Earth System Law, available at: https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/research/taskforce-on-earth-system-law.

166 Capra & Mattei, n. 38 above, p. 149.

167 C. Lepage & E. Gaillard, ‘For the Recognition of the Rights and Duties of Humankind’, in Gaillard & Forman (eds), n. 91 above, pp. 315–29. This strategy includes emphasizing intergenerational responsibilities and a principle of temporal non-discrimination, building on the 1989 Hague Declaration on the Environment (The Hague (The Netherlands), 11 Mar. 1989, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20693363?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents), and the 1997 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards Future Generations (Paris (France), 12 Nov. 1997, available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13178&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).

168 H. Ward, ‘Committing to the Future We Want: A High Commissioner for Future Generations at Rio + 20’, Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development & World Futures Council, 21 Mar. 2012, available at: https://www.fdsd.org/publications/committing-to-the-future-we-want-a-high-commissioner-for-future-generations-at-rio20-discussion-paper.