Abstract
Environmental law has always been hampered by its reductionist approach to the natural environment or more precisely, to the human-nature relationship. In contrast, ecological law would encourage us to think about the law from an Earth-centered perspective. But even more than thinking about the legal issues, ecological law reflects and advocates a changed mindset. We need to develop a mindset that is conscious of what has worked in the past and what promises to work in the future. This could be addressed through development of eco-centric law, inclusion of eco-centric grundnorm, transforming law and governance, and institutionalizing trusteeship governance. At the end, it is proposed that ecological law would frame our thinking in a way that reflects not only the traditional values of connectedness with nature, but equally leading cutting-edge sciences of today such as ecology, earth system science and health sciences.
The Environmental Policy and Law journal is as old as its subject. The beginnings of modern environmental policy and law are often associated with the enactment of the US National Environmental Policy Act in 1970. 1 Around that year, most of the industrialized world had adopted general environmental laws in some form. Fifty years later we must conclude that environmental law has achieved little to halt or even slow down the global ecological crisis. Environmental law, nationally and internationally, may have saved some ‘trees’, but the ‘forest’ has been (almost) lost. 2 The integrity of the entire Earth system is now at risk.
Time for Systemic Change
Environmental law has always been hampered by its reductionist approach to the natural environment or more precisely, to the human-nature relationship. In Western philosophical tradition humans are perceived as separate from nature. Nature is ‘the other’ and only noted in its segments (animals, plants, landscapes, water, air etc.). As a consequence, envirzonmental policies and laws have developed in a compartmentalized, fragmented and anthropocentric fashion. Broader coverage and better enforcement of environmental laws would not fix that. Their inherent design flaw is the absence of a fundamental rule prohibiting harm to the integrity of ecosystems. Such a rule requires the acceptance of ecological sustainability as a fundamental ethical and legal principle. 3
The design flaw in current constitutional and legal arrangements is, of course, only a facet of a socio-economic system that is largely oblivious to socio-ecological interdependencies. The current Covid-19 global pandemic has consumed whole of 2020 demonstrates just that. Poor communities are far more affected than rich people in affluent societies. And those who bear the most responsibility for environmental degradation –those who hold the most wealth in societies –are also least interested in transformational change. They benefit the most from environmental destruction, global inequalities, structural racism, current power structures and associated legal arrangements. As complex as each of these issues are, they are symptomatic of human civilisation’s broken relationship with nature.
The current pandemic is a poignant symptom of this broken relationship; however, it also offers the opportunity for rethinking it. 4 Humans are part and parcel of the natural world. And boundaries between species are not absolute but mere markers for the continuum of life. So, when, if not now, will modern society, supposedly educated in evolution and ecology, find a way out of the anthropocentric worldview that has dominated Western thinking for centuries?
Emergence of Ecological Law
The history of environmental law is closely connected with its moral-philosophical context. From its beginnings, environmental law has been questioned for its anthropocentric reductionist view of nature. In 1972, Christopher Stone suggested that nature should have rights to exist similar to those that humans claim for themselves. 5 Ever since ecologically oriented legal scholars have increasingly aimed for adopting non-anthropocentric conceptions and strategies that recognise the intrinsic value of nature. 6
The call for eco-centric law and governance has also been promoted and supported at the level of the United Nations, mainly through the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Dialogue “Harmony with Nature,” which started in 2009. On 19 December 2019, the UNGA adopted the eleventh resolution 72/224 on the issue and called on States to “facilitate support for and recognition of the fundamental interconnections between humankind and nature”. 7 In a statement delivered on International Mother Earth Day, 22 April 2020, the President of UNGA called for “a paradigm shift from a human-centric society to an Earth-centered global ecosystem”. 8 And reviewing 50 years of environmental law, the UN Secretary-General’s 2020 report on “Harmony with Nature” stated:
“(T)he weakness of environmental law is directly linked to the fact that it always stopped at the doorstep of private law. Furthermore, environmental law entered the game when all the cards had already been drawn, and the new environmental public law of the 1960s and 1970s added only a few environmental duties to private property rights, without restrictions. Environmental law has therefore continued to be the ‘poor relative’ of property and commercial law and can only promote insufficient measures on the periphery thereof” 9
The alternative approach has also been described in UNGA reports. The Secretary-General report of 2012, for example, highlighted some key characteristics of ecological law 10 :
“45. Numerous scientists, economists, and legal experts have decried the escalating destruction of the Earth’s natural systems (...) They are insisting that, rather than people and planet serving the infinite growth of the economy, economy must recognize its place as servant to the larger well-being of humans and the Earth itself.∥46. In this new system, the rule of law, science, and economics will be grounded in the Earth. (...) ∥47. A key challenge in developing a global governance system built on the rule of ecological law is reinvigorating a transformed sense of democracy, in which individuals and communities embrace their ecological citizenship in the world and act on their responsibility to respect the complex workings of the Earth’s life systems.”
The “rule of ecological law” 11 , a “transformed sense of democracy” 12 , “ecological citizenship” and “responsibility to respect the Earth’s life systems” 13 are also the appropriate legal categories for the Anthropocene.
The Anthropocene (‘Age of Humans’) describes our epoch of homo sapiens now roaming the entire globe and pushing planetary boundaries. This epoch began with the Industrial Revolution - triggered by the invention of steam engine, fuelled by coal and oil and driven by the paradigm of progress and growth. 14 But only the last 50 years saw the explosion of population numbers and of economic prosperity, known as the ‘Great Acceleration’ –the acceleration of socio-economic processes in stark conflict with the carrying capacity of the planet. Today, humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. 15
Humans have now transformed the Earth’s life systems in ways that pose a real danger to our own survival and the survival of other life. This is a new phenomenon. It is, however, the result of another transformation of human development that began 12,000 years ago with the emergence of agriculture and the Neolithic Revolution. This provided the base for permanent settlements and niche building that is now manifest in the urban concentrations where the majority of our species lives. So as we have transformed the face of the Earth by agricultural and other conversions of landscapes, we have transformed our social organization - from the equality of hunter-gatherer bands to a hierarchy of privilege based on acquired wealth from the earth and manifested now in territorial behaviour like some other social species have. Hunter-gatherers shared the common space, but agriculture made us territorial. In legal terms, humanity has shifted from sharing the commons to adopting exclusive property rights. 16
The Importance of an Eco-Centric Grundnorm
The significance of this shift can hardly be overestimated, but it took many centuries for the process of the enclosure of the commons to unfold. 17 Exclusive property rights have been created by political liberalism and exercised by individuals, companies and states. They are the legal mechanism that has shaped modern civilization and are the key for its continued existence. It is difficult to imagine how a sustainable future could be achieved without major changes to the system of property rights and land ownership. 18 If we do not find a way of temperance and self-control in the context of property rights, Garrit Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons will finally be complete.
But what might generate such temperance and self-control? We could be pessimistic here considering the power of capitalism with its roots deeply embedded in the European traditions of dualism, anthropocentrism, materialism and expansionism. 19 On the other hand, we may celebrate the European traditions of humanism, human rights and democracy as among humanity’s greatest achievements.
However, whether capitalism, socialism or humanism, they have all followed a peculiar morality that placed humans over nature. Such a morality may have been good enough for the advancements in science, technology and prosperity in the Holocene, but has equally revealed its dark side. Its ecological ignorance may spell humanity’s collective downfall, at least, in the long run. The challenge in the Anthropocene, therefore, is to move from an anthropocentric to an eco-centric paradigm.
Revealingly, the Preamble of the Earth Charter begins with: “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future”. The Earth Charter defines respect and care for the community of life –not just human life - as fundamental to all law and governance. The problem is, of course, that such ethical shift cannot be installed per decree, but only be advocated through social, educational and political processes.
What we as law teachers and researchers can do, however, is to show the failures of the existing legal system and describe the changes needed for a better one. 20 One focus must be the dominant concept of property. Its failures can be seen on a daily basis and are all around us. For example, the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor undermines all prospects for sustainability, yet governments seem incapable of bridging the gap. Here we need to discuss the social dimension of property rights. Or think of climate change. The air is free for everyone and corporations use their power to determine the price that they are prepared to pay. Governments, in turn, fear for the competitiveness of their national economies and hope for ‘global’ solutions. Here we need to discuss the ecological dimension of property rights. The social and ecological blindness of property rights is at the core of the law’s failure to achieve sustainability. Fundamentally, the legal system needs to be organized around sustainability not property. 21
The good news is that these concerns are beginning to sink in. This makes it more and more absurd to separate the world of economics (around property) from the world of ecology (around sustainability). The paradigm of separation is still dominating legal curricula and scholarship, but environmental law has always been about integration, conventionally referred to as “sustainable development”.
At its core is the concern for the integrity of Earth’s ecological system. Its realization requires two steps.
The first step is to recognize the reality of a complex Earth system with planetary boundaries. Of the nine boundaries identified, at least four have now been exceeded (climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land system changes and altered biogeochemical cycles) and all amplified by Earth System interactions. 22 The recognition of planetary boundaries sets a non-negotiable bottom-line for human activities. More particularly, and in the context of the concept of sustainable development, it demands a hierarchical order of its element’s ‘environment’, ‘economy’ and ‘society’: ecological integrity has priority and sets the parameters for social and economic development.
The second step is to integrate responsibilities for ecological integrity into the design and interpretation of laws governing human behavior. International law and municipal law alike need to incorporate ecological sustainability as a fundamental norm or grundnorm.
A grundnorm can be defined as a basic norm to bind governmental power in the same sense as the rule of law is generally perceived as a basic norm to bind governmental power. This understanding differs from Kelsen’s definition and is closer to Immanuel Kant’s argument that any positive law must be grounded in a “natural” norm of general acceptance and reasonableness. 23 The existence of an environmental grundnorm, therefore, rests on the assumption that respecting the planet’s ecological boundaries is a dictate of reason (Gebot der Vernunft) and general acceptance (allgemeine Gültigkeit). 24 According to Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law any basic norm can be a grundnorm so long as its bindingness can somehow be established. By contrast, Kant puts any candidate to the test of reasonableness. It certainly seems reasonable to assume the physical reality of a finite planet as generally acceptable and require all social and legal norms to be informed by it. In this vein we can postulate that keeping within planetary boundaries and protecting the integrity of ecological systems are a fundamental requirement for all human actions. Surely, ecological sustainability has grundnorm qualities that any legal norm, including the rule of law, ought to respect. 25
Transforming Law and Governance
In 2016, some 100 scholars of environmental law adopted a manifesto ‘From Environmental Law to Ecological Law’ at the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Colloquium in Oslo, Norway. The Oslo Manifesto has since been endorsed by numerous environmental lawyers and environmental law organisations and has also led to the establishment of the Ecological Law and Governance Association (ELGA) in late 2017. 26 ELGA is a global network of lawyers and environmental activists that coordinates initiatives for transforming law and governance.
One of these initiatives is the Earth Trusteeship Initiatives (ETI), established on 10 December 2018 in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. This day marked the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 27 With the support and endorsement of many human rights, environmental and professional organisations, the ETI launched the Hague Principles for a Universal Declaration on Responsibilities for Human Rights and Earth Trusteeship. 28
The three ‘Hague Principles’ set out the framework for Earth trusteeship. All rights that human beings enjoy depend on responsibilities that we have for each other and for Earth. We cannot live in dignity and well–being without accepting fundamental duties for each other and for Earth. These are trusteeship duties. We must understand ourselves as trustees of Earth. 29 As citizens of our respective countries, we must demand our governments to accept Earth trusteeship. State sovereignty implies obligations as trustees of human rights and the Earth.
In our current legal system, Earth has no meaning or status (‘ius nullius’). Earth is taken for granted as if it does not need to be protected. On the other hand, we all know that critical planetary systems are at risk (the atmosphere, oceans, global biodiversity). We also know that protection efforts based on negotiations between states have not worked very well. A logical step forward is, therefore, to establish trusteeship obligations of states themselves, rather than relying on political compromises between states. The sovereign state is not so sovereign as to ruin its own territory, transboundary ecological systems, and Earth as a whole.
In the light of what we know about our age of human planetary dominance (the Anthropocene), we need to revisit the concept of state sovereignty inherited from an age when a global environmental crisis did not exist. 30 Now is the time to advance the concept of sovereignty as a concept of rights and trusteeship responsibilities. The rights of self–determination and non–intervention must be complemented by trusteeship responsibilities for human rights and the Earth. 31
Institutionalizing Earth Trusteeship
As suggested elsewhere, the ethics of stewardship or guardianship for the community of life is one of the most foundational concepts in the history of humanity. 32 It is inherent in the teachings of the world’s religions and the traditions of indigenous peoples and is, an integral part of humanity’s cultural heritage. Yet, our political and legal institutions have not taken Earth ethics to heart. The Earth as an integrated whole may be featuring in images, in science and in ethics, but does not feature in law. Earth and the areas outside national jurisdictions (the global commons) are considered as res nullius, a legal nullity without inherent rights. Not that Earth cares about such rights. It is we humans who must choose to care about them. If we keep ignoring them, then basically we are saying that the Earth system doesn’t really matter. We take it for granted –like sunshine and rain –and of no relevance to the system of law that governs society and states. Given that the ethics of Earth stewardship are widely accepted today we should be ready for taking the next step: Earth trusteeship.
Earth trusteeship is the essence of what Earth jurisprudence is advocating. It is also indirectly referred to in key international environmental documents. Earth trusteeship is the institutionalization of the duty to protect the integrity of the Earth’s ecological system. This duty is expressed in more than 25 international agreements –from the 1982 World Charter for Nature right through to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. 33 To act on this duty ‘states need to cooperate in the spirit of global partnership’ as, for example, Principle 7 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states.
The legal argument for Earth trusteeship can be firmly based on ethics common to all cultures and fundamental obligations of states expressed in many international agreements. The challenge ahead is to convince governments that the step to Earth trusteeship is not only necessary, but actually possible and not too difficult to take.
An important part of meeting this challenge is the public debate around the global commons. As climate change has become the most pressing issue of our time –largely thanks to powerful protests of young people all over the world –a shift of thinking seems to be occurring. Rather than having to justify calls for action, people put governments on the back foot: lack of action can no longer be justified. More radical measures than negotiating climate deals are needed.
To think that global warming can be negotiated is like thinking rainfall and sunshine could be negotiated. The biogeochemical cycles of the atmosphere follow laws of nature, not laws of humans. It is therefore more realistic and promising to take the atmosphere into focus and recognise it in law! At present, the law treats the atmosphere as an open access resource without any safeguards, ie a res nullius. This legal vacuum has worked to the advantage of property owners who have filled the vacuum by exercising their property rights. Any holder of property rights –you and me or the entire fossil fuel industry –can freely emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Only negotiated deals and compromises would limit these emissions. It would be far more effective if property rights are limited by the atmosphere as a global common. This would constitute a legal duty to protect the integrity of the atmosphere as a whole and reverse the logic of emissions: they are only protected by property rights in so far, they do not compromise the integrity of the atmosphere. Emissions would no longer be free, but subject to hefty fees and taxes.
As trustees of the atmosphere, states and the international community of states would have a legal obligation to charge users of the atmosphere such as corporations, banks, and consumers, and to progressively ban any greenhouse gas emissions. Just as the owner of a house controls who lives there and under what conditions.
From the perspective of citizens, this logic is compelling and could, for example, be supported by the well–established public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine says that natural commons should be held in trust as assets to serve the public good. 34 It is the responsibility of the government, as trustee, to protect these assets from harm and ensure their use for the public and future generations. So nationally, the government would act as an environmental trustee, internationally, states would jointly act as trustees for the global commons such as the atmosphere. Considering that only about 100 companies are responsible for two–thirds of carbons emitted into the atmosphere, atmospheric trust litigation and trusteeship institutions hold promises for preventing climate breakdown. 35
The idea of trusts of the global commons has been promoted by environmental lawyers such as Mary Wood 36 and Peter Sand 37 , and economists such as Peter Barnes 38 and Robert Costanza. 39 Trusteeship governance is also advocated by the general literature on the commons. 40
Essentially, international law and the United Nations (UN) are ready to develop institutions of trusteeship governance. There is, for example, a tradition of UN institutions with a trusteeship mandate including the (now defunct) UN Trusteeship Council, the World Health Organization (WHO) with respect to public health and –somewhat ironically –the World Trade Organization (WTO) with respect to free trade. 41 A number of other UN or UN-related institutions with weaker trusteeship functions exist also. 42 Quite obviously, states have been capable of, expressively or implicitly, creating international trusteeship institutions. These developments –and in particular the existence of supranational organisations such as the European Union –demonstrate that sovereignty of states can be transferred to international levels.
The UN Trusteeship Council could be revived as an Environmental Trusteeship Council 43 following proposals by the Global Governance Commission in 1995 which were supported by a number of states and particularly championed by the former UN Secretary General, the late Kofi Annan. A combination of environmental activism (the ‘Greta effect’) and new political alliances between motivated progressive states can make a critical difference. Chances are that such combined effort can succeed given the continued disintegration of ecological, financial, political and democratic systems.
Trusteeship governance will not be initiated by the ‘top’, i.e. the United Nations or its member states, but rather by global civil society forces outside the UN system. To this end, we can build on many years of activism and proposals for institutional change. Nor should states exclusively run and control global trusteeship institutions such as a possible World Environment Organization or a Global Atmospheric Trust. Rather, their governance ought to be jointly formed by representatives from global civil society, UN and states, each with an equal say in decision–making.
Challenges Ahead
So far, governments have been very slow learners and, most alarmingly, they have been too close to corporate powers. The challenge for civil society is, therefore, to bring governments back into a position that allows them to actually govern and help solving the crisis rather than just managing or even exacerbating it.
Over centuries, humans have fought voraciously for what they deem to be necessary for a prosperous life. Rights for equality, the right to be heard and several other fundamental rights were once absent and came to be present only because a sustained dialogue was created and furthered. The presence of an issue or the feeling that something is not right by the previous generations sparked the paradigm change in how we live our lives today. The same applies to the environment. From the times of the industrial revolution to the current day, respect and care for nature did not feature in the ideologies of expansionism and capitalism. However, the stark reality that the Earth is finite needs to be understood, appreciated and acted upon.
Ecological law encourages us to think about the law from an Earth-centered perspective. But even more than thinking about legal issues, ecological law reflects and advocates a changed mindset.
The dominant mindset still believes that we may be able to overcome the ecological crisis through better technology, greater energy efficiency, a green economy and more effective environmental laws. This will not be enough. We need to develop a mindset that is conscious of what has worked in the past and what promises to work in the future.
Conclusion
It is important to draw from the past. Values and principles of safeguarding nature have guided ancient cultures and indigenous peoples in all parts of the world 44 and are also part of the pre-industrial history of Western civilisation. 45 After all, if previous generations had not been successful in maintaining at least a degree of sustainability, the present generation would not even be here. It matters, therefore, to realize history and continuity of ecological values and principles. They have also informed modern environmental law, albeit only in a rudimentary form and hidden behind the dominant beliefs of modernity (anthropocentrism, dualism, utilitarianism, expansionism etc.).
In essence, ecological law frames our thinking in a way that reflects traditional values of connectedness with nature, but equally leading-edge sciences of today including ecology, Earth system science and health sciences (integrating human health into ecosystem health). For building a post-pandemic, sustainable world, nothing could be more relevant.
Footnotes
Robert V. Percival and Dorothy C. Alevizatos, Law and the Environment: A Multidisciplinary Reader; Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1997; p. 208.
Klaus Bosselmann, “Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental reductionism in the law”, Environmental Laws and Sustainability, Special Issue of Sustainability 2(8), 2010, 2424-2448.
Klaus Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming law and governance, Routledge 2nd 2017.
Christopher Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? (1972) 45 Southern California Law Review 450.
Klaus Bosselmann, ‘Wendezeit im Umweltrecht. Von der Verrechtlichung der Ökologie zur Ökologisierung des Rechts’ (1985) Kritische Justiz, 345-361; Klaus Bosselmann, ‘Eigene Rechte der Natur? Ansätze einer ökologischen Rechtsauffassung’, (1986) Kritische Justiz, 1-22; Klaus Bosselmann, When Two Worlds Collide: Society and Ecology (RSVP1995); Michael Schröter, Mensch, Erde, Recht: Grundlagen ökologischer Rechtstheorie (Nomos1999); Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Bell Tower/Random House 1999); Cormac Cullinan, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books 2003); Peter Burdon (ed.), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence (Wakefield Press 2011); Peter Burdon, Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment (Routledge 2013); Klaus Bosselmann, Prue Taylor (eds), Ecological Approaches to Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2017); Peter Burdon, Klaus Bosselmann, Kirsten Engel (eds.), The Crisis in Global Ethics and the Future of Global Governance (Edward Elgar, 2019) Geoffrey Garver, Ecological Law and the Planetary Crisis: A Legal Guide for Harmony on Earth (Edward Elgar, 2021); Anthony Zelle, Grant Wilson, Rachelle Adams, Herman Greene, Earth Law: Emerging Ecocentric Law. A Guide for Practitioners (Wolters Kluwer, 2021); Kirstin Anker, Peter Burdon, Geoffrey Garver, Michelle Maloney, Carla Sbert (eds.), From Environmental to Ecological Law (Routledge, 2021).
UN General Assembly resolution 74/224 of 19 December 2019 on “Harmony with Nature”, para. 9(a); available at: https://www.un.org/pga/74/wp-content/uploads/sites/99/2020/02/A_RES_74_224_E.pdf (accessed on 3 January2021).. See also, UN, Harmony with Nature; available at: 
(accessed on 3 January 2021).
Geoffrey Garver, ‘The Ecological Rule of Law’, Sustainability 5 (2015), 316-337; Klaus Bosselmann, ‘The Rule of Law in the Anthropocene’, in: Martin, Paul et al. (eds), In Search of Environmental Justice (Edward Elgar 2015), 44-61;
Vindana Shiva, Earth Democracy: Justice Sustainability and Peace (South End Press, 2005; Ronald Engel, Laura Wesyra, Klaus Bosselmann (eds), Democracy, Ecological Integrity ands International Law (Canbdridge Scholars, 2010).
Klaus Bosselmann, Earth Governance: Trusteeship of the Global Commons (Edward Elgar, 2015); Paulo Maghalaes, Will Steffen, Klaus Bosselmann, Alexandra Aragao, Viriato Soromenho-Marques (eds.), Safe Operating Space Treaty: Managing Earth System Use (Cambridge Scholars, 2016).
There is some debate around the beginning and notion of the Anthropocene. In 2019 the International Commission on Stratigraphy, concerned with issues of geological time, agreed on a definition for the Anthropocene (Working Group on the ‘Anthropocene’ of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy; available at: http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene (accessed 17 November 2020). See also the article by science journalist Paul Voosen “Geologists drive golden spike toward Anthropocene”, Greenwire, 17 Sept. 2012; available at: (accessed on 11 December 2020).
Richard Schlatter, Private Property: The history of an idea (Rutgers University Press 1951); Eric Freyfogle, The Land We Share: Private Property And The Common Good (Island Press 2003) 11 See Karl Pohlanyi, The Great Transformation (Beacon Press 1944); generally acclaimed as the most influential work on economic history.
Edward Gonner, Common Land and Inclosure (Cass 1966); Deidre McCloskey, ‘The Economics of Enclosure’ in William Parker and Eric Jones (eds.), European Peasants and Their Markets:
Klaus Bosselmann, ‘Property Rights and Sustainability: Can they be reconciled?’ in David Grinlinton, Prue Taylor (eds.), Property Rights and Sustainability: The Evolution of Property Rights to Meet Ecological Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff 2011), 23-42.
Bosselmann, see note 2 at 2430.
See, for example, Christina Voigt (ed.), Rule of Law for Nature: New Dimensions and Ideas in Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
David Grinlinton, Prue Taylor (eds.), see note 18.
Steven Lade, Will Steffens et al., ‘Human Impacts on Planetary Boundaries Amplied by Earth System Interactions’, Nature Sustainability 3 (2020), 119-128.
Bosselmann, see note 3 at 94.
Ibid.
Klaus Bosselmann, “The Imperative of Ecological Integrity: Conceptualising a Fundamental Legal Norm for a New ‘World System’ in the Anthropocene” in: Kotzé, L. (ed.), Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene (Hart, 2017), 241-265; “Grounding the Rule of Law”, in: Voigt, supra note 18, 75-93.
Nico Schrijver, ‘The Dynamics of Sovereignty in a Changing World’ in Konrad Ginther, Erik Denters and PJIM De Waart (eds) Sustainable Development and Good Governance (Kluwer Law International, 1995), 80–89.
Eyal Benvenisti, ‘Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders’ 107 (2) American Journal of International Law (2013), 295; Klaus Bosselmann, “The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance”, in: Laura Westra, Klaus Bosselmann and Matteo Fermeglia (eds.), The Perspective of Ecological Integrity in Science and Law (Springer, 2020), 218-232;
Rakhyun E Kim, Klaus Bosselmann, ‘Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Ecological Integrity as a Grundnorm in International Law’ 24(2) (2015) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 194, 194–208.
Anthony Zelle et al., see note 6, 185-200.
Klaus Bosselmann,’The Atmosphere as a Global Commons’, in: Jaria Manzono, J. and Borras, S. (eds.), Research Handbook on Global Climate Constitutionalism, Edward Elgar, 75-87; Bryce Lyall, ‘The Prospects for Atmospheric Trust Litigation in New Zealand’, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 23 (2019), 215.
Mary C Wood, ‘Nature’s Trust: A Legal, Political and Moral Frame for Global Warming,’ (2007) 34(3) Environmental Affairs 577; Mary C Wood, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age (Carolina University Press, 2013).
Peter H Sand, ‘Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources,’ (2004) 4(1) Global Environmental Politics 47; Peter H Sand, ‘The Rise of Public Trusteeship in International Law’ (2013) Global Trust Working Paper Series 04/2013, 21; Peter H Sand, ‘The Concept of Public Trusteeship in the Transboundary Governance of Biodiversity’ in Louis Kotzé and Thilo Marauhn, Transboundary Governance of Biodiversity (Brill, 2014).
Peter Barnes, Capitalism 2.0: Who Owns the Sky? Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism (Island Press, 2001); Peter Barnes, Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons (Berret-Koehler, 2006).
See, for example, David Bollier, Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons (New Society Publishers, 2014); David Bollier, Burns H Weston, Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Law of the Commons (Cambridge University Press, 2013); Silke Helfrich, Jörg Haas (eds), The Commons: A New Narrative for Our Time (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2009); Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Bosselmann, see note 13, 198–232.
Ibid at 206
Kul Chandra Gautan, ‘Transforming the United Trusteeship Council for Protection of the Earth System’, in: Maghaeleas et al., supra note 10, ch. 12; Bosselmann, supra note 31, at 5; Bharat H. Desai, ‘On the Revival of the United Nations Trusteeship Council with a New Mandate for the Environment and the Global Commons’, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, vol.27, (2016), 3-27; Bharat H. Desai, ‘On the Revival of the United Nations Trusteeship Council with a New Mandate for the Environment and the Global Commons’, Environmental Policy and Law, vol.48, no.6, (2018), 333-344; Nicholas Robinson, ‘Making Environmental Law Function in the Anthropocene’, in this volume.
Recent legal changes in New Zealand granting rights to natural objects are reflective of a changing mindset that respects traditional Maori guardianship (“kaitiakitanga”); Klaus Bosselmann and Timothy Williams, “The River as a Legal Person: The Case of the Whanganui River in New Zealand”, in: International Center on Water and Transdisciplinarity (ed.), Water, Sharing and Peace Culture (forthcoming 2021).
Ulrich Grober, Sustainability: A Cultural History (Greenbooks, 2012).