242
Reconciling human affairs with natural laws? Inspired by a vision of Earth?
What does sustainable development have to do with Earth? Seemingly nothing if we
look at references to sustainable development in multiple international agreements,
policy statements or the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They all
describe “human affairs” such as well-being, equity and prosperity in almost complete isolation from their non-human, natural context. Even climate change is seen
as a threat purely to human affairs, never mind the integrity of the atmosphere as an
ecological system (Bosselmann 2019, ch. 5). The narrative of humans as measure
and benchmark for anything that matters on Earth is still the same as 30 years ago.
Or is it? Arguably, the narrative is changing, not dramatically, but noticeably just
as the Brundtland report predicted: studying Earth as “an organism whose health
depends on the health of all its parts” has become a major subject in natural and
social sciences. Earth system science assumes a holistic view of the dynamic interaction between the Earth’s spheres and their many constituent subsystems (Kump
et al. 2011; Ehlers et al. 2006; Colin Prentice et al. 2012; Lenton 2016). It provides
us with a new narrative in which humans are in the middle, but not in the centre of
ecological interactions. So are we finally waking up to the reality of one Earth system of which human and non-human systems are part and parcel?
Political and legal philosophies have increasingly been influenced by Earthcentred thinking. The drafting of the Earth (!) Charter during the 1990s is one indication of this, the ever-growing body of literature on Earth jurisprudence, Earth law
and Earth governance another. Today, hardly any environmental lawyer would dismiss the need for a global, Earth-centred approach to the design of law and governance. This is despite or perhaps because of the omnipresence of “sustainable
development”. Ultimately, the Earth system will determine the fate of human systems (including legal systems), not the other way round.
The system of international environmental law has been organised and implemented by nation states. In itself this wouldn’t be a problem, were it not for the fact
that nation states have largely functioned as self-referential systems with little
regard to commonalities outside their national boundaries. Earth is taken for granted,
a legal nullity (res nullius) that has no voice in national or international decisionmaking. The world’s legal systems are simply not geared for listening to Earth (who
of course speaks to us in her own voice).
Yet, many people have become aware of this kind of deafness. They want to give
Earth voice and expression in the form of stewardship and guardianship. This morality underpins the concept of Earth trusteeship.
Trusteeship is a form of governance that requires a person or entity to act (as
‘trustee’) on behalf and for the benefit of another person or entity (‘beneficiary’).
Arguably, the very institutions that act on behalf of and for citizens, i.e. states and
governments, have trusteeship responsibilities. Protecting the rights of human
beings (‘human rights’) and citizens (‘citizen rights’) requires the state to act as a
trustee of its citizens (Benvenisti 2013). It couldn’t work any other way. Similarly,
protecting the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems requires the state to act as a
trustee for the Earth (Sand 2013).
K. Bosselmann
Reconciling human affairs with natural laws? Inspired by a vision of Earth?
What does sustainable development have to do with Earth? Seemingly nothing if we
look at references to sustainable development in multiple international agreements,
policy statements or the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They all
describe “human affairs” such as well-being, equity and prosperity in almost complete isolation from their non-human, natural context. Even climate change is seen
as a threat purely to human affairs, never mind the integrity of the atmosphere as an
ecological system (Bosselmann 2019, ch. 5). The narrative of humans as measure
and benchmark for anything that matters on Earth is still the same as 30 years ago.
Or is it? Arguably, the narrative is changing, not dramatically, but noticeably just
as the Brundtland report predicted: studying Earth as “an organism whose health
depends on the health of all its parts” has become a major subject in natural and
social sciences. Earth system science assumes a holistic view of the dynamic interaction between the Earth’s spheres and their many constituent subsystems (Kump
et al. 2011; Ehlers et al. 2006; Colin Prentice et al. 2012; Lenton 2016). It provides
us with a new narrative in which humans are in the middle, but not in the centre of
ecological interactions. So are we finally waking up to the reality of one Earth system of which human and non-human systems are part and parcel?
Political and legal philosophies have increasingly been influenced by Earthcentred thinking. The drafting of the Earth (!) Charter during the 1990s is one indication of this, the ever-growing body of literature on Earth jurisprudence, Earth law
and Earth governance another. Today, hardly any environmental lawyer would dismiss the need for a global, Earth-centred approach to the design of law and governance. This is despite or perhaps because of the omnipresence of “sustainable
development”. Ultimately, the Earth system will determine the fate of human systems (including legal systems), not the other way round.
The system of international environmental law has been organised and implemented by nation states. In itself this wouldn’t be a problem, were it not for the fact
that nation states have largely functioned as self-referential systems with little
regard to commonalities outside their national boundaries. Earth is taken for granted,
a legal nullity (res nullius) that has no voice in national or international decisionmaking. The world’s legal systems are simply not geared for listening to Earth (who
of course speaks to us in her own voice).
Yet, many people have become aware of this kind of deafness. They want to give
Earth voice and expression in the form of stewardship and guardianship. This morality underpins the concept of Earth trusteeship.
Trusteeship is a form of governance that requires a person or entity to act (as
‘trustee’) on behalf and for the benefit of another person or entity (‘beneficiary’).
Arguably, the very institutions that act on behalf of and for citizens, i.e. states and
governments, have trusteeship responsibilities. Protecting the rights of human
beings (‘human rights’) and citizens (‘citizen rights’) requires the state to act as a
trustee of its citizens (Benvenisti 2013). It couldn’t work any other way. Similarly,
protecting the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems requires the state to act as a
trustee for the Earth (Sand 2013).
K. Bosselmann