245
western liberal democracies are still struggling to even acknowledge ecological
challenges (Bosselmann 2015, pp. 13–22). This is exemplified by the mere existence of debate about the human-induced nature of global warming. This translates
to a reductionist approach to problem-solving, which is often reactive or attempts to
find basic connections between specific causes and effects (Bosselmann 2016, p. 85).
The policy that emerges is directed to the short term and is simplistic and immature as a result, failing to see the forest for the trees, or appreciate the level of complexity that has arisen by fault of a staunch utilitarian and economic perspective on
the environment. A paradox that emerges here is that this western neoliberal system
has evolved under democratic checks and balances, so in theory should reflect the
sentiment of the public. However, it is evident that those being the most affected are
the least heard and coupled with unequal distributions of wealth this evokes environmental justice issues at the wider international level that this concept applies to
‘developed’ and ‘developing’ states, and domestically to disadvantaged communities. The current version of democracy needs to be revisited so as to promote policy
moving from the bottom. This would mean that individuals, as activists and advocates, become decision-makers, driving notions of environmental trusteeship as an
exercise of sovereignty.
Contemporary international environmental law holds two central pillars—the
notion of sustainable development, and the precautionary approach. The latter is
only implemented weakly against the standards of the former, so that the recognition of the rights of non-human forms and the inclusion of future generations remain
only promises. Nature has been commodified to a critical point, reminiscent of a
‘tragedy of the commons’ situation. Policy approaches favouring increased productivity are particularly harmful given that technological advancement has allowed for
the exploitation of previously uncontemplated domains. Private property rights represent an attempt to regulate the overuse of such domains, but these are incompatible with the behaviour of diverse ecosystems interacting within a finite planet.
Actions occur at a local level within a state’s own territory and may appear to have
limited negative effects, but they may create reactions and tipping points in other
locations and for the macro ecological system known as the commons. Not only is
such a human-nature divide fatal to the biosphere, but it also erodes human relationships with each other (Bollier and Helfrich 2019). These complexities are difficult
for current environmental law to govern effectively given the problematic economic
focus and false assumption that limitless growth is possible. Application of the precautionary principle occurs in competition with individual nations’ usage rights
without any legal consequences, and weak enforcement mechanisms mean this is
allowed (Benvenisti 2013, p. 316).
The second central pillar of contemporary international environmental law is
‘sustainable development’, as introduced and defined in aforementioned Brundtland
Report. The term recognizes concern for the poor and future generations alongside
the environment, however it fails to acknowledge any limit to growth based on a
finite natural environment. The focus of the concept is anthropocentric, evoking a
weak approach to sustainability. Further to this, the SDGs under the 2030 Agenda
lack cohesion and do not refer to planetary boundaries. While the SDGs are
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance
western liberal democracies are still struggling to even acknowledge ecological
challenges (Bosselmann 2015, pp. 13–22). This is exemplified by the mere existence of debate about the human-induced nature of global warming. This translates
to a reductionist approach to problem-solving, which is often reactive or attempts to
find basic connections between specific causes and effects (Bosselmann 2016, p. 85).
The policy that emerges is directed to the short term and is simplistic and immature as a result, failing to see the forest for the trees, or appreciate the level of complexity that has arisen by fault of a staunch utilitarian and economic perspective on
the environment. A paradox that emerges here is that this western neoliberal system
has evolved under democratic checks and balances, so in theory should reflect the
sentiment of the public. However, it is evident that those being the most affected are
the least heard and coupled with unequal distributions of wealth this evokes environmental justice issues at the wider international level that this concept applies to
‘developed’ and ‘developing’ states, and domestically to disadvantaged communities. The current version of democracy needs to be revisited so as to promote policy
moving from the bottom. This would mean that individuals, as activists and advocates, become decision-makers, driving notions of environmental trusteeship as an
exercise of sovereignty.
Contemporary international environmental law holds two central pillars—the
notion of sustainable development, and the precautionary approach. The latter is
only implemented weakly against the standards of the former, so that the recognition of the rights of non-human forms and the inclusion of future generations remain
only promises. Nature has been commodified to a critical point, reminiscent of a
‘tragedy of the commons’ situation. Policy approaches favouring increased productivity are particularly harmful given that technological advancement has allowed for
the exploitation of previously uncontemplated domains. Private property rights represent an attempt to regulate the overuse of such domains, but these are incompatible with the behaviour of diverse ecosystems interacting within a finite planet.
Actions occur at a local level within a state’s own territory and may appear to have
limited negative effects, but they may create reactions and tipping points in other
locations and for the macro ecological system known as the commons. Not only is
such a human-nature divide fatal to the biosphere, but it also erodes human relationships with each other (Bollier and Helfrich 2019). These complexities are difficult
for current environmental law to govern effectively given the problematic economic
focus and false assumption that limitless growth is possible. Application of the precautionary principle occurs in competition with individual nations’ usage rights
without any legal consequences, and weak enforcement mechanisms mean this is
allowed (Benvenisti 2013, p. 316).
The second central pillar of contemporary international environmental law is
‘sustainable development’, as introduced and defined in aforementioned Brundtland
Report. The term recognizes concern for the poor and future generations alongside
the environment, however it fails to acknowledge any limit to growth based on a
finite natural environment. The focus of the concept is anthropocentric, evoking a
weak approach to sustainability. Further to this, the SDGs under the 2030 Agenda
lack cohesion and do not refer to planetary boundaries. While the SDGs are
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance