247
numerous examples where states, in their current position as sovereigns, have
accepted the social contract behind this responsibility for citizens and non-citizens
alike, as well as the environment. What remains is for states to pragmatically recognise their ethic of care, as could be instituted under a reconciled version of Earth
Trusteeship.
This would mean that the state would be taken to accept, as part of its
democratically- enforced social contract, further fiduciary duties for the global commons and future generations. Under this arrangement, members of society, as
among the beneficiaries of this trust relationship, could charge for damage to common property, and by extension, be rewarded for protecting it. These direct legal
consequences constitute the necessarily strong environmental action that has real
potential to rectify the current crisis. Criddle and Fox-Decent premise that such an
arrangement of social policy would subordinate economic and social policy to ecological interests, imposing a standard of ecological integrity in the form of a bottom
line (Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009, p. 331). If this were to involve rights-based
legislation, for example, economic and social rights would only be advanced where
they did not unreasonably interfere with the right to a healthy environment. Likewise,
notions of property rights would be transformed so instead of existing in an individual capacity, the human community’s common heritage of life is prioritized. This
model instigates the planetary boundaries framework for limiting state sovereignty,
which again steers global governance away from its current anthropocentric values.
However, such a model cannot be effectively implemented if it is to exist as a
mere framework under an international legal structure. The democratic nature of
civil societies requires citizens to accept their agency as guardians and trustees, so
that systematic changes are underpinned by a new environmental ethic coming from
the bottom up (Bosselmann 2016, p. 129). Trusteeship principles should be encouraged through all experiences with the environment so that they are contemplated in
the same fundamental way that principles of fairness arise in all social lives. This
involves attracting human consciousness, though the new youth movement (Fridays
for Future, Extinction Rebellion) suggests that such an attitude is very much in
motion, and potentially only lacks acknowledgement from higher-level authorities.
Hopefully, such acknowledgement could forward a system of non-competitive
cooperation under a cosmopolitan, holistic, eco-centric worldview.
4 Towards Earth Trusteeship
To a degree, Earth trusteeship already fits international environmental law. The
United Nations advocates a fiduciary-based approach (Bosselmann 2015,
pp. 198–232) and can offer cohesion, at least of identity, because it has already
begun instituting formal mechanisms of accountability. In terms of jurisdiction, the
political motivation of most states is also foreseeable (Bosselmann 2018, p. 3), so
that while currently a range of obligations fall largely on those states, it is likely that
they will be willing to instigate wider accountability. It is therefore the most
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance
numerous examples where states, in their current position as sovereigns, have
accepted the social contract behind this responsibility for citizens and non-citizens
alike, as well as the environment. What remains is for states to pragmatically recognise their ethic of care, as could be instituted under a reconciled version of Earth
Trusteeship.
This would mean that the state would be taken to accept, as part of its
democratically- enforced social contract, further fiduciary duties for the global commons and future generations. Under this arrangement, members of society, as
among the beneficiaries of this trust relationship, could charge for damage to common property, and by extension, be rewarded for protecting it. These direct legal
consequences constitute the necessarily strong environmental action that has real
potential to rectify the current crisis. Criddle and Fox-Decent premise that such an
arrangement of social policy would subordinate economic and social policy to ecological interests, imposing a standard of ecological integrity in the form of a bottom
line (Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009, p. 331). If this were to involve rights-based
legislation, for example, economic and social rights would only be advanced where
they did not unreasonably interfere with the right to a healthy environment. Likewise,
notions of property rights would be transformed so instead of existing in an individual capacity, the human community’s common heritage of life is prioritized. This
model instigates the planetary boundaries framework for limiting state sovereignty,
which again steers global governance away from its current anthropocentric values.
However, such a model cannot be effectively implemented if it is to exist as a
mere framework under an international legal structure. The democratic nature of
civil societies requires citizens to accept their agency as guardians and trustees, so
that systematic changes are underpinned by a new environmental ethic coming from
the bottom up (Bosselmann 2016, p. 129). Trusteeship principles should be encouraged through all experiences with the environment so that they are contemplated in
the same fundamental way that principles of fairness arise in all social lives. This
involves attracting human consciousness, though the new youth movement (Fridays
for Future, Extinction Rebellion) suggests that such an attitude is very much in
motion, and potentially only lacks acknowledgement from higher-level authorities.
Hopefully, such acknowledgement could forward a system of non-competitive
cooperation under a cosmopolitan, holistic, eco-centric worldview.
4 Towards Earth Trusteeship
To a degree, Earth trusteeship already fits international environmental law. The
United Nations advocates a fiduciary-based approach (Bosselmann 2015,
pp. 198–232) and can offer cohesion, at least of identity, because it has already
begun instituting formal mechanisms of accountability. In terms of jurisdiction, the
political motivation of most states is also foreseeable (Bosselmann 2018, p. 3), so
that while currently a range of obligations fall largely on those states, it is likely that
they will be willing to instigate wider accountability. It is therefore the most
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance