249
literature is that nations are causing the degradation of the commons by their own
actions and common ecosystem services are provided by resources within national
territories. As a result, an individualistic system based on usage rights is ineffective
for solving ecological problems. We need to draw on cosmopolitanism for an
approach that overcomes these anthropocentric boundaries and represents people
instead of states.
It is proposed that already established concepts around ‘common concerns’ and
‘common heritage’ are appropriate starting points for developing Earth trusteeship
governance. The discourse surrounding the Common Heritage of Mankind doctrine
focusses on intergenerational equity and governance of the commons to bring this
about. A broader framing of a ‘common heritage of life’ is important here as it takes
an ecocentric perspective for the protection of the global commons and the Earth
system (Taylor 1998, p. 298).
Another option could be to expand existing frameworks of normative rights by
introducing, for example, rights of nature. In New Zealand, this has already played
out in the introduction of legal personhood status to natural beings, such as the
Whanganui River (Whanganui River Claims Settlement 2017). They can be seen as
potentially groundbreaking depending on the actual institutionalisation and practice
of katiakitanga (trusteeship) governance.
New Zealand’s legal arrangements would fit easily into an international legal
system that was based on wider environmental mandates. It could be implemented
by co-management arrangements under states’ multilateral environmental agreements and enforced by an international environment court. Existing structures are
not inherently opposed to this framing. The United Nations Security Council could,
for example, be enhanced to include an environmental framework for legitimacy,
and by employing an authority such as a global environmental ombudsman or a
Commissioner for Future Generations liaising between the various states and institutions could be harmonious.
The entire premise of such arrangements is that states, with their current expectations of full and unfettered sovereignty, are unable to see and legislate further than
their anthropocentric values. Their responsibilities need to be reframed, which is not
entirely contrary to a retention of simplistic state sovereignty. Framing such sovereignty against trusteeship obligations, the state would have full legal responsibility
and a fiduciary duty to act in good faith in order to affect the best interests of the
beneficiaries. The beneficiaries in such a scenario include all people, future generations and the Earth system.
Within the UN system, the now defunct UN Trusteeship Council could be reconceived into an environmental body to institute member states as trustees for the
global commons (Stoddart 2011, p. 37). In this way it would act for administrative
and executive purposes. Part of this role would be to reduce the political tensions
that arise inevitably under the current paradigm of state sovereignty (Biermann
2011, p. 5).
There is in fact an established tradition of UN institutions with a trusteeship
mandate including the UN Trusteeship Council, the World Health Organization
(WHO) with respect to public health and—somewhat ironically—the World Trade
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance
literature is that nations are causing the degradation of the commons by their own
actions and common ecosystem services are provided by resources within national
territories. As a result, an individualistic system based on usage rights is ineffective
for solving ecological problems. We need to draw on cosmopolitanism for an
approach that overcomes these anthropocentric boundaries and represents people
instead of states.
It is proposed that already established concepts around ‘common concerns’ and
‘common heritage’ are appropriate starting points for developing Earth trusteeship
governance. The discourse surrounding the Common Heritage of Mankind doctrine
focusses on intergenerational equity and governance of the commons to bring this
about. A broader framing of a ‘common heritage of life’ is important here as it takes
an ecocentric perspective for the protection of the global commons and the Earth
system (Taylor 1998, p. 298).
Another option could be to expand existing frameworks of normative rights by
introducing, for example, rights of nature. In New Zealand, this has already played
out in the introduction of legal personhood status to natural beings, such as the
Whanganui River (Whanganui River Claims Settlement 2017). They can be seen as
potentially groundbreaking depending on the actual institutionalisation and practice
of katiakitanga (trusteeship) governance.
New Zealand’s legal arrangements would fit easily into an international legal
system that was based on wider environmental mandates. It could be implemented
by co-management arrangements under states’ multilateral environmental agreements and enforced by an international environment court. Existing structures are
not inherently opposed to this framing. The United Nations Security Council could,
for example, be enhanced to include an environmental framework for legitimacy,
and by employing an authority such as a global environmental ombudsman or a
Commissioner for Future Generations liaising between the various states and institutions could be harmonious.
The entire premise of such arrangements is that states, with their current expectations of full and unfettered sovereignty, are unable to see and legislate further than
their anthropocentric values. Their responsibilities need to be reframed, which is not
entirely contrary to a retention of simplistic state sovereignty. Framing such sovereignty against trusteeship obligations, the state would have full legal responsibility
and a fiduciary duty to act in good faith in order to affect the best interests of the
beneficiaries. The beneficiaries in such a scenario include all people, future generations and the Earth system.
Within the UN system, the now defunct UN Trusteeship Council could be reconceived into an environmental body to institute member states as trustees for the
global commons (Stoddart 2011, p. 37). In this way it would act for administrative
and executive purposes. Part of this role would be to reduce the political tensions
that arise inevitably under the current paradigm of state sovereignty (Biermann
2011, p. 5).
There is in fact an established tradition of UN institutions with a trusteeship
mandate including the UN Trusteeship Council, the World Health Organization
(WHO) with respect to public health and—somewhat ironically—the World Trade
The Role of Trusteeship in Earth Governance