Conceptual and Methodological Premise: Breaking Silos Into the Legal Domain

  • María Dolores Sánchez Galera


The notion of sustainability has been widely discussed in the last two decades. This chapter briefly sums up these debates and tries to present a new concept that combines the prevailing normative perspective and new contents from other fields, particularly from education and culture. Today’s sustainability discussions should suggest theoretical frameworks that provide new (or old) epistemologies that empower people and help policy action to face challenges which are mostly global, interconnected and systemic (see Sect. 2.1). The world needs more than ever deep cultural transformations, awareness and civil society engagement to preserve planet Earth for future generations in the Anthropocene but there has been little engagement of legal scholarship in alternative interdisciplinary dialogues dealing with education and culture as part of sustainability. Under these premises, the role of law cannot be any longer disconnected from other knowledge systems and should redesign legal and institutional intervention allowing future generations ‘access’ to justice nurturing bottom-up approaches best operationalised from cultural and educational realms (see Sect. 2.2). New methodological and integrated approaches are prevailing today, while sustainability science has also emerged as a scientific field departing from traditional academic approaches and breaking silos into the existing scientific domains. This does not imply dismissing the role of specific knowledge fields: it means that fields such as legal science should reflect the new systemic thinking of contemporary science (see Sect. 2.3).


Sustainability Anthropocene Knowledge Earth Interdisciplinary Education Culture Systemic thinking 


  1. Bahro, R. A. (1994). In P. Jenkins (Ed.), Avoiding social and ecological disaster: The politics of World transformation: An inquiry into the foundations of spiritual and ecological politics. Bath: Gateway. D. Translator; Translated.Google Scholar
  2. Bierman, F. (2007). Earth System Governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosselmann, K. (2008). The principle of sustainability. Transforming law and Governance. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Bosselmann, K. (2010). Loosing the forest for the trees: Environmental reductionism in the law. Sustainability, 2(8), 2424–2448. Retrieved from: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capra, F., & Mattei, U. (2015). The ecology of law. Toward a legal system in tune with nature and community. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Caradonna, J. L. (2015). Sustainability. A history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dernbach, J. C., & Cheever, F. (2015). Sustainable development and its discontents. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), 247–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1980). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The Middle Works, 1916–197 (Vol. 10, p. 46). Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, G. (2011). Towards a Europe of shared social responsibilities: Challenges and strategies. In Trends in social cohesion, No. 23. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Fernandes, V., & Philippi, A. (2017). Sustainability sciences: Political and epistemological approaches. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giovanni, E. (2018). Utopia Sostenibile. editoriale Laterza.Google Scholar
  12. Göpel, M. (2016). The Great Mindshift. How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: MIT Press. (second printing, the original was edited in 1992 by Suhrkamp Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (2015). The lure of technocracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkes, J. (2001). The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability. Culture’s essential role in public planning, edited by common ground publishing Pty Ltd. in association with the Cultural Development Network (Vic).Google Scholar
  17. Humphreys, M. (2017). Sustainable development in the European Union. A general principle. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC. (2012). In C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Quin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the risks of extreme events and diasasters to advance climate change adaptation. New York: Cambridge Unviersity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jucker, R., & Mathar, R. (Eds.). (2015). Schools for sustainable development in Europe. Concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN decade of education for sustainable development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kabblers, J., & Palombella, L. (2019). The challenge of inter-legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kates, R. W., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 29(5517), 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotzé, L. J., & Kim, R. E. (2019). Earth system law: The juridical dimensions of earth system governance. Earth System Governance, 1, 100003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy, F. (Ed.). (2010). Habermas critical theory and education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Newton, I. (1974). (1687) fragment quoted from Manuel, F. E, “Fragments from a Treatise on Revelation”. In The Religion of Isaac Newton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Palombella, L. (2017). Interlegality and justice. Available at SSRN:
  26. Patterson, J., Schulz, V., Van der Hel, S., Widerberg, A., Hurlbert, A., & Sethi, B. (2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pohl, C., Truffer, B., & Hirsch-Hadorn, G. (2017). Addressing wicked problems through transdisciplinary research. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pope Francis, I. (2015). Laudato Si'. On care for Our Common Home [Encyclical]. Google Scholar
  29. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful. Economics as if people mattered. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  30. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  31. Victor, P. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design, not disaster. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viñuales, J. E. (2018). The organisation of the anthropocene: In our hands? Brill Research Perspectives in International Legal Theory and Practice, 1, 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Dolores Sánchez Galera
    • 1
  1. 1.Public Law DepartmentCarlos III University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations