Advertisement

Sustainability pp 111-223 | Cite as

Ethics and Law of Sustainability – Especially of Freedom, Human Rights, Democracy, and Balancing in a Reinterpreted Perspective

  • Felix Ekardt
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Humanities: Transformation, Governance, Ethics, Law book series (EHTGEL)

Abstract

Non-sustainable societies can therefore be explained descriptively, but can sustainability be justified as a normative goal? The factual influence of values on our behaviour is limited. But when we ask what is normatively right, talking about values is the crucial level. Sustainability, in the sense of intertemporally and globally tenable ways of life and production, is a normative requirement. In order to justify this ethically and legally, a new foundation of universal justice is necessary. Common ethical approaches, which are intended to show the possibility of objective normative statements, prove to be not very convincing on closer inspection. The present theory of universal justice explores the limits of normative rationality and demonstrates that there is considerable scope for balancing without rendering normative questions purely subjective. Furthermore, the area of good living proves to be rationally intangible.

The variant of universal justice developed here as the basis of ethics and law and thus also the concretisation of sustainability is a heterodox discourse ethics. It is designed as the basis of a revised ethical and right-interpretive conception of liberal democracy with human rights and separation of powers at the national, European and international level. In particular, the argument that there is no alternative and an elenctic argument justify (a) the possibility of reason in questions of about what is supposed to be and (b) human dignity, i.e. the respect for the autonomy of the individual, and impartiality as (the only) universal principles of justice that logically cannot be denied without self-contradiction. This proves right not only in discourse, but also in practice and also vis-à-vis merely hypothetical discourse partners, i.e. vis-à-vis all human beings. These principles provide the basis for a comprehensive universal right to liberty, which is not limited to certain areas of life, to a democracy with separation of powers, and to a duty to guarantee all this legally.

This entire approach, centred around the liberal-democratic basic principles of reason, dignity, impartiality and freedom (and democracy with separation of powers), which in their (still unclear) connection appear for the first time with Kant, can be read as crucial modification of classical discourse ethics. In contrast, contextualistic, metaphysical and skeptic (including empiricist, e.g. utilitarian and cost-benefit-analytical) approaches which compete with a liberal-democratic universalism of discourse-ethical character prove to be unconvincing. This also applies to other versions of liberal-democratic theory such as those of Rawls or Sen. In order to determine concrete sustainability contents, an interpretation of the concept of sustainability itself or of topoi such as a legal “state objective for environmental protection” is not very promising, because it remains too vague. Rather, a new ethical and legal interpretation of human rights in the sense of overcoming a primarily economy-oriented understanding of freedom makes sense. This provides an ethically and legally stable basis for sustainability while at the same time overcoming the incompleteness of liberal-democratic philosophies. All statements on justice are statements on the social level. Ethical obligations of the individual that go beyond the obligation to bring about a just – including sustainable – social order are difficult to imagine inter alia due to a lack of concreteness under the auspices of sustainability problems as quantity problems. This is one of the reasons why human rights are always conveyed through public authority, even if their origin lies in the relationship between individuals.

In general, human rights prove to be rights to freedom and to the elementary preconditions of freedom. A distinction of negative and positive freedom does not work. The ethical and legal interpretation that human rights only protect selected, supposedly particularly valuable freedom activities, is equally unconvincing. The humandignity principle (understood as the required respect for the autonomy of the individual, i.e. the principle of self-determination) and the impartiality principle understood as the required independence from specific perspectives) are not fundamental rights, nor are they intended to say anything at all about a concrete ethical or legal individual case. Rather, they are the basis for justifying and interpreting freedom and thus also for a sustainability-oriented reinterpretation of freedom, of the rules of balancing, and of democratic institutions. All this and more applies to liberal-democratic nation states, to the EU and also to international institutions and organisations – also based on a further developed figure of general principles of international law.

Ethically and legally (also on a transnational level), as normative essence of sustainability, there is a right to the elementary preconditions of freedom. This means conditions such as life, health, subsistence level in the form of food, water, security, climate stability, elementary education, absence of war and civil war, etc. The protection of other freedom-promoting conditions, on the other hand, has no ethical or legal human-rights status, but nevertheless deserves recognition, albeit not the duty of the public authorities to act. This is where sustainability concerns are located if they are not elementary to freedom. – The possible alternative to the existing concept of freedom, which would be an ethics of capabilities or need, is rejected due to a number of logical and legal issues, problems of application, and illiberal tendencies.

The freedom outlined in this way, including its elementary preconditions, deserves legal and ethical protection also intertemporally and globally, and thus leads to a human-rights-based theory of sustainability. In particular, arguments for this intertemporal and global extension can be formulated under aspects of potentiality and freedom protection where freedom is endangered. Counterarguments against an intertemporal-global protection of fundamental rights such as the future-individual paradox or the reference to unknown preferences of future generations are ultimately not convincing. The precautionary principle can be classified as a sub-aspect of human rights; it reflects their protection even in uncertain, long-term and multi-causal risk situations. Furthermore, freedom also contains protection by the state, not only defense against the state. These insights are not rendered irrelevant by certain widespread objections to such a multipolar understanding of freedom (e.g. in relation to democracy and the separation of powers). The classical distinctions of action and omission and also deontology versus consequentialism thus latently lose their object. Only in view of all of these steps it is possible to interpret human rights in a manner which includes the protection against climate change, dwindling resources, etc. and thus concrete normative sustainability criteria become conceivable.

Environmental-ethical pathocentrism or eco-centrism can make no additional contribution to the normative theory of sustainability issues, since these approaches prove to be untenable at closer inspection. Nevertheless, environmental protection has a comprehensive ethical and legal justification. In general, freedom is limited only by freedom and the preconditions of freedom of other people, not by any form of common good or the like, which should rather be rejected as a concept. Questions of the good life elude regulation, which is why the ethical and legal justification of sustainability measures does not refer to the subsequent possibly greater happiness of those whose freedom is restricted. Discourses on frugality and nudging, for example, are often based on false assumptions in this respect. Main issues of the welfare state can be identified as sustainability phenomena, taking the threat of climate change into account, although the possibility of objectively answering distributional questions is often overestimated.

Ethical and legal decisions can only be understood as a balancing situation (between various freedoms, elementary preconditions of freedom, further freedom promoting conditions and everything that can be derived from all of the above). Any sustainability decision is thus marked by normative and factual uncertainties (which is usually overlooked). Concrete problems such as “strong versus weak sustainability” or the relevance of a specific argument can only be meaningfully resolved within this theoretical framework.

The ethical and legal theory of sustainability is also developed as a transformed theory of democracy and of balance of powers. The main victims of today’s unsustainability are not voters of today’s parliaments and governments, but future generations and people in other countries. Sustainability is thus in conflict with democracy, to which it – on the other hand – has an affinity because of the necessity of discourses and learning processes (which also rules out any kind of ecodictatorship).

Institutional innovations compared to the existence of democracies based on separation of powers are only indicated to a limited extent in the context of sustainability. The most important point is to establish liberal-democratic institutions on an international level in addition to the national sphere. The right balancing rules, which are the very basis for normative sustainability statements, can be obtained through a legal and ethical balancing theory, which goes beyond traditional legal and ethical approaches and sociological risk theory. These balancing rules outline the scope normatively rational statements which are possible to make e.g. on sustainability and which are based on liberal-democratic principles. Rules of procedure and fact-finding rules can also be derived, as can a new human-rights understanding of the precautionary principle in law and ethics. There are also rules for taking new findings in valuations and facts into account. In the interplay of the powers (nationally and transnationally), the violation of balancing rules leads to an obligation to make a new decision in compliance with the previously violated rule – and thus ultimately to an obligation to (significantly) more sustainability. Violated rules in terms of sustainability concern e.g. the factual basis of climate policy to date and the polluter pays principle. The most important rule for the context of sustainability is the prohibition to ruin the basis of balancing as such by depriving its physical foundations. In spite of all remaining leeway, this already carries a human rights obligation similar to the extent of the temperature limit in Article 2 para. 1 PA. A partly similar statement can be made for other resource and sink challenges, but not for all of them. If using further balancing rules such as the polluter pays principle and economic capacity, it is also possible to give some indications as to how the efforts and costs of mitigation and adaptation should be distributed globally.

All this is also meant as an alternative to the economic cost-benefit analysis, which ultimately represents an empiricist ethics in disguise. It is not only based on a (hidden) untenable normative basic theory and has unsolvable application problems. It also finds itself in insoluble conflicts with a liberal-democratic legal system that does not allocate rights according to solvency and does not primarily organise votes as plebiscitary snapshots.

Keywords

Sustainability ethics Sustainability law Freedom Human rights Democracy Balancing Normativity Universalism Postmodernism Cost-benefit analysis Sustainable freedom (Human) dignity Preconditions of freedom Capabilities Individual ethics Business ethics Intertemporal justice Justice Global justice Multipolarity of freedom Good life Distributive justice Ecocentric ethics Sustainable institutions Democratic system Inevitability of balancing Eco-dictatorship Decision-making Economic freedom Uncertainty Risk Non-egalitarianism Discretion Political majorities Climate economics 

Bibliography1

  1. Acemoglu, Daron/ Robinson, James: Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, London 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, Hans: Rechtswissenschaft als Realwissenschaft. Das Recht als soziale Tatsache und die Aufgabe der Jurisprudenz, Baden-Baden 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexy, Robert: Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs, Frankfurt a.M. 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Alexy, Robert: Theorie der Grundrechte, Frankfurt a.M. 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Alexy, Robert: Theorie der juristischen Argumentation, 2nd ed. Frankfurt a.M. 1991.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, Mark/ Teisl, Mario/ Noblet, Caroline/ Klein, Sharon: The Incompatibility of Benefit-Cost Analysis with Sustainability science, Sustainability Science 10-1/ 2015, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0266-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apel, Karl-Otto: Diskursethik vor der Problematik von Recht und Politik, in: Apel, Karl-Otto/ Kettner, Matthias (Ed.): Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politik, Recht und Wissenschaft, 2nd ed. Frankfurt a.M. 1993, pp. 29 et seq.Google Scholar
  8. Apel, Karl-Otto: Transformation der Philosophie, 2 vol., Frankfurt a.M. 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Arndt, Birger: Das Vorsorgeprinzip in der Europäischen Union, Berlin 2009.Google Scholar
  10. Attfield, Robin: The Ethics of the Global Environment, Edinburgh 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Bäcker, Carsten: On the Limited Rationality of Balancing, in: IVR (Ed.): Global Harmony and Rule of Law, Abstracts of the 24th World Congress, Beijing 2009, pp. 27 et seq.Google Scholar
  12. Bailey, Ian: Neoliberalism, climate governance and the scalar politics of EU emissions trading, Area 2007, pp. 431 et seq.Google Scholar
  13. Barkmann, Jan/ Marggraf, Rainer: Zahlungsbereitschaftsanalysen für Umweltgüter – wirklich „Finger weg”?, GAIA 2010, pp. 250 et seq.Google Scholar
  14. Beck, Ulrich: Beyond Class and Nation: Reframing Social Inequalities in a Globalizing World, BJS 2007, pp. 679 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beck, Ulrich: Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a.M. 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Becker, Gary S.: Der ökonomische Ansatz zur Erklärung menschlichen Verhaltens, 2. Aufl. Tübingen 1993.Google Scholar
  17. Bedall, Philip: Climate Justice versus Klimaneoliberalismus?, Bielefeld 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Bentham, Jeremy: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. by J.H. Burns/ H.L.A. Hart, The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, 2nd ed. Oxford 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Berlin, Isaiah: Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford 1969.Google Scholar
  20. von Bernstorff, Jochen: Social Rights and WTO-Law. Is socio-economic Certification of Bioenergy compatible with International Trade Law?, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2009, 477 et seq.Google Scholar
  21. Birnbacher, Dieter: Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen, Stuttgart 1988.Google Scholar
  22. Bleischwitz, Raimund/ Bahn-Walkowiak, Bettina/ Ekardt, Felix/ Feldt, Heidi/ Fuhr, Lili: International Resource Politics, Berlin 2012.Google Scholar
  23. Böhm, Monika: Der Normmensch. Materielle und prozedurale Aspekte des Schutzes der mensch-lichen Gesundheit vor Umweltschadstoffen, Tübingen 1996.Google Scholar
  24. Boyle, Alan: Human Rights and the Environment – where next? European Journal of International Law 2012, 613 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Braun, Joachim: Welternährung und Nachhaltigkeit. Herausforderungen und Strategien für das 21. Jahrhundert, München 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Breining-Kaufmann, Christine: Right to Food and Trade in Agriculture, in: Cottier, Thomas/ Pauwelyn, Joost / Bürgi Bonanomi, Elisabeth (Ed.): Human Rights and International Trade, 2005, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  27. Brent, Robert: Advanced Introduction to Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cheltenham 2017.Google Scholar
  28. Brouwer, Roy et al.: Guidelines for estimating costs and benefits of policy instruments for biodiversity conservation, 2011, http://policymix.nina.no.
  29. Bugge, Hans Christian/ Voigt, Christina (Ed.): Sustainable Development in International and National Law, Groningen 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Bugge, Hans-Christian: 1987–2007: “Our Common Future” Revisited, in: Bugge, Hans Christian/ Voigt, Christina (Ed.): Sustainable Development in International and National Law, Groningen 2008, pp. 3 et seq.Google Scholar
  31. Burtraw, Dallas/ Sterner, Thomas: Climate Change Abatement: Not „Stern“ Enough?, 2009, http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09_04_06_Climate_Change_Abatement.aspx.
  32. Busse, Matthias: Do Transnational Corporations Care about Labor Standards?, Journal of Developing Areas 2003, pp. 39 et seq.Google Scholar
  33. Bussemer, Thymian: Die erregte Republik. Wutbürger und die Macht der Medien, Stuttgart 2011.Google Scholar
  34. Byatt, Ian et al.: The Stern Review: A Dual Critique. Part II. Economic Aspects, World Economics 2006, pp. 199 et seq.Google Scholar
  35. Calliess, Christian: Die Menschenwürde im Recht der Europäischen Union, in: Gröschner, Rolf/ Lembcke, Oliver (Ed.): Das Dogma der Unantastbarkeit. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Absolutheitsanspruch der Würde, Tübingen 2009, pp. 133 et seq.Google Scholar
  36. Calliess, Christian: Rechtsstaat und Umweltstaat. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Grundrechtsdogmatik im Rahmen mehrpoliger Verfassungsrechtsverhältnisse, Tübingen 2001.Google Scholar
  37. Cameron, Edward: Human Rights and Climate Change. Moving from an Intrinsic to an Instrumental Approach, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 2010, pp. 673 et seq.Google Scholar
  38. Cooper, Ian: A ‘Virtual Third Chamber’ for the European Union? National Parliaments after the Treaty of Lisbon, West European Politics, West European Politics 2012, pp. 441 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cordonier Segger, Marie Claire: Sustainable Development in International Law, in: Bugge, Hans Christian/ Voigt, Christina (Ed.): Sustainable Development in International and National Law, Groningen 2008, pp. 87 et seq.Google Scholar
  40. Correll, Cathrin: Freiheit und Individuum, Baden-Baden 1998.Google Scholar
  41. Crouch, Colin: Post-Democracy, Cambridge 2004.Google Scholar
  42. Deaton, Angus: The Great Escape. Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, Princeton 2013.Google Scholar
  43. Dietrich, Frank: Dimensionen der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit, Stuttgart 2001.Google Scholar
  44. Donnelly, Jack: Third generation rights, in: Brölmann, Catherine/ Lefeber, René/ Zieck, Marjolaine (Ed.): Peoples and Minorities in International Law, Paris 1993, pp. 119 et seq.Google Scholar
  45. Dudai, Ron: Climate Change and Human Rights Practice. Journal of Human Rights Practice 2009, 294 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. DuPuis, E. Melanie/ Gareau, Brian: Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol, Social Science Quarterly 2008, pp. 1212 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Dworkin, Ronald: It is absurd to calculate human rights according to a cost-benefit analysis, The Guardian vom 24.05.2006, S. 12.Google Scholar
  48. Dworkin, Ronald: Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard 1977.Google Scholar
  49. Dworkin, Ronald: What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources, PPA 1981, pp. 194 et seq.Google Scholar
  50. Ekardt, Felix: Economic Evaluation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Ethics: A Critique with Regard to Climate Economics - about Figures in the Sustainability Discourse, Dordrecht 2019, in print.Google Scholar
  51. Ekardt, Felix: Kurzschluss. Wie einfache Wahrheiten die Demokratie untergraben, Berlin 2017.Google Scholar
  52. Ekardt, Felix/ Hyla, Anna: Human Rights, the Right to Food, Legal Philosophy, and General Principles of International Law, ARSP 2017, pp. 221 et seq.Google Scholar
  53. Ekardt, Felix: Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit. Ethische, rechtliche, politische und transformative Zugänge – am Beispiel von Klimawandel, Ressourcenknappheit und Welthandel, 3rd ed. (= 2nd ed. der Neuausgabe) Baden-Baden 2016a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ekardt, Felix: Umweltschutz durch Zivilrecht – Nachhaltigkeit durch Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht?, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2016b, pp. 453 et seq.Google Scholar
  55. Ekardt, Felix/ Wieding, Jutta/ Henkel, Marianne: Climate Justice 2015 – BUNDposition, Berlin 2015a.Google Scholar
  56. Ekardt, Felix/ Hennig, Bettina: Ökonomische Instrumente und Bewertungen der Biodiversität. Lehren für den Naturschutz aus dem Klimaschutz?, Marburg 2015.Google Scholar
  57. Ekardt, Felix/ Neumann, Werner/ Wieding, Jutta/ Schmidt-Kanefendt, Hans-Heinrich: Grundlagen und Konzepte einer Energiewende 2050 – BUNDposition, Berlin 2015b.Google Scholar
  58. Ekardt, Felix/ Kornack, Daniel: „Europäische“ und „deutsche“ Menschenwürde und die Gentechnik-Forschungsförderung, ZEuS 2010, pp. 111 et seq.Google Scholar
  59. Ekardt, Felix/ Meyer-Mews, Swantje/ Hyla, Anna: Knappheit, Rationierung und Verteilungsentscheidungen beim Existenzminimum, Neue Justiz 2012, pp. 25 et seq.Google Scholar
  60. Ekardt, Felix/ Meyer-Mews, Swantje/ Schmeichel, Andrea/ Steffenhagen, Larissa: Globalisierung und soziale Ungleichheit – Welthandelsrecht und Sozialstaatlichkeit, Böckler-Arbeitspapier Nr. 170, Düsseldorf 2009.Google Scholar
  61. Ekardt, Felix/ von Bredow, Hartwig: Managing the Ecological and Social Ambivalences of Bioenergy – Sustainability Criteria versus Extended Carbon Markets, in: Leal, Walter (Ed.): The Economic, Social, and Political Aspects of Climate Change, Berlin 2010, pp. 455 et seq.Google Scholar
  62. Ekardt, Felix: Liberalismus, Besitzindividualismus und Handlungstheorie, Leipzig 2003.Google Scholar
  63. Ekardt, Felix: Steuerungsdefizite im Umweltrecht: Ursachen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Naturschutzrechts und der Grundrechte. Zugleich zur Relevanz religiösen Säkularisats im öffentlichen Recht, Sinzheim 2001.Google Scholar
  64. Engländer, Armin: Diskurs als Rechtsquelle? Zur Kritik der Diskurstheorie des Rechts. Tübingen 2002.Google Scholar
  65. Engle, Eric: Knight’s Gambit to Fool’s Mate. Beyond Legal Realism, Valparaiso University Law Review 2007, 1633 et seq.Google Scholar
  66. Exner, Anne-Katrin: Clean Development Mechanism und alternative Klimaschutzansätze. Rechts- und Governancefragen, Marburg 2016.Google Scholar
  67. Fikkers, Saskia: Legislating for Future Generations? Goal Regulation, ARSP 2016, pp. 2 et seq.Google Scholar
  68. Fischer, Corinna/ Grießhammer, Rainer et al.: Mehr als nur weniger. Suffizienz – Begriff, Begründung und Potenziale, Freiburg 2013, http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1836/2013-505-de.pdf.
  69. Forst, Rainer: Contexts of Justice. Political Philosophy beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism, Berkeley 2002.Google Scholar
  70. Foucault, Michel: History of Madness. New York 2006.Google Scholar
  71. Francot, L.M.A.: Dealing with Complexity, Facing Uncertainty. Morality and Ethics in a Complex Society, ARSP 2014, pp. 201 et seq.Google Scholar
  72. Frankfurt, Harry: On Equality, Princeton 2015.Google Scholar
  73. Friedman, Milton: Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago 1962.Google Scholar
  74. Fücks, Ralf: Intelligent wachsen. Die grüne Revolution, München 2013.Google Scholar
  75. Gawel, Erik/ Bretschneider, Wolfgang: Gehalt und Grenzen eines Rechts auf Wasser – ein Zwischenruf, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 2012, pp. 321 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gawel, Erik: Ökonomische Effizienzanforderungen und ihre juristische Rezeption, in: Gawel, Erik (Ed.): Effizienz im Umweltrecht, Baden-Baden 2001, pp. 9 et seq.Google Scholar
  77. Gesang, Bernward: Klimaethik, Berlin 2011.Google Scholar
  78. Gibson, Noralee: The Right to a Clean Environment, Saskatchewan Law Review 1990, pp. 5 et seq.Google Scholar
  79. Giegerich, Thomas: Grund- und Menschenrechte im globalen Zeitalter, EuGRZ 2004, pp. 758 et seq.Google Scholar
  80. Giezen, Mendel: Shifting Infrastructure Landscapes in a Circular Economy: An Institutional Work Analysis of the Water and Energy Sector, Sustainability 2018, pp. 3487 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Human Rights Law Sources – UN Pronouncements on Extra-Territorial Obligations, 2015.Google Scholar
  82. Gough, Ian: Heat, Greed and Human Need. Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing, Cheltenham 2017.Google Scholar
  83. Grafakos, Stelios et al.: Integrating Environmental, Sociopolitical, Economic, and Technological Dimensions for the Assessment of Climate Policy Instruments, in: Leal, Walter (Ed.): The Economic, Social, and Political Aspects of Climate Change, Berlin 2010, S. 623 et seq.Google Scholar
  84. Grear, Anna: Towards Climate Justice?, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2014 (Special Issue), pp. 103 et seq.Google Scholar
  85. Haberl, Helmut/ Erb, Karl-Heinz: Assessment of Sustainable Land Use in Producing Biomass, in: Dewulf, John/ Langenhove, Herman V. (Ed.): Renewables-Based Technology: Sustainability Assessment, London 2006, pp. 176 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Habermas, Jürgen: Faktizität und Geltung, Frankfurt a.M. 1992.Google Scholar
  87. Habermas, Jürgen: Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln, Frankfurt a.M. 1983.Google Scholar
  88. Habermas, Jürgen: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 vol., Frankfurt a.M. 1981.Google Scholar
  89. Habermas, Jürgen: Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion, Frankfurt a.M. 2005.Google Scholar
  90. Hamann, Hanjo: Evidenzbasierte Jurisprudenz. Methoden empirischer Forschung und ihr Erkenntniswert für das Recht am Beispiel des Gesellschaftsrechts, Tübingen 2014.Google Scholar
  91. Hammer, Balz: Valuing the Invaluable? Valuation of a Statistical Life, in: Mathis, Klaus (Ed.): Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations, Dordrecht 2011, pp. 211 et seq.Google Scholar
  92. Hanley, Nick/ Barbier, Edward: Pricing Nature. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy, Cheltenham 2009.Google Scholar
  93. Hansjürgens, Bernd/ Lienhoop, Nele: Was uns die Natur wert ist. Potenziale ökonomischer Bewertungen, Marburg 2015.Google Scholar
  94. Harsanyi, John: Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory, in: Gottinger, H. W./ Leinfellner, W. (Ed.): Decision Theory and Social Ethics. Issues in Social Choice, Dordrecht 1978, pp. 3 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Hausman, Jerry: Contingent Valuation – from Dubious to Hopeless, Journal of Economic Perspectives 2012, pp. 43 et seq.Google Scholar
  96. Hennig, Bettina: Nachhaltige Landnutzung und Bioenergie. Ambivalenzen, Governance, Rechtsfragen, Marburg 2017.Google Scholar
  97. Herrler, Christoph: Warum eigentlich Klimaschutz? Zur Begründung von Klimapolitik, Baden-Baden 2017.Google Scholar
  98. Hiskes, Richard: The Human Right to a Green Future. Environmental Rights and Intergenerational Justice, Cambridge 2009.Google Scholar
  99. Hobbes, Thomas: De Homine, Opera Philosophica, Neudruck Aalen 1966.Google Scholar
  100. Hofmann, Ekkehard: Abwägung im Recht – Chancen und Grenzen numerischer Verfahren im öffentlichen Recht, Tübingen 2007.Google Scholar
  101. Honkonen, Thomas: The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in Post-2012 Climate Negotiations, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 2009, pp. 257 et seq.Google Scholar
  102. Hosang, Maik/ Fraenzle, Stefan/ Markert, Bernd: Die emotionale Matrix. Grundlagen für gesellschaftlichen Wandel und nachhaltige Innovation, München 2005.Google Scholar
  103. ILA (International Law Association): Legal Principles Relating to Climate Change. Washington 2014.Google Scholar
  104. Illies, Christian: The Grounds of Ethical Judgement – New Transcendental Arguments in Moral Philosophy, Oxford 2003.Google Scholar
  105. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2014, Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge 2014.Google Scholar
  106. Ismer, Roland: Klimaschutz als Rechtsproblem. Steuerung durch Preisinstrumente vor dem Hintergrund einer parallelen Evolution von Klimaschutzregimes verschiedener Staaten, Tübingen 2014.Google Scholar
  107. Jakob, Michael/ Edenhofer, Ottmar: Growth, Degrowth, and the Commons, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2014, 447 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Jamieson, Dale: Reason in a Dark Time. Why the struggle against climate change failed – and what it means for our future, Oxford 2014.Google Scholar
  109. Janis, Irving: Victims of Groupthink, Boston 1972.Google Scholar
  110. Jensen, Annette/ Scheub, Ute: Glücksökonomie, München 2015.Google Scholar
  111. Jonas, Hans: Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Frankfurt a.M. 1979.Google Scholar
  112. Kahl, Wolfgang: Nachhaltigkeitsverfassung – Reformüberlegungen, Tübingen 2018.Google Scholar
  113. Kanalan, Ibrahim: Die universelle Durchsetzung des Rechts auf Nahrung gegen transnationale Unternehmen, Tübingen 2015.Google Scholar
  114. Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysik der Sitten, Neuausgabe Frankfurt a.M. 1978.Google Scholar
  115. Kant, Immanuel: Zum Ewigen Frieden, Neuausgabe Frankfurt a.M. 2005.Google Scholar
  116. Kartha, Sivan/ Baer, Paul/ Athanasiou, Tom: The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World. The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework, Paper of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, EcoEquity, and the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm 2007.Google Scholar
  117. Kelsen, Hans: Was ist Gerechtigkeit?, Stuttgart 2000.Google Scholar
  118. Kim, Rakhyun/ Bosselmann, Klaus: Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Ecological Integrity as a Grundnorm of International Law, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 2015, pp. 194 et seq.Google Scholar
  119. Klöhn, Lars: Kapitalmarkt, Spekulation und Behavioral Finance, Berlin 2006.Google Scholar
  120. Knox, John: Linking Human Rights and Climate Change at the United Nations, Harvard Environmental Law Review 2009a, 477 et seq.Google Scholar
  121. Knox, John: Climate Change and Human Rights Law, Virginia Journal of International Law 2009b, 1 et seq.Google Scholar
  122. Koenig, Christian: Die öffentlich-rechtliche Verteilungslenkung. Grund und Grenzen einer Deregulierung am Beispiel der Vergabe von Konzessionen, Kontingenten und Genehmigungen zur unternehmerischen Nutzung öffentlich verwalteter Güter, Berlin 1994.Google Scholar
  123. Koskenniemi, Martti: From Apology to Utopia, Cambridge 2005.Google Scholar
  124. Kotzé, Louis: Human Rights and the Environment in the Anthroposcene, The Anthroposcene Review 2014, pp. 252 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Krisch, Nico: Beyond Constitutionalism. The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law, Oxford 2010.Google Scholar
  126. Kuhlmann, Wolfgang: Begründungsprobleme der Diskursethik, in: Niquet, Marcel/ Herrero, Francisco Javier/ Hanke, Michael (Ed.): Diskursethik. Grundlegungen und Anwendungen, Würzburg 2001, pp. 9 et seq.Google Scholar
  127. Löfstedt, Ragnar: A possible way forward for evidence-based and risk-informed policy-making in Europe: a personal view, Journal of Risk Research 2014, pp. 1089 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Lübbe, Weyma: Neminem laedere? ARSP 2000 (Special Issue 74), pp. 73 et seq.Google Scholar
  129. Lübbe, Weyma: Verantwortung in komplexen kulturellen Prozessen, Freiburg 1998.Google Scholar
  130. Luhmann, Niklas: Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 1993.Google Scholar
  131. Lumer, Christoph: The Greenhouse: A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals, Lanham 2000.Google Scholar
  132. Lyster, Rosemary: Towards a Global Justice Vision for Climate Law in a Time of “Unreason”, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2013, pp. 32 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. MacIntyre, Alasdair: Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, London 1988.Google Scholar
  134. MacMillan, Douglas/ Hanley, Nick/ Lienhoop, Nele: Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?, Ecological Economics 2006, pp. 299 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Macpherson, C.B.: The political theory of possessive individualism. From Hobbes to Locke, Toronto 1962.Google Scholar
  136. Markus, Jean-Paul et al.: Quelle responsabilité juridique envers le générations futures?, Paris 2012.Google Scholar
  137. Mathis, Klaus: Efficiency instead of Justice? Searching for the Philosophical Foundations of the Economic Analysis of Law, Berlin 2009.Google Scholar
  138. Maurmann, Dorothee: Rechtsgrundsätze im Völkerrecht – am Beispiel des Vorsorgeprinzips, Baden-Baden 2008.Google Scholar
  139. McCrudden, Christopher: Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights, European Journal of International Law 2008, pp. 655 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Meßerschmidt, Klaus: Gesetzgebungsermessen, Berlin 2000.Google Scholar
  141. Meyer, Kirsten: How to be Consistent without Saving the Greater Number, Philosophy & Public Affairs 2006, pp. 136 et seq.Google Scholar
  142. Meyer, Lukas/ Roser, Dominic: Distributive Justice and Climate Rights. The Allocation of Emission Rights, Analyse & Kritik 2006, pp. 223 et seq.Google Scholar
  143. Miller, Holmes/ Engemann, Kurt: The precautionary principle and unintended consequences, Kybernetes 2018, in print.Google Scholar
  144. Moellendorf, Darrel: Cosmopolitan Justice, Cambridge/ Mass. 2002.Google Scholar
  145. Moellendorf, Darrel: The Moral Challenge of Dangerous Climate Change. Values, Poverty, and Policy, Cambridge 2014.Google Scholar
  146. Morgenthaler, Gerd: Freiheit durch Gesetz, Tübingen 1999.Google Scholar
  147. Muraca, Barbara: Gut leben. Eine Gesellschaft jenseits des Wachstums, Bonn 2015.Google Scholar
  148. Murswiek, Dietrich: Die staatliche Verantwortung für die Risiken der Technik, Berlin 1985.Google Scholar
  149. Murswiek, Dietrich: Paradoxa der Demokratie – Volkssouveränität und Normbindung, Juristenzeitung 2017, pp. 53 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Nagel, Thomas: The last word, New York 1997.Google Scholar
  151. Nagel, Thomas: Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false, New York 2012.Google Scholar
  152. Nestle, Ingrid: The costs of climate change in the agricultural sector. A comparison of two calculation approaches, Dissertation, Flensburg 2012.Google Scholar
  153. Nickel, James: The Right to a Safe Environment, Yale Law Journal 1993, pp. 281 et seq.Google Scholar
  154. Nordhaus, William: A Question of Balance. Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, New Haven 2008.Google Scholar
  155. Nowak, Martin/ Highfield, Roger: Kooperative Intelligenz. Das Erfolgsgeheimnis der Evolution, München 2013.Google Scholar
  156. OECD: Biofuels: Linking Support To Performance, 2008.Google Scholar
  157. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Report on the relationship between climate change and human rights, UN Doc. A/ HRC/ 10/ 61 vom 15.01.2009.Google Scholar
  158. OHCHR: The Effects of Climate Change on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, Genf 2015.Google Scholar
  159. OHCHR: Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Focus report on human rights and climate change, Genf 2014.Google Scholar
  160. OHCHR: Mapping Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Individual Report on Global and Regional Environmental Agreements, Genf 2013.Google Scholar
  161. Otsuka, Michael: Saving Lives, Moral Theory, and the Claims of Individuals, Philosophy & Public Affairs 2006, pp. 109 et seq.Google Scholar
  162. Ott, Konrad: Institutionalizing Strong Sustainability. A Rawlsian Perspective, Sustainability 2014, pp. 894 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Ott, Konrad: Domains of Climate Ethics, Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 2011, pp. 95 et seq.Google Scholar
  164. Ott, Konrad/ Döring, Ralf: Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit, Marburg 2004.Google Scholar
  165. Paden, Roger: Rawls’s Just Savings Principle and the Sense of Justice, Social Theory and Practice 1997, pp. 27 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Page, Edward: Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations, Cheltenham 2006.Google Scholar
  167. Paqué, Karl-Heinz: Wachstum! Die Zukunft des globalen Kapitalismus, München 2010.Google Scholar
  168. Parry, Martin et al.: Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates, 2009, http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/economics-and-equity-adaptation/costs-adapting-climate-change-significantly-under-estimated.
  169. Pauw, Pieter et al.: Different Perspectives on Differentiated Responsibilities. A State-of-the-Art Review of the Notion of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, Bonn 2014.Google Scholar
  170. Pavcnik, Marijan: The Principle of Proportionality, in: IVR (Ed.): Global Harmony and Rule of Law, Abstracts of the 24th World Congress, Beijing 2009, pp. 19 et seq.Google Scholar
  171. Pearce, David/ Atkinson, Giles/ Mourato, Susana: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Recent Development, Paris 2006.Google Scholar
  172. Peers, Steve/ Hervey, Tamara/ Kenner, Jeff/ Ward, Angela (Ed.): The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Oxford 2014.Google Scholar
  173. Peters, Glen/ Minx, Jan/ Weber, Christopher/ Edenhofer, Ottmar: Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008, PNAS 2011, pp. 8903 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas/ Brooks, Victoria (Ed.): Research Methods in Environmental Law. A Handbook, Cheltenham 2017.Google Scholar
  175. Piketty, Thomas: Capital in the 21st Century, Harvard 2014.Google Scholar
  176. Popper, Karl: The open society and its enemies, London 1945.Google Scholar
  177. Posner, Richard: Wealth Maximization Revisited, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 1986, pp. 85 et seq.Google Scholar
  178. Radermacher, Franz Josef/ Beyers, Bert: Welt mit Zukunft. Die ökosoziale Perspektive, 2nd ed. Hamburg 2011.Google Scholar
  179. Rawls, John: The Law of Peoples, Cambridge/ Mass. 1999.Google Scholar
  180. Rawls, John: Political Liberalism, Cambridge/ Mass. 1992.Google Scholar
  181. Rawls, John: A Theory of Justice, Cambridge/ Mass. 1971.Google Scholar
  182. Rawls, John: A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, Cambridge/ Mass. 2003.Google Scholar
  183. Raz, Joseph: Individual Rights in the World Order, in: IVR (Ed.): Global Harmony and Rule of Law, Papers of the 24th World Congress, Beijing 2009, pp. 1 et seq.Google Scholar
  184. Read, Rupert/ O’Riordan, Tim: The Precautionary Principle under Fire, Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 2017, in print.Google Scholar
  185. Rorty, Richard: Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge 1989.Google Scholar
  186. Sands, Philippe/ Peel, Jacqueline: Principles of International Environmental Law, 4th ed. Cambridge 2018.Google Scholar
  187. Scheidler, Fabian: Das Ende der Megamaschine. Geschichte einer scheiternden Zivilisation, Wien 2015.Google Scholar
  188. Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim: Selbstverbrennung. Die fatale Dreiecksbeziehung zwischen Klima, Mensch und Kohlenstoff, München 2015.Google Scholar
  189. Schnug, Ewald/ Schnug, Lisbeth: Poor Wretch! Or: Do Earthworms deserve our Morality?, 2015, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ewald_Schnug/publications.
  190. Scholz, Roland: Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. From Knowledge to Decisions, Cambridge 2011.Google Scholar
  191. Schwerd, Joachim: Der Treibhausgasemissionshandel in evolutionsökonomischer Perspektive, Marburg 2008.Google Scholar
  192. Schwerdtfeger, Angela: Implementation and the Separation of Powers, in: Lohse, Eva Julia/ Poto, Margherita (Ed.): Participatory Rights in the Environmental Decision-Making Process and the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention – a Comparative Perspective, Berlin 2015, pp. 173 et seq.Google Scholar
  193. Sen, Amartya: The Idea of Justice, Harvard 2009.Google Scholar
  194. Sen, Amartya: Elements of a Theory of Human Rights, PPA 2004, pp. 315 et seq.Google Scholar
  195. Sen, Amartya: Development as Freedom, New York 1999.Google Scholar
  196. Shue, Henry: Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford 2014.Google Scholar
  197. Siemer, Stefan: Nachhaltigkeit unterscheiden. Eine systemtheoretische Gegenposition zur liberalen Fundierung der Nachhaltigkeit, in: Ekardt, Felix (Ed.): Generationengerechtigkeit und Zukunftsfähigkeit. Philosophische, juristische, ökonomische, politologische und theologische Neuansätze in der Umwelt-, Sozial- und Wirtschaftspolitik, 2006, pp. 129 et seq.Google Scholar
  198. Singer, Peter: Climate change, eating meat and ending poverty, Milthorpe Lecture 2009.Google Scholar
  199. Skillington, Tracey: Climate Change and the Human Rights Challenge. Extending Justice beyond the Borders of the Nation State, International Journal of Human Rights 2012, pp. 1196 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Smart, J. J. C.: Distributive Justice and Utilitarianism, in: Arthur, J./ Shaw, W.H. (Ed.): Justice and Economic Distribution, New Jersey 1978, pp. 103 et seq.Google Scholar
  201. Spangenberg, Joachim/ Settele, Josef: Precisely Incorrect? Monetising the Value of Ecosystem Services, Ecological Complexity 2010, pp. 327 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Spash, Clive: Deliberative monetary valuation, Ecological Economics 2007, pp. 690 et seq.Google Scholar
  203. Starke, Peter/ Obinger, Herbert/ Castles, Francis: Convergence towards where: in what ways, if any, are welfare states becoming more similar?, JEPP 2008, pp. 975 et seq.Google Scholar
  204. Steinberg, Rudolf: Der ökologische Verfassungsstaat, Frankfurt a.M. 1998.Google Scholar
  205. Steinberg, Rudolf: Die Repräsentation des Volkes. Menschenbild und demokratisches Regierungssystem, Baden-Baden 2013.Google Scholar
  206. Stengel, Oliver: Suffizienz. Die Konsumgesellschaft in der ökologischen Krise, München 2011.Google Scholar
  207. Sterk, Wolfgang et al.: The International Climate Regime and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations. Status Quo and Future Prospects, Darmstadt 2013.Google Scholar
  208. Stern, Nicholas: A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to manage Climate Change and create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity, Cambridge 2009.Google Scholar
  209. Stern, Nicholas: Stern Review Final Report, 2006, abrufbar unter http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm.
  210. Stern, Robert: Transcendental Arguments, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendental-arguments/#Bib.
  211. Stroud, Barry: Transcendental Arguments, Journal of Philosophy 1968, pp. 241 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Sunstein, Cass: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Ethics 2005, pp. 351 et seq.Google Scholar
  213. Sunstein, Cass: Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge 2009.Google Scholar
  214. Susnjar, Davor: Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, and Balance of Powers, Leiden 2010.Google Scholar
  215. Taylor, Charles: The Malaise of Modernity, Harvard 1992.Google Scholar
  216. Tomasello, Michael: A Natural History of Human Thinking, Harvard 2017.Google Scholar
  217. Unmüßig, Barbara. Monetizing Nature – Taking Precaution on a Slippery Slope, 2014, http://us.boell.org/2014/08/26/monetizing-nature-taking-precaution-slippery-slope
  218. Unnerstall, Herwig: Rechte zukünftiger Generationen, Würzburg 1999.Google Scholar
  219. Unnerstall, Herwig: Sustainable Development” as Legal Term in European Community Law: Making It Operable within the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive, UFZ-Diskussionspapiere 16/ 2005, Leipzig 2005, http://www.ufz.de/data/ufz_disk_16_20052878.pdf.
  220. Vanderheiden, Steve: Environmental Rights, Abingdon 2012.Google Scholar
  221. Verheyen, Roda: Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention Duties and State Responsibility, Leiden 2006.Google Scholar
  222. Verheyen, Roda: Loss and Damage Due to Climate Change. International Journal of Global Warming 2015, pp. 158 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Vieweg, Marion et al.: Squaring the Circle of Mitigation Adequacy and Equity: Options and Perspectives, UBA-Texte, Dessau-Roßlau 2014.Google Scholar
  224. Voget-Kleschin, Lieske: Sustainable Food Consumption? Claims for Sustainable Lifestyles in between Normative and Eudaimonistic Issues – the Example of Food Production and Consumption, Manuskript, Greifswald 2013.Google Scholar
  225. Voigt, Christina: Sustainable Development as a Principle of Integration in International Law. Resolving Potential Conflicts between WTO Law and Climate Change Mitigation Measures (Manuskript), Oslo 2006.Google Scholar
  226. Wagner, Liam et al.: Trading Off Global Food Supply, CO2 Emissions and Sustainable Development, 2016, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406.
  227. Walzer, Michael: Spheres of Justice, New York 1983.Google Scholar
  228. Walzer, Michael: Just and Unjust Wars, New York 1977.Google Scholar
  229. Wätzold, Frank: Efficiency and applicability of economic concepts dealing with environmental risk and ignorance, Ecological Economics 2000, pp. 299 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Werner, Micha: Who Counts? Argumente zur Beantwortung der Inklusionsfrage im Rahmen der transzendentalpragmatischen Diskursethik, in: Niquet, Marcel/ Herrero, Francisco Javier/ Hanke, Michael (Ed.): Diskursethik. Grundlegungen und Anwendungen, Würzburg 2001, pp. 265 et seq.Google Scholar
  231. Winter, Gerd: Vom Nutzen der Effizienz im öffentlichen Recht, Kritische Justiz 2001, pp. 300 et seq.Google Scholar
  232. Zucca, Lorenzo: Constitutional Dilemmas. Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights in Europe and the USA, Oxford 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Ekardt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Forschungsstelle Nachhaltigkeit und KlimapolitikLeipzig/BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Rostock UniversityRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations