logo image

Environmental Cooperation

Although there are different perspectives on the right of the future generations to the limited natural resources on the planet, there is common agreement on the existence and compelling force of this right. This may be because of the concurrent recognition that the earth’s natural resources are indeed scarce. As such, the rational thing to do is to conserve limited natural resources.

Intergenerational equity is one theory that explains the right of future generations to scarce resources and the concurrent obligation of the present generation to initiate conservation. This theory explains that all people hold the earth’s natural resources in common. This gives the present and future generations the right to use these resources but with the right to use comes the concomitant obligation as the earth’s custodians implying the role of becoming accountable for the use of resources as well as conserving scarce natural resources. The theory also posits inter-generational relationship in the utility and conservation of all people’s common patrimony. (Wood, 1996)

This finds parallelism with the legal concept of life estate, wherein the holder exercises the right over the use and enjoyment of the estate but the utility should be in a manner that eschews the destruction of the estate for the benefit of remainder. By establishing the right of future generations to limited natural resources, the rights imposes the duty of the present generation to conserve resources, support equitable access to resources, prevent or minimize the irreversible destruction of natural resources, mitigate preventable natural disasters, and bear all costs for damage to resources or degradation of environmental quality.

Genetic predisposition is the concept that challenges the premise of intergenerational equity but nonetheless supports the right of future generations to the earth’s limited resources and the obligation of the present generation to conserve these resources for future use. This concept points to biology to explain this right and the duty to conserve instead of beliefs and traditions as in intergenerational equity. Humans hold the predisposition towards procreation, which posits the concern towards the welfare of the future generations.

However, the concern towards the future generation has strong links to the degree of perception of the genetic relation of future generations to the present generation. An individual takes responsibility to conserve natural resources because of the recognition of the future need of ones offspring and their concurrent offspring. (Barresi, 1997)

Commons trusts, which emerged from environmentalist advocacy, comprise an alternative perspective of the right of future generations to natural resources and the responsibility of present generations to conserve. The premise of this concept is that natural resources comprise ‘the commons’ because this is something that the society aggregately inherits. As a legacy for the future generations to inherit, the present holders of ‘the commons’ establish ‘the commons trusts’, which represents the obligation to conserve resources as the people entrusted with ‘the commons’. (Barnes, 2006)

This is parallel to intergenerational equity in terms of beliefs, traditions and culture as the premise of the right of future generations towards resources and the duty of the present generation to conserve, particularly common utility or inheritance of natural resources as the basis of the right and obligation. However, intergenerational equity utilizes equity as the justification while ‘commons trusts’ justifies these through the legal concept of trusts.

Nevertheless, amidst the differences in premise and justification, these concepts commonly support the existence of the right of the future generations to enjoy the earth’s natural resources and since these resources are scarce, the present generation holds the duty to conserve what remains of the natural environment.

A right and obligation gain force when translated into guidelines or rule for action and compliance. These three principles, especially intergenerational equity, that explain the right and obligation of the future and present generations respectively towards the environment find expression, explicitly and implicitly, in international law. These provisions support the exercise of the right for future enjoyment and imposition of compliance with the obligation for present conservation.

The Charter of the United Nations provides that “We the people of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations…” expresses the aggregate responsibility of the present generation to ensure the welfare of the future generations by ensuring, among others, the conservation of natural resources. This also supports the inter-temporal nature of the right, which means that it extends to the unborn. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also recognizes inter-temporality by providing that “all members of the human family” including the future generations holds basic human rights. Third generation rights also support inter-temporal rights encompassing the right to a dignified environment. (Lee, 2000)

The Stockholm Declaration also expresses the basic right of man to a quality environment, among other rights, together with the vow to enhance the natural environment for both the present and the succeeding generations. The Rio Declaration and Vienna Declaration both call for the assumption of responsibility to ensure the natural resource needs of present and future citizens of the earth. (Lee, 2000) These statutes expressly establish the relationship between environmental conservation and the interests of the next generations via the notion of sustainable development, which refers to the exploitation or utility of natural resources in a manner that ensures sufficient resources for future generations.

Thus, the future generations have a right to the limited natural resources on the planet and respect for this right necessitates the obligation of the present generation to conserve, the earth’s resources. This finds support from legal theories or concepts and in international law.

References

Secondary Sources

Barnes, P. (2006).  Capitalism 3.0: A guide to reclaiming the commons. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Barresi, P. A. (1997). Beyond fairness to future generations: An intragenerational alternative to intergenerational equity in the international environmental arena. Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 11(1), 59-88.

Wood, J. C. (1996). Intergenerational equity and climate change. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 8(293), 302-303.

Lee, J. (2000). The underlying legal theory to support a well-defined human right to a healthy environment as a principle of customary international law. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 25

Need essay sample on "Environmental Cooperation"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page

(283), 317-318.

Laws

Charter of the United Nations 1945

Rio Declaration 1992

Stockholm Declaration 1972

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation 1994

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Vienna Declaration 1993

Can’t wait to take that assignment burden offyour shoulders?

Let us know what it is and we will show you how it can be done!
×
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, please register

Already on Businessays? Login here

No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample register now and get a free access to all papers, carefully proofread and edited by our experts.
Sign in / Sign up
No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own
Not quite the topic you need?
We would be happy to write it
Join and witness the magic
Service Open At All Times
|
Complete Buyer Protection
|
Plagiarism-Free Writing

Emily from Businessays

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/chNgQy