What impact are we having on our children and on future generations? As our planet shrinks, we must ask ourselves that question. Scientists warn that we are exiting the Holocene geological epoch, which has prevailed for about the last 12,000 years, and that we are entering a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, in which humans are now the major force shaping our planet. Moreover, we are doing so faster than traditional geological processes. The carbon, nitrogen and hydrological cycles appear to be speeding up. Glaciers are melting faster than expected. If critical thresholds in the Earth’s system are exceeded, abrupt and rapid changes to the integrity and robustness of our planet could occur.
More than ever, we must consider the impact of our actions on the long-term stability and health of our human environment. This makes the norm of intergenerational equity relevant as never before. It applies to our use of the environment and to the conservation of our natural and cultural resources. It is also relevant to many other activities today, indeed if not to most, whether it be health care, education, or investment practices.
When a principle of intergenerational equity in international law was first considered more than thirty years ago, it departed from the traditional legal focus of determining applicable law by relating the past to the present. Rather it entitled future generations to have their interests considered in decisions today that would affect them. In the succeeding years, the principle has been referenced in opinions of individual Judges at the International Court of Justice and by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In more than twenty countries, the national Supreme Court and lower level courts have invoked intergenerational equity. Sometimes the decisions rely upon constitutional provisions or explicit legislative provisions on intergenerational equity. Other times, they reference the principle directly. Before 2004, there were few such cases. Since 2004, the number of judicial decisions considering intergenerational equity has increased significantly. These decisions mostly relate to four major categories: natural resources (such as forests and biodiversity), pollution, construction projects, and mining permits and operations. These developments indicate a progressive recognition of the relevance of intergenerational equity to halt or reshape activities that are harmful to future generations.
Climate change poses the ultimate challenge for intergenerational equity, because our actions today have profound effects upon the climate that future generations will experience. The First Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) observed in 1990 that “[e]ven if all human-made emissions of carbon dioxide were halted in the year 1990, about half of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration caused by human activities would still be evident by the year 2100.” Since then, the worst-case scenarios for climate change have become of greater concern. Many scientists despair that effective international measures to limit global warming will be implemented in time.
To prevent crossing certain critical thresholds in the climate system with potentially devastating consequences, some scientists have been exploring geoengineering technologies, either through removal of carbon dioxide or through solar radiation management techniques. These pose complicated questions for the application of a principle of intergenerational equity. On the one hand, some would argue that geoengineering applies the element of conserving options as part of intergenerational equity to prevent harm. Solar radiation management in particular could be seen as a potentially attractive alternative, especially for investors, to more effective but more expensive measures for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. On the other hand, the consequences of such geoengineering are unknown and potentially devastating for future generations. We should not be using this technology without a thorough and careful exploration of its effect on future generations, and even then great risks and uncertainties will remain. Considering the principle of intergenerational equity in the context of climate change is urgent and requires careful analysis and consideration of the interests of various actors and the effects of our actions on future generations.
Implementing intergenerational equity can be difficult. The context in which the issues arise is changing. We are now living in what may be termed a kaleidoscopic world, in which many actors beyond States participate, issues emerge quickly, and interests change rapidly. Rapid change is inherent in the system. Subnational units of governments, ad hoc coalitions, informal groups and movements and especially individuals are becoming important actors influencing the development and implementation of international law, and in carrying out (or not carrying out) its obligations. While States and the increasing array of international intergovernmental organizations are essential players, the system is much more chaotic than in previous decades. This is the new individualized and globalized world. It is inherently a bottom-up world as well as a top-down one.
The emergence of a kaleidoscopic world is in part the result of the revolution in information and communications technologies. These technologies let people communicate, network and collaborate across time and place through Facebook, YouTube, blogs, Twitter, and their analogs in various countries. They have emerged on an unprecedented scale. As of June 2018, Tumblr alone hosted more than 420 million blogs. In WordPress, 409 million people viewed more than 21.9 billion pages during June 2018, in 120 different languages. Twitter reported 336 million monthly users in spring 2018. Twitter accounts belong to the government, head of state, or foreign minister of 172 States, and using the same categories, 169 States have official pages on Facebook. Mobile phones are ubiquitous. They are the most rapidly dispersed technology in history. About 60 percent of the world’s population owned a mobile phone by 2014, with more than 5 billion mobile phone users projected by 2019. People can use mobile phones to communicate effectively and efficiently for many different purposes across many geographical scales.
The emerging kaleidoscopic world has significant implications for implementing intergenerational equity. It is imperative to recognize shared norms in order to provide cohesion and trust among all actors. In particular, all actors need to share and apply the norm of intergenerational equity and to consider future generations in relevant decisions and policies. Bottom-up efforts to implement intergenerational equity can become easier and highly significant, but the reverse is also possible. Bottom-up initiatives can significantly defeat intergenerational equity, and do so without effective governmental or other interventions.
Thomas Cottier and his colleagues have produced an important, broad-based volume on intergenerational equity. The authors explore the principle of intergenerational equity in many dimensions, from the theoretical to the practical. While the main overall focus is on intergenerational equity in the context of environmental resources and cultural heritage, the authors also explore the principle in a broad array of other contexts. In the last section of the volume, they consider intergenerational justice as it applies to indigenous peoples, genocide, migration, sovereign wealth funds and foreign investment. The chapters provide at the same time a critical analysis of the issues and a consideration of the difficulties in implementing intergenerational equity. One of the many interesting points is the further development of the doctrine of the common concern of humankind, which was first articulated in legal agreements in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biodiversity.
As we proceed in the Anthropocene in our kaleidoscopic world, we need to explore and analyze the principle of intergenerational equity in varied contexts and to address the difficult issues in its implementation. The present book undertakes this daunting task and significantly contributes to furthering deliberations on intergenerational equity.