The right of future generations: the new challenge of environmental protection in international law

“The Future Summit would create a new global consensus on what our future should look like and how we can secure it,” said Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the time of the presentation Our common program at the United Nations General Assembly, announcing the holding of the future summit through resolution A/RES/76/307.

A decisive moment that will be based on the results of the Sustainable Development Goals – SDG Summit, which aims to revive multilateralism and thus promote a more inclusive international commitment in favor of the United Nations Charter and the 2030 Agenda.

In other words, it is about including peace, climate change, security, digital technology, strategies for peaceful and sustainable use of space, management of future shocks and crises, etc. in a broader time perspective.

Managing the future: this is the challenge facing the international community.

However, would it be wise to approach this future without thinking about moral, political and environmental responsibility?

In the context of prioritizing the interests of the present, and fulfilling these others at the expense of the future. The idea is to mobilize cognitive capacities not only to perform forecasting and forecasting exercises, but also to reflect on present action, responsibility and rights of future generations.

Impacts of climate change: transgenerational transmission

According to IPCC estimates, there are three warming scenarios by 2100.

The optimistic scenario, based on net zero emissions, effective international cooperation on the climate issue and the stated priority for sustainable development, predicts (+1.8°C, SSP1-2.6).

While the medium scenario predicts an increase of (+2.7°C, SSP2-4.5). Knowing that this scenario is based on the hypothesis of continued implementation of sustainable development goals, but in a moderate and ineffective way.

The most pessimistic scenario is based on development based on the continuous exploitation of fossil fuels and the generalization of an energy-intensive way of life. The latter predicts an increase of (+4.4 °C, SSP5-8.5).

However, an additional ominous scenario, since it represents a socio-economic trajectory whose premises we are already experiencing at the international level, predicts an increase of (+3.6°C, SSP3-7.0).

This last scenario, also developed by the IPCC, is based on the hypothesis of a resurgence of nationalism and regional rivalries.

Therefore, countries would prioritize issues of security and competitiveness and sacrifice the financing of their ecological transitions on the altar of security spending. Hence the interest in reconsidering the system of multilateralism and international management of peace and climate issues.

Furthermore, the cumulative nature of greenhouse gas emissions underscores the need to assess the long-term health impacts of climate change.

In this regard, research work by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause almost 250,000 additional deaths per year, solely due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.

The WHO adds: “The costs of direct damage to health (excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation) are estimated to be between 2 and 4 billion dollars (USD) annually by 2030.”

Vulnerability Legislation: a anthropomorphism in favor of nature?

If the law considers the employee as the weaker party in the contractual relationship, which justifies his status vulnerablewould it be relevant to extend the concept of vulnerability to nature, which is the weakest part and whose resources are exploited every day?

This is not about putting incomparable legal entities on the same footing, in this case “employee” and “nature”, but it is about considering the legal procedure in order to make environmental rights effective. Therefore, the obligation to protect nature would arise from its vulnerability.

The latter refers to the likelihood that the biodiversity value of the site will be lost in the future. Therefore, the irreplaceability of places is at stake more in time than in space.

Especially since the concept of vulnerability is an imperative source of protection.

Indeed, the consequences of climate change, irreversible destruction of ecosystems, use of non-renewable resources, pollution of air, soil and water, poor management of chemicals and waste, loss of biodiversity, threaten the possibility of benefiting from a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for future generations.

On the need to internationalize the rights of future generations

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development, through the Brundtland Report, adopted the definition of sustainable development, which remains an international reference: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” »

A definition that comes in the context of a conscientious international consideration of growth and the right to development, which concerns both current and future generations. This allows us to consider what current generations must do or avoid in order not to deprive future generations of their right to development.

This international momentum was reinforced by the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25, 1993, as well as by the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on the protection of the global climate for current and future generations. , adopted since 1990 and Resolution 76/300 of the United Nations General Assembly, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment.

The recent recognition by the United Nations Human Rights Council of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right through resolution 48/13 is also a strong signalenvironmental protection from the top of international law.

Once again, it is necessary to politically establish the legal figure of future generations and give them institutional and constitutional representation, in order to include them in the intergenerational justice agenda.

Hence the interest in integrating climate risks into the allocation of funds and financing of infrastructure projects, including energy transition projects, based on the principle of intergenerational equity, and the creation of an Ombudsman for future generations.

Finally, since environmental issues are characterized by transnational effects, it would be relevant to explore the establishment of a legally binding instrument on business and human rights, as proposed by the Intergovernmental Working Group in open session on transnational corporations and other business enterprises and human rights. This is in line with the mandate obtained through resolution 26/9 of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The idea is to take all necessary measures so that scientific and technical progress does not damage the rights of future generations, nor endanger them in any way.

Finally, if Daniel Innerary thinks that: “the future is politically weak, because there are no powerful lawyers in the present”, we think that his lawyers will certainly be there at the Summit on the future of the United Nations and that the future of the Pact will reflect their plea.

Yasmine BOUTAIB

vsenergy transition consultant and human rights activist