Domestic Trade Policies in an Interconnected World

2019 ◽  
pp. 157-171
Author(s):  
Mathias Risse ◽  
Gabriel Wollner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Labor Force ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Trade Policies ◽  
Domestic Trade ◽  
Moral Duties ◽  
Culture Education

This chapter explores particular domestic obligations of states in the domain of trade, including obligations and prerogatives to protect their labor force and industries from competition and obligations that arise in the context of dealing with authoritarian regimes. The grounds-of-justice approach dilutes contrasts between domestic and foreign policy. Governments must attend to matters of domestic justice, as well as make appropriate contributions to the global advancement of human rights and to trade justice. There are additional duties of justice and other moral duties that apply to states in domains such as immigration, climate change, or protection of future generations. The state has obligations to protect its labor force and look after its vulnerable citizens. But it also has duties towards people elsewhere. The challenge is to reap gains of cooperation in trade, culture, education, environmental protection, among others, while respecting the world’s many local peculiarities and making sure those gains do not accrue only to a few. The grounds-of-justice approach offers guidance for how to pursue these tasks.

Climate Change as a Business and Human Rights Issue: A Proposal for a Moral Typology

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Kristian Høyer TOFT
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Moral Duties ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Forward Looking

AbstractTo explore the emerging and contested issue of business and human rights in the area of climate change, this article provides a critical discussion from the viewpoint of moral philosophy. A novel typology of businesses’ human rights duties (‘duty’ is considered synonymous with ‘responsibility’ here) is proposed. It claims that duties are both forward- and backward-looking. Cases of human rights litigation seeking remedy for climate-related harms are backward-looking, and duties should be determined on the basis of proportion of historical emissions, culpable knowledge and counter-acts to abate climate harms. Businesses’ forward-looking duties, however, depend on their power, privilege, interest and collective abilities. The typology is then assessed against the background of recent legal principles and instruments. It is concluded that moral duties of business reach beyond mere respect for human rights and national jurisdictions in the context of climate change.

Climate Justice. A Contractualist Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rinderle
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
General Welfare ◽  
Principle Of Justice

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to question the utilitarian hegemony in recent discussions about global climate change by defending the possibility of a contractualist alternative. More particularly, I will raise and try to answer two questions. First: How can we justify principles of climate justice? As opposed to the utilitarian concern with maximizing general welfare, a contractualist will look at the question whether certain principles are generally acceptable or could not reasonably be rejected. Second: What do we owe to future generations in these matters? Three principles of climate justice are suggested: a sufficiency principle securing basic human rights, a principle of justice giving each generation a right to realize its conception of justice, and a principle of reciprocity requiring us to take responsibility for the reception of benefits and the causation of harm.

Cosmopolitan Justice, Rights and Global Climate Change

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 255-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Caney
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Environmental Justice ◽  
Global Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Normative Argument ◽  
Climate Change Damages

The paper has the following structure. In Section I, I introduce some important methodological preliminaries by asking: How should one reason about global environmental justice in general and global climate change in particular? Section II introduces the key normative argument; it argues that global climate change damages some fundamental human interests and results in a state of affairs in which the rights of many are unprotected: as such it is unjust. Section III addresses the complexities that arise from the fact that some of the ill effects of global climate change will fall on the members of future generations. Section IV shows that some prevailing approaches are unable to deal satisfactorily with the challenges posed by global climate change. If the argument of this paper is correct, it follows that those who contribute to global climate change through high emissions are guilty of human rights violations and they should be condemned as such.

scholarly journals Climate Change and Justice between Nonoverlapping Generations

1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Karnein
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intergenerational Relationships ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Intergenerational Justice ◽  
Indirect Reciprocity ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
Present Generation ◽  
Combat Climate Change

It is becoming less and less controversial that we ought to aggressively combat climate change. One main reason for doing so is concern for future generations, as it is they who will be the most seriously affected by it. Surprisingly, none of the more prominent deontological theories of intergenerational justice can explain why it is wrong for the present generation to do very little to stop worsening the problem. This paper discusses three such theories, namely indirect reciprocity, common ownership of the earth and human rights. It shows that while indirect reciprocity and common ownership are both too undemanding, the human rights approach misunderstands the nature of our intergenerational relationships, thereby capturing either too much or too little about what is problematic about climate change. The paper finally proposes a way to think about intergenerational justice that avoids the pitfalls of the traditional theories and can explain what is wrong with perpetuating climate change. 

Environmental Human Rights

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerri Woods
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Environmental Human Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Key Questions

In recent public and activist debates, threats to the sustainability of the global ecosystem, such as climate change, have increasingly been posed in terms that link the impact on human well-being to questions of rights. Environmental human rights are emerging in national and international legal practice and have been invoked by environmental political theorists seeking to explicate and justify obligations to protect and sustain the environment and to secure justice for both contemporary communities and future generations. This chapter addresses three key questions in order to unpack the concept of environmental human rights: (1) Why adopt a human rights approach? (2) How have environmental human rights been conceived? and (3) What does an account of environmental human rights entail for rights holders and duty bearers?

scholarly journals The Rights of Future Generations within the Post-Paris Climate Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Climate Regime ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Adequate Response ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
State Responses

AbstractIn recognition of the intrinsic links between climate change and human rights, many have argued that human rights should play a leading role in guiding state responses to climate change. A group whose human rights will inevitably be affected by climate action (or inaction) today are the members of future generations. Yet, despite their particular vulnerability, future generations so far have gone largely unnoticed in human rights analyses. An adequate response to climate change requires that we recognize and address the human rights consequences for future generations, and consider the legal, practical and theoretical questions involved. This article attempts to answer these questions with a particular focus on the Paris Agreement. It argues that the recognition of state obligations towards future generations is compatible with human rights theory, and that these obligations must be balanced against the duties owed to current generations. The article concludes with a number of suggestions for how this balance could be pursued.

Climate Change and Responsibility to Future Generations: Reflections on the Normative Questions

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Robert Heeger
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Emission Of Greenhouse Gases

Climate change raises in an important way the problem of moral responsibility. It forces us to recognise that we have a responsibility to future generations, and to ask what this responsibility implies. Here I identify four key normative questions: (1) How should we respond to uncertainty? Should we apply cost-benefit analysis in order to cope with uncertainty? (2) How should we evaluate the emission of greenhouse gases? Given that the effects of emissions will be bad, should we judge that we as emitters harm the receivers and by that do them an injustice? (3) How should we compare present costs and future benefits? Should we give little or much weight to the benefits and well-being of people in the further future? (4) How should we take heed of human rights? Should we try to avoid the adverse outcomes of a cost-benefit approach by adopting a human rights approach that specifies minimum thresholds to which all human beings are entitled?

Towards the Future Generation Rights in Indonesian Law to Make Justice in the Inter Generation in the Environmental Sector

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Purnawan D Negara ◽  
Widhi Handoko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Future Generation ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
The Future

Efforts on environmental protection in Indonesia are very advanced and progressive, this can be seen from the development of Indonesia democracy which based on ecological (ecocracy) which has given legal rights to the nature/environment in the form of constitutional rights and human rights from nature/environment. The recognition is a form of balancing of the provision of human rights given which guarantees on a good and healthy environment. The ecocracy implementation is embodied in the development policy in Indonesia based on the principle of sustainable development, which is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This policy has triggered the notion that if nature and the present generation have the legal right to a good and healthy environment then future generations can also have the same legal rights. It has not been existed in Indonesian law. The effort to go there is not utopian because Indonesian civil law has recognized the rights of future generations through Article 2 of the KUHPer, as well as by the values ​​of adat law have recognized the existence of natural rights, as well as by Islamic values ​​(as the largest religion) has provided the basis that the creation of the universe is reserved for human welfare (assigned to be the caliphate), the embodiment of the future generations can be seen from the blowing of the spirits to humans by God. The law is not in a hollow space, so the development of law in Indonesia should not be uprooted from its social base in order not to lose its meaning and power in society, future generation rights is not something new for Indonesian society, therefore the development of environmental law needs to drive to make it exist for environmental protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document