Earth system law: The juridical dimensions of earth system governance

Sustainable Value Creation Within Planetary Boundaries—Reforming Corporate Purpose and Duties of the Corporate Board

“…The goal of creating "sustainable value," as a redefinition of corporate purpose, must reflect the multifaceted and interconnected environmental, social, cultural, economic and governance aspects of securing the social foundation for humanity. It concerns "questions of justice and inequality relating to global patterns of consumption and production, resource allocation, benefit distribution, and so on" [71] (pp. 7-8)-in other words, securing a just space for humanity.…”

International Environmental Law’s Lack of Normative Ambition: an Opportunity for the Global Pact for the Environment?

“…32 They have neither kept up with progressive innovations in Earth system science, such as the emergence of resilience thinking, an Earth system law and governance approach, planetary boundaries and the adaptive governance of complex systems; nor can they mirror domestic juridical innovations such as the principle of in dubio pro natura. 33 As we will see with the Global Pact process below, many of the discussions around these principles continue to focus not on how to raise their level of ambition, or on creating more effective principles to bolster these, but rather on what their legal status is and how they could be consolidated (itself of course not an unimportant debate, but one that would seem to crowd out other critical deliberations).…”

Introduction

“…A few intriguing examples of research that have emerged in these fields during the last few years include studies of the non-linear dynamics of social and technological innovation (Geels et al, 2017); polycentric governance as a means to address wicked global problems (see Chapter 7 in this volume); analyses of global action networks and their capacity to deal with surprise and 'tipping points' (Galaz et al, 2016); elaborations of legal dimensions of complex Earth system interactions (Kotzé & Kim, 2019); non-linear shifts in social norms (Nyborg et al, 2016); economic decision-making under the presence of thresholds (Crépin et al, 2012); and public policies for complexity (Colander & Kupers, 2014). These diverse efforts, I believe, illustrate that studies of 'complexity' over the last decade have proven wrong concerns about a complexity hype and 'unease about the discipline' (Hiett, 2001, p. 109).…”