19 August 2022
In Dubio Pro Futura
This post introduces a proposal to promote the long-term interests of humanity and to avert existential and other catastrophic risks, such as those resulting from extreme climate change, pandemics and unaligned artificial intelligence, through the adoption of a novel legal decision rule: in dubio pro futura. In the face of legal indeterminacy, when the law does not provide a single correct answer but a range of several acceptable answers, courts should choose the one most favorable to the future of humanity. Continue reading >>
0 
15 August 2022
Extratemporal Jurisdiction
When may a court legitimately rule over affairs of the future at all? Before thinking about how to resolve such cases, we need to clarify the conditions legitimatising the exercise of judicial authority. My (necessarily cursory) argument in this blogpost is twofold. First, I argue that it is both useful and conceptually apt to think about legitimate authority as a jurisdictional question. Second, I propose a heuristic condition that justifies the judicial exercise of extratemporal jurisdiction over future events: preserving choice.
Continue reading >>
0
14 August 2022
Proactive International Law
In this blog post we challenge the reactive nature of international law, a discipline that has largely developed in response to specific crises and incidents, such as wars, pandemics, mass migrations, economic breakdowns, or technological advancements. While we acknowledge that the reactive paradigm of international law has facilitated adoption of pragmatic solutions to the concrete problems encountered and offered international law a path by which to direct its development, this approach, we contend, has led international law to be backward-looking, short-sighted, and ill-prepared to address newly emerging global threats and advances. Continue reading >>
0
12 August 2022
The Rise of the Constitutional Protection of Future Generations
Constitutions worldwide have seen the rise of future generations. Considering the 193 UN member states, Kosovo, Palestine, and Taiwan, 41% (81 out of 196) of constitutions explicitly referenced future generations as of 2021. We find that this trend started in the early 1990s, lagging behind environmental constitutionalism by two decades. Why do constitutions increasingly refer to future generations? Based on a comprehensive data collection including all constitutions ever written, we argue that future generations are a significant part of a modern, universalist language of constitution-making. Continue reading >>
0
11 August 2022
Narrow Rules are not Enough
With continuing proliferation of increasingly capable AI systems, we will need regulation to address the associated risks. Since our ability to foresee such future risks is very limited, our best bet is to base such regulation on relatively general principles, rather than narrow rules. We think that negative human rights with their existing broad international support could form a suitable foundation both for flexible regulation and for the associated technical solutions. Continue reading >>
0
10 August 2022
Solidarity Across Time
I want to focus on the question of what the future can do for us – a question less asked, and which may seem antithetical to the idea of responsible behaviour now, and yet which is simply a part of the idea of solidarity across time. Its practical importance is that it strengthens the relationship between the present and future and so gives a more persuasive and coherent basis for solidaristic behaviour now Continue reading >>
0
09 August 2022
Is Legal Longtermism Common Sense?
The past decade has seen a growing interest in protecting future generations from risks associated with climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence, and other potential threats. Philosophical theories have developed in parallel, and those associated with the view that one should be particularly concerned with ensuring that the long-run future goes well have been referred to as longtermism. In the context of law, these theories form the basis for legal longtermism, the set of views associated with the claim that law and legal institutions ought to protect the far future. Based on a pair of recent empirical studies we show that legal experts and laypeople alike believe that the law should protect the long-term future much more than it currently does; that legal experts believe that the law can predictably and feasibly protect the long-term future; and that these beliefs hold true across major demographic subgroups. Continue reading >>24 March 2022
Climate Law as a ‘Living Tree’
Last year, the Australian decision of a Federal Court judge in Sharma v Minister for the Environment made headlines around the world. In the decision, the judge found that the Federal Environment Minister owed Australian children a duty of care to prevent harm from climate change. This year, the Sharma case has once again attracted attention, albeit for the opposite reason. In March 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court allowed the Minister’s appeal and overturned the primary judge’s finding of a novel duty of care. This decision has emphasised the limits of legal concepts and courts in addressing future climate damages. However, the unfavourable outcome does not mark the end for climate litigation in Australia. Continue reading >>
0
24 March 2022
No Kidding!
The strategy of challenging a plurality of states directly before international adjudicating bodies has been, so far, a youth’s distinct move in the field of climate litigation, and it is by far the largest vehicle for transnational complaints. Our contribution provides an overview of the relevant cases, many of which still pending, and tries to pinpoint the drivers and possible trajectories of a global phenomenon which could go some way towards redressing the injustice the Global South is suffering as a result of global warming. Continue reading >>
0
23 March 2022
Protecting Whose Children?
One year ago, the First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) has issued a landmark decision on the rights of future generations and their (legal) entitlement to solidarity. This blog post compares this decision to the 2018 ruling of the Colombian Supreme Court (CS) that was also concerned with the rights of future generations. I argue that while the idea of solidarity with people threatened by climate change is central to both judgments, the courts have taken very different approaches to whom this solidarity extends to. Continue reading >>
0