“The Future Summit would forge a new global consensus on what our future should look like and how we can secure it,” said António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, at the time of the presentation of 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 which will be based on the results of the Sustainable Development Goals – SDG Summit, and whose objective is to resuscitate multilateralism, and thus promote a more inclusive international commitment to the advantage of the United Nations Charter and the 2030 Agenda.
In other words, it is a question of including peace, climate change, security, digital technology, strategies for the peaceful and sustainable use of outer space, the management of future shocks and crises, etc. in a broader temporal perspective.
Governing 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 responsibilities?
In a context of prioritizing the interests of the present, and discharging the latter to the detriment of the future. The idea being to mobilize cognitive capacities not only to carry out forecasting and foresight exercises, but to think about current action, responsibility and the rights of future generations.
Impacts of climate change: a transgenerational transfer
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 a stated priority for sustainable development, predicts (+1.8°C, SSP1-2.6).
While the intermediate scenario envisages an increase of (+2.7°C, SSP2-4.5). While knowing that this scenario is based on the hypothesis of continuing the implementation of sustainable development objectives but in a moderate and ineffective manner.
The most pessimistic scenario is based on development based on the continued exploitation of fossil fuels and the generalization of energy-intensive lifestyles. The latter predicts an increase of (+4.4 °C, SSP5-8.5).
However, an additional sinister scenario, since it represents a socio-economic trajectory of which we are already experiencing the premises on an international level, predicts an increase of (+3.6°C, SSP3-7.0).
This last scenario, also developed by the IPCC, is based on a hypothesis of a resurgence of nationalism and regional rivalries.
Thus, 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 rethinking the system of multilateralism and the international governance of peace and climate issues.
Furthermore, the cumulative nature of greenhouse gas emissions highlights the need to assess the long-term impacts of climate change on health.
In this sense, research work by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause nearly 250,000 additional deaths per year, due solely to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.
The WHO adds: “The cost of direct damage to health (excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation) is estimated to be between 2 and $4 billion (USD) per year by 2030.”
Legislating for vulnerability: a anthropomorphism in favor of nature?
If the law considers the employee as the weaker party in a contractual relationship, which justifies his status as vulnerablewould it be relevant to extend the notion of vulnerability to nature as well, being the weakest part and whose resources are exploited on a daily basis?
It is not a question here of putting non-comparable legal subjects on the same footing, in this case “an employee” and “nature”, but rather of considering taking legal action with a view to effectiveness of the right to the environment. Thus the obligation to protect nature would arise from its vulnerability.
The latter refers to the probability that the biodiversity value of a site will be lost in the future. It is therefore a question of the irreplaceability of a site rather in time than in space.
Especially since the notion of vulnerability presents an imperative Source of protection.
Indeed, the consequences of climate change, the irreversible destruction of ecosystems, the use of non-renewable resources, the pollution of air, soil and water, the poor management of chemicals and waste, the loss of biodiversity, compromise the possibility of benefiting from a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for future generations.
On the need for the internationalization of the law of future generations
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development, through the Brundtland Report, adopted a definition of sustainable development, which remains the international reference: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the possibility , for generations to come, to be able to meet their own needs. »
A definition which comes in a context of conscientious international reflection on growth and the right to development, which concerns both present and future generations. This allows us to consider what must be done or avoided by present generations, so as not to confiscate the right to development of future generations.
This international momentum was reinforced by the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25, 1993, as well as the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations, adopted since 1990 and Resolution 76/300 of the United Nations General Assembly, recognizing 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 signal ofenvironmentalization from the top of international law.
Once again, it is necessary to bring into existence politically the legal figure of future generations and give them institutional and constitutional representation, in order to include them in the agenda of intergenerational justice.
Hence the interest in integrating climate risks into asset allocations and the financing of infrastructure projects including energy transition projects, based on the principle of intergenerational equity, and the creation of an Ombudsman for future generations.
Ultimately, since environmental issues are characterized by their transnational effects, it would be relevant to explore the establishment of a legally binding instrument for businesses and human rights, as proposed by the Intergovernmental Working Group open-ended session on transnational corporations and other business enterprises and human rights. This is in accordance with the mandate received through resolution 26/9 of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The idea is also to take all necessary measures so that scientific and technical progress does not harm the rights of future generations, nor compromise them in any way.
Finally, if Daniel Innerarity thinks that: “the future is politically weak, since it does not have powerful lawyers in the present”, we think that his lawyers will surely be there at the Summit on the Future of Nations United, and that the Future Pact must reflect their pleading.
Yasmine BOUTAIB
VSenergy transition advisor and human rights activist
