Proxy Representation and the Global Legal Order

Peter Lawrence; Michael Reder

doi:10.1017/9781009655859.004

2 - Proxy Representation and the Global Legal Order

Integrating Philosophical and Legal Perspectives

from Part I - Normative Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2025

Peter Lawrence and

Michael Reder

Show author details

Peter Lawrence: Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Michael Reder: Affiliation:
Hochschule fur Philosophie Munchen

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Chapter 2 demonstrates that traditional concepts of representation – including agency-based, and audience models – struggle in their application in relation to future generations. Direct and indirect forms of proxy representation are distinguished and legal forms of proxy representation. Various modes of proxy representation at the national level are set out, which are relevant due to the inspiration they provide for proposals at the international level. A range of existing forms of proxy representation in the international legal order are set out, in order to demonstrate that proxy representation of future generations represents a modest rather than radical reform. We then assess the extent to which indirect representation of future generations is incorporated in the international legal order in terms of environment-related principles. A matrix setting out the range of functions which proxy representation may perform is set out. By distinguishing these functions, a more nuanced understanding can be obtained as to the functions of existing modes of proxy representation as well as reform proposals.

Keywords

Definition of representation definition of proxy representation future generations Rehfeld’s concept of representation proxy representation functions

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Representing Future Generations
Climate Change and the Global Legal Order
, pp. 23 - 47

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009655859.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abe, H., Wenning, M. & Fritsch, M. (2024). Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations Indigenous, African, Asian, and Western Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009343756CrossRef Google Scholar

American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) (1969) (adopted 22 November 1969; entered into force 18 July 1978), 1144 UNTS 123.Google Scholar

Adler, R. (2024). The Green Climate Fund: A Case Study in the Legitimacy of Global Climate Finance Governance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar

Birnbacher, D. (1988). Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen, Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar

Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Rajamani, L. (2017). International Climate Change Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/law/9780199664290.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Boston, J. (2021a). Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, New Zealand. In Segger, M.-C., Szabo, M. & Harrington, A.-R., eds., Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementation: Advancing Future Generations Rights Through National Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 434–60.Google Scholar

Boston, J. (2021b). Protecting Long-term Interests: The Role of Institutions as Commitment Devices. In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations of Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 86–107.Google Scholar

Boston, J. & Lempp, F. (2011). Climate Change: Explaining and Solving the Mismatch between Scientific Urgency and Political Inertia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24 (October), 1000–21.10.1108/09513571111184733CrossRef Google Scholar

Boston, J., Bagnall, D. & Barry, A. (2019). Foresight, Insight and Oversight: Enhancing Long-term Governance through Better Parliamentary Scrutiny. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Report for the New Zealand Parliament, June 2019. Available at: www.victoria.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1753571/Foresight-insight-and-oversight.pdf.Google Scholar

Caney, S. (2015). Responding to Global Injustice: On the Right of Resistance. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(1), 51–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Caney, S. (2016). Political Institutions for the Future: A Fivefold Package. In González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135–55.Google Scholar

Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited. (Barcelona Traction case) (1970) 46 ILR 178.Google Scholar

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) (1998) (adopted 25 June 1998; entered into force 30 October 2001), 2161 UNTS 447.Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) (adopted 5 June 1992; entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79.Google Scholar

Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) (adopted 28 June 1919; entered into force 10 January 1920) (108 LNTS 188, UKTS 4, 225 CTS 195), OXIO 358.Google Scholar

Dobson, A. (1996). Representative Democracy and the Environment. In Lafferty, W. M. & Meadowcroft, J., eds., Democracy and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 124–39.Google Scholar

Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. In Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U., eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2014 ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history.Google Scholar

East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia) Judgement (1995) 105 ILR 226.Google Scholar

Eckersley, R. (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/3364.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Ekeli, K. S. (2005). Giving a Voice to Posterity: Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(5), 429–50. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-005-7048-z.10.1007/s10806-005-7048-zCrossRef Google Scholar

European Convention on Human Rights (formal title: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) (ECHR) (1950) (adopted 4 November 1950; entered into force 3 September 1953), 213 UNTS 221.Google Scholar

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). (1983). (9940/82, 9942/82, 9944/82, 9941/82, 9943/82) Commission (Plenary) – Decision – France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands v. Turkey.Google Scholar

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). (2023). Factsheet – Climate change. Available at: www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/FS_Climate_change_ENG.Google Scholar

Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.10.1162/002081898550789CrossRef Google Scholar

French Civil Code 1804 (Art 389). Available at: https://files.libertyfund.org/files/2353/CivilCode_1566_Bk.pdf.Google Scholar

Gerten, D. & Bergmann, S., eds. (2012). Religion in Environmental and Climate Change. Suffering, Values, Lifestyles, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A. (2016). Designing Institutions for Future Generations. In González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). (2013). Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.Google Scholar

International Law Commission (ILC). (2001). Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries.Google Scholar

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In Lee, H. & Romero, J., eds., Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

Karlsson-Niska, T. (2020). Climate Change Litigation and the European Court of Human Rights – A Strategic Next Step? Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 13(4), 331–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwaa028.Google Scholar

Karnein, A. (2016). Can We Represent Future Generations? In González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–97.CrossRef Google Scholar

Larenz, K. & Wolf, M. (2004). Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, 9th ed., München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Latulippe, N. & Klenk, N. (2020). Making Room and Moving Over: Knowledge Co-production, Indigenous Knowledge Sovereignty and the Politics of Global Environmental Change Decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 7–14.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2014). Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9780857934161CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2020). Global Guardians for Future Generations: Remedying a Blind Spot of Democracy? In Tamoudi, N., Faets, S. & Reder, M., eds., Politik der Zukunft. Zukünftige Generationen als Leerstelle der Demokratie. Bielefeld: Transcript, 191–214.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2021). International Institutions for Future Generations and Democratic Legitimacy. In Cordonier Segger, M.-C., Szabo, M. & Harrington, A.-R., eds., Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementation: Advancing Future Generations Rights Through National Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 597–614.Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2022). Justifying Representation of Future Generations and Nature: Contradictory or Mutually Supporting Values? Transnational Environmental Law, 11, 553–79.10.1017/S2047102522000176CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. & Köhler, L. (2017). Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework. German Yearbook of International Law, 60, 639–66.Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. & Linehan, J. (2021). Introduction. In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations of Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–21.Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. & Wong, D. (2017). Soft Law in the Paris Climate Agreement: Strength or Weakness? Review of European, Comparative & International Environment Law, 26(3), 276–86.Google Scholar

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (Namibia case), ICJ Reports (1971) 16.Google Scholar

Linehan, J. (2021). Reforming Political Institutions for the Future: New Reform Proposals for Legislatures and Citizens’ Assemblies. In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 169–89.Google Scholar

Lowe, V. (1999). Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments. In Boyle, A. & Freestone, D., eds., International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–37.Google Scholar

Luban, D. (2015). Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity. In Cruft, R., Liao, S. M. & Renzo, M., eds., Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236–78.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, M. K. (2016). Institutional Design and Sources of Short-termism. In González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

McCormack, P. C. & Hansen-Lohrey, C. (2021). Accountability, Government Decisions and Future Generations: Lessons from the Australian Ombudsman. In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 128–48.Google Scholar

Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montréal Protocol) (1987) (adopted 16 September 1987; entered into force 1 January 1989), 1522 UNTS 3.Google Scholar

Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France) ICJ Reports (1974) 253.10.18356/9789211598537c003CrossRef Google Scholar

Paris Agreement (2015) (adopted 12 December 2015; entered into force 4 November 2016), 3156 UNTC 79.Google Scholar

Reder, M. & Müller, J. (2012). Cultures and Religions. In Edenhofer, O., Wallacher, J., Lotze-Campen, H., Reder, M., Knopf, B. & Müller, J., eds., Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer, 111–18.Google Scholar

Rehfeld, A. (2006). Towards a General Theory of Political Representation. Journal of Politics, 68, 1–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Risini, I. & Eicke, T. (2024). Inter-State Applications under the European Convention on Human Rights – Situating the Instrument in the Current Human Rights Landscape. International Human Rights Law Review, 13(1), 41–73.Google Scholar

Roderick, P. (2010). Taking the Longer View: UK Governance Options for a Finite Planet. A Report for the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development and WWF-UK, London. Available at: www.fdsd.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Takingthe-longer-view-December-2010.pdf.Google Scholar

Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., et al. (2018). Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In Masson-Delmotte, V. et al., eds., Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 93–174. DOI: 10.1017/9781009157940.004.Google Scholar

Saward, M. (2008). Representation and Democracy: Revisions and Possibilities. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 1000–13.10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00102.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Saward, M. (2009). Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Scholtz, W. (2021). Equity. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 335–50.Google Scholar

Soltau, F. (2021). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: What Are Its Implications for Future Generations? In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 108–26.Google Scholar

S. S. Wimbledon, Britain et al. v. Germany (Wimbledon case) (1923) PCIJ Series A01.Google Scholar

Tanasescu, M. (2014). Rethinking Representation: The Challenge of Nonhumans. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 40–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

The League of Nations. (1920). Mandate for German Samoa. Available at: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/league-nations-mandate-german-samoa.Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. (2005). Democracy in Time: Popular Sovereignty and Temporal Representation. Constellations, 12, 245–61.Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. (2010). Representing Future Generations: Political Presentism and Democratic Trusteeship. Critical Review of International and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 17–37.10.1080/13698230903326232CrossRef Google Scholar

Tremmel, J. (2018). Zukunftsräte zur Vertretung der Interessenkommender Generationen. Ein praxisorientierter Vorschlag für Deutschland. In Mannewitz, T., ed., Die Demokratie und ihre Defekte. Heidelberg: Springer, 107–42.Google Scholar

United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1.10.18356/45238899-enCrossRef Google Scholar

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022. Available at: www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022.Google Scholar

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (n.d.). About Montréal Protocol. Available at: www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol.Google Scholar

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992) (adopted 9 May 1992; entered into force 21 March 1994), 1771 UNTS 107.Google Scholar

Van Asselt, H. (2016). The Role of Non-state Actors in Reviewing Ambition, Implementation, and Compliance Under the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1), 91–108.Google Scholar

Viñuales, J. E. (2021). Sustainable Development. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 285–301.CrossRef Google Scholar

Weiss, E. B. (1989). In Fairness to Future Generations. International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity. Tokyo: Dobbs Ferry, United Nations University, Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar

Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with a Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–49.10.1162/002081801317193682CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilkens, J. & Datchoua-Tirvaudey, A. R. C. (2022). Researching Climate Justice: A Decolonial Approach to Global Climate Governance. International Affairs, 98(1), 125–43.Google Scholar

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.