Chapter 5 traces the history of a number of existing UN mechanisms which represent the interests of particular vulnerable groups in the international system (persons with disabilities, women, and children). The aim of this analysis is to see what types of normative discourses have found traction and led to the development of institutions to represent these vulnerable groups, in order to ascertain the type of normative arguments that would gain support in arguing for international institutions to represent future generations. An important lesson from the case studies is that a normative discourse in which development concerns feature prominently, has been a common thread running through the history of these UN mechanisms. The chapter analyses the differences and similarities between arguments which justify the institutions which have been put in place to represent these vulnerable groups, with arguments used to justify institutions to represent future generations.

Chapter 4 involves a focus on the legitimacy and effectiveness of proxy-style institutions for future generations. It sets out criteria for assessing the legitimacy of such institutions based on Klaus Dingwerth, Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, and Antto Vihma. Criteria for assessing the legitimacy of international tribunals are developed based on an extension of Bogdandy and Venzke’s work with the idea of accountability to the demos being extended to include future generations. A concept of ‘future legitimacy’ is introduced which involves assessing institutions in operation now from the perspective of future generations when climate change is predicted to be ravaging the planet. Criteria for effectiveness are elaborated involving the Paris Agreement goals, as well as an assessment of the promotion of intergenerational justice and the values of inclusiveness, solidarity and addressing vulnerability. Particular challenges in application of these criteria in the context of international law and related institutions which represent future generations are discussed.

Air pollution related to greenhouse gases (GHGs) is a threat to the climate system, which is changing – a change that is bound to affect the survival of entire states and populations. The enclosure of the air has been inclusionary since it was realized that the reduction of emissions by some states will not do much to improve air quality or abate climate change if other states continue to pollute. The same is true with regard to the enclosure of the ozone layer, since the elimination of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) by some states will be fruitless if other states continue to produce and consume ODSs. In the ozone and climate change regimes, developed countries have been willing to provide side payments to developing states for joining in and for outlawing ODSs and reducing their GHGs. Other issues examined in this chapter include: the politics of green energy transition in connection with the mining of rare earths and minerals and revival of nuclear energy, and the transboundary air pollution regime – an effective inclusionary enclosure.

Chapter 3 delves into the functions and foundations of international environmental law. International environmental law is an institution based on the deliberate redundancy of parallel and overlapping networks that contribute to its resilience and to the maintenance of the minimum public order. We analyze the foundational purposes of international environmental law: the quest for equity and the pursuit of effectiveness. We underline that addressing matters of distributive equity successfully is the sine qua non condition for the effective protection of environmental commons. The tragedy of the commons rationale that precipitated the enclosure of common pool resources in national systems is also driving the enclosure of global common resources. This chapter analyzes the specifics of this enclosure, as it has been unfolding in fisheries, marine genetic resources, germplasm resources and related knowledge, deep-seabed resources, freshwater resources, air, seas, chemicals, wastes, and space. The nature of inclusionary and exclusionary enclosures and how these types of enclosure affect perceptions of distributive equity are critically examined. Finally, international environmental regimes are evaluated based on the effectiveness of the enclosure they have commanded and the perceptions of equity held by the stakeholders and participants in the regimes.

Chapter 8 makes a preliminary assessment of the likely effectiveness of the proposed UN special envoy for future generations by examining this proposal through the lens of three frameworks. These frameworks are, firstly, the rationale or normative basis for such a proposal measured against the principles of intergenerational justice, solidarity and vulnerability set out in Chapter 3 of the book. Next, the special envoy proposal is evaluated in terms of its legitimacy and effectiveness using the criteria elaborated in Chapter 5 (inclusive representation, democratic control in the form of accountability and transparency, deliberation, source-based/input legitimacy in terms of expertise, legal legitimacy, tradition and discourse, substantial/output legitimacy in terms of effectiveness and equity). The possible functions of a special envoy are examined and recommendations are made as to what mandate the special envoy should have, applying the matrix of proxy functions elaborated earlier in this book, which involves breaking proxy representation down into its functions (representative, compliance, reform and norm entrepreneurial). Finally, an overarching framework is proposed for measuring the potential effectiveness of the special envoy which incorporates both frameworks – proxy representation functions and democratic legitimacy.

Chapter 6 contains a case study in which we sketch how the normative framework set out in part A of the book, can be used as a basis for arguments that can be made in relation to the ongoing ICJ advisory opinion on climate change. It argues that the court should interpret international rules in a manner which furthers justice including intergenerational justice. This is essential for maintaining the court’s legitimacy, which must include its future legitimacy. The court should flesh out the principle of intergenerational equity by defining it in terms which require states to take climate action to ensure protection of the human rights of future generations necessary for them to lead a decent life. In addition, the normative framework is used to argue for: (i) an particular interpretation of the no harm rule to incorporate harm towards future generations and (ii) reform of the procedural rules of the ICJ so as to allow NGOs and scientists to make amicus curiae submissions (directly or implicitly) on behalf of future generations in proceedings before the court.

The purpose of this study is to examine the law and policy for the management and protection of the global commons. It analyzes the protection and distribution of global common resources from fairness, effectiveness and world order perspectives. We examine whether international environmental policymaking has resulted in the fair allocation of global common resources that will be effective in protecting the environment.

Why do peat and peatlands matter in modern Russian history? The introduction highlights peatlands as a prominent feature of Russia’s physical environment and reflects on their forgotten role as providers of fuel in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It discusses the invisibility of peat and peatlands in most existing historical narratives of the fossil fuel age and identifies peat as a lens to reflect upon Russia’s place within global histories of economic growth and associated resource-use. Situating the book at the intersection of modern Russian, energy, and environmental history, the introduction underscores why the planetary predicament makes the seemingly marginal history of peat extraction a topic of global significance.

How did peatlands respond to human visions of growth and development? Peat extraction entangled humans and peatlands in a relationship marked by irritation, sometimes confrontation. Examining incidents of malaria outbreaks and fire at and around peat extraction sites, this chapter highlights the agency of peatlands in the history of Russia’s fossil economy. It identifies peat extraction sites as spaces of environmental injustice and points to a crucial irony running through the history of human–peatland relationships in imperial and Soviet Russia: Peatlands had long been imagined as dangerous and useless, but they turned into unsettling landscapes only once they became part of Russia’s industrial metabolism. Central Russia’s peatland environments were not just a backdrop to history but actively challenged and constrained the different ways in which people tried to make use of them.

The history of Russia’s peatlands is closely entangled with the environmental issues of our time. Although most peat extraction in central Russia ceased decades ago, the legacy of this history is ongoing. Drainage and industrial exploitation have turned peatlands from carbon sinks into powerful carbon emitters. Recognizing how this issue is rooted in a larger history of economic growth adds depth to our understanding of the current planetary predicament. Even though Russia may not soon become an ally in efforts to cure degraded peatlands, writing their history constitutes an important step in addressing the ecological amnesia surrounding these ecosystems and in developing more caring relationships with them.

The chapter examines global risks that are exceedingly complex and characterized by the long time horizons entailed in their governance. It argues that the dynamics of climate change, biodiversity loss, pandemics, and other system-spanning challenges are now forcing pragmatists and skeptics alike to push their thinking beyond the kinds of experiments in risk governance discussed in previous chapters. They suggest the need for profound socioeconomic transformation, eventually forcing deep structural political change at the system level. Complex and slow-moving crises with transnational dimensions will not be managed successfully by nation-states assigning priority to their own autonomy. The essential question comes back to the fore. Might the “insuring instinct” today be harnessed in zones that stretch the limits of risk calculation quickly enough to sustain more ambitious forms of collaborative governance? More specifically, can existing political authorities in vital and inherently complex policy arenas effectively deploy insurance narratives to move beyond voluntary and reversible intergovernmental arrangements without provoking self-defeating backlashes? The chapter reviews current analyses of key cases where private insurance reach their limits, but insurance metaphors promise to be politically useful.