|
|
|
|
Home | Roots | Creative Forum | Future Vision | Stop'n Look! | Contact Us | Return to Top |
1. Excerpts from 'Obligations of Justice towards Future Generations: A revolution in social and legal thought', by Emmanuel Agius; in 'Future Generations & International law'; Earthscan Publications Ltd., London; page 3. |
Rawls' concept of justice between generations:
In 1972, John Rawls published 'A Theory of Justice' as a base for our responsibilities towards future generations. Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" gives due consideration to the question of justice between generations ... He claims that a theory of justice has to apply to all members, whether they are now living intratemporarily or intratemporarily. In other words, he claims that the theory of justice has to apply to not only one group of people, or to one generation, but to all generations. Rawls lists three rights which all generations can claim from their predecessors. All generations have the right to
Rawls formulated the "just saving principle" in order to explain the relationship of justice between generations. According to this principle, what every generation is expected to do is to hand on to its immediate posterity a somewhat better situation than it inherited. Anything less than this would be unfair to them, anything more would be unfair to the present generation. In extending the theory of justice between generations, Rawls has difficulty imagining the contracting parties being members of different generations. Therefore he assumes that they are contemporaries but do not know their position in time. Thus each generation lies behind a "veil of ignorance", not knowing whether they are living in a resource-rich world or a polluted world or a technologically advanced world ... He assumes that the only "rational self-interest" which can be relied upon to transcend generations is concern for ones own children ... his explanation of inter generational justice in terms of the just saving principle has in a way restricted transgenerational moral relationships only to overlapping generations ... The just saving principle supports obligations corresponding to the rights of the immediate one or two generations, but beyond that, there is no motivation to do that. This short time scale interest in the future is unable to justify any moral concern about the effects of actions with long-range effects, such as those resulting from genetic engineering and nuclear energy. Mankind includes future generations
It is reasonable to suggest that, in our search for grounding our obligations to unborn generations on sound ethical principles, we have to recast two concepts of traditional social ethics, namely common good and social justice, in the light of the community of mankind as a whole extending over time and space. Thus, the vision of an inter generational community challenges us to reconceptualize the notions of common good and social justice by adding to them a time dimension. These two social principles justify relations of justice between present and future generations. The common good of the Human Species
Social Justice and the Weaker Members of the Human Species
The resources of the earth belong to all generations. Our ownership of these resources is only ours inasmuch as we form part of the species. In the use of this heritage, we are bound in justice to consider the good of the species as a whole ... Social justice forbids any generation to exclude other generations from a fair share in the benefits of the common heritage of humankind. |
[Reminder
from Essem: This presentation is only an extract. Please read the
full article for a more comprehensive understanding
of the subject.]
DISCUSSIONS:
|
Home | Roots | Creative Forum | Future Vision | Stop'n Look! | Contact Us | Return to Top |
2. Excerpts from 'The responsibility of the state towards future generations', by Rachid Driss; published Future Generations & International law; Earthscan Publications Ltd., London; page 21. |
When
George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, he did not anticipate the perestroika
which put a final point to the nightmare of planetarian collectivisation
in 1985. George Orwell's vision seemed, up to recently, perfectly obvious:
prepare future generations to live in an utopic collectivism, with prevailing
equality, where science and technology would shape the world. Moving towards
this end seemed unavoidable. But as Fukuyama observed, history (the Marxist
episode) ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Capitalism has been rehabilitated
and freedom recovered its splendor. The generations living since 1984 experience
many contradictions and are even victims of history. Only the impact
of technical instruments and the sophisticated computers could help them
adapt to the new society. Today's world is very different from the one
at the beginning of the century, but it is not an Orwellian nightmare ...
WHAT NEXT?
Individually, we have a responsibility towards forthcoming generations ... Society as a whole has its responsibility, but individuals cannot fulfill the task by themselves. State support and cooperation is needed to carry out this important task. First of all we have to give an appropriate definition of the concept of state today and what it may be in the next century in the new international order. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union we live in disarray. One of the objectives of the Marxist ideology, on which the Soviet Union has been based, was the disparition of the state as a form of power, replaced by a community of men. Nevertheless, nowhere was the state as powerful as it was in the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it became apparent how important the state was for organizing the whole life of a nation or a group of nations. The state was a factor of stability and it could bear great consequences when it did not fulfill its responsibility. Upon its collapse the state ruling the Soviet Union was not replaced by communities, but by federal or national states. The state as a ruling structure did not disappear but continued to fulfill its functions. Nevertheless, we are not to ignore what is frequently said by some commentators that the nation-state has failed to fulfill its objective, especially in countries liberated from colonialism. During the struggle for freedom, people nourished the hope that their independent state would solve all their problems. In spite of partial achievements and lack of means or mismanagement, states could not do so. At the same time, welfare states are under heavy attack. Financial costs make their task difficult if not impossible to sustain. However, the state remains the most adequate structure to rule a country. The efforts to unite several states into a community or a union like the European Union (formed in Maastricht) are often retarded by the attachment which politicians and the public in general give to their national sovereignty. Several nations, divided by religion, ethnicity and culture are strongly opposed ti unity. Whatever will be the evolution of the states, under the economic, ethnic, security or cultural needs, it will be the product of historical evolution and will remain the best form of organized power. To reject this fact is very easy. To find another structure to organize nations, to form a humane society is a challenge that one cannot overcome. That the state is the best policy making instrument has been proved by many experiences of governance. But what is exactly a state? Is it land with a population? Is it an anonymous apparatus with a mysterious power? Is it a mere concept, a kind of screen behind which the authorities hide themselves in order to prevent the citizens to reach them in their quest for justice? Is it a ghost that frightens people and keeps them under control? In any case the State is not a government [My emphasis: Essem]: governments may change due to political changes but a state is a permanent structure, equipped with executive, legislative and judicial powers. It has diplomatic ties with other countries. It negotiates and concludes treaties and conventions. It participates in international organizations dealing in several fields - political, economic, social or cultural. A state is a sovereign entity. It may leave part of its sovereignty through treaties or conventions, but a state has international commitments with other states. A state is the guardian of the values and survival of a nation with other states [My emphasis: Essem]. Ibn Khaldoun, a Tunisian historian and philosopher (1332-1406 AD) said that a state, like its individual members, is born, grows and dies, but its life can be a very long one, guaranteeing for a long period of history the fulfillment of its objectives, and also playing a decisive role in the progress of human civilization. The state is at the same time a guardian of the past and the future of a nation. Even in the case of dismantlement or collapse, it leaves behind traditions and memories, which are carried through from generation to generation. ... the state cannot disassociate itself from its responsibility towards future generations ... its new responsibilities towards future generations:
The role of the media is primordial. Our children watch television and from it learn about good and evil. Television often has more impact on them than parents or school. The responsibility of the State to protect children and the new generation against violence and drug abuse as shown on television, can only be achieved if a new international order includes a consensus amongst states on a common policy. The problem of the media is our problem, arising from the rapid changes in our society. Let us be very clear on this question. By a common policy we do not mean the control or censorship of information and programs. The objective of a common policy is to evaluate the present situation and develop guidelines to improve it by reducing, at least, the intensity of violence and crime and encouraging the less violent and more ethical and human aspects. ... Responsibility towards future generations should be considered not only in the materialistic sphere but also in cultural and moral debates ... We should not neglect the cultural heritage we have inherited from our ancestors. Culture and values have to be preserved and enriched by our own efforts. We have the duty to transmit these values, universally, to future generations ... |
[Reminder
from Essem: This presentation is only an extract. Please read the
full article for a more comprehensive understanding
of the subject.]
DISCUSSIONS:
|
Home | Roots | Creative Forum | Future Vision | Stop'n Look! | Contact Us | Return to Top |
3. Excerpts from 'A commentary on the status future generations as a subject of international law', by Ajai Malhotra; published in Future Generations & international law; Earthscan Publications Ltd., London; page 39. |
An
issue that arises in exploring the status of future generations under international
law relates to the problem of satisfactorily defining future generations
... A generation could be loosely described as a body of individuals or
a set of persons born at about the same time. While no established practice
exists in this regard, a generation has usually been computed as covering
a 25 or 30 year period ...
... Irrespective of whether future generations presently possess specific legal rights under international law or not, there exists an indisputable responsibility towards them. Accordingly, it would be desirable for the present focus of attention to be on responsibilities towards future generations, rather than their rights. FUTURE GENERATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
|
Home | Roots | Creative Forum | Future Vision | Stop'n Look! | Contact Us | Return to Top |
An Appeal: |
If you
find our presentations not up to your expectations, or if you do not see
the article/contribution(s) which may have been archived due to paucity
of disc space, please contact us/use the feedback form, or mailto:sankalpatrust@hotmail.com
We shall succeed only with your active participation in these processes. Please send in your comments about our presentations, and your own contributions for inclusion in this page. Meanwhile ... |
© 2000 Sankalpa Trust