Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law
Show Less

Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law

Malgosia Fitzmaurice

The central aim of this insightful book is to illuminate how many concepts in international environmental law such as the precautionary principle and sustainable development are taken for granted. These problematic issues are very much still evolving and subject to heated debate between scholars as well as between states.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: Intergenerational Equity: A Reappraisal

Malgosia Fitzmaurice


THE THEORY OF INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY – INTRODUCTION There are very few topics of international law and environmental law which have given rise to such an invigorating discussion and division of views as the concept of intergenerational equity. It may be said as well that the relationship between generations has been a fertile ground for philosophical debate.1 It must be observed from the outset that the question of environmental protection and intergenerational trusts was analysed in depth by Professor Redgwell in her seminal book.2 1 See J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) (hereinafter Rawls I); J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, 1999) (hereinafter Rawls II); J. Rawls, Political Liberalism (1996) (hereinafter Rawls III); B. Barry, ‘Justice Between Generations’, in P.M.S. Hacker and J. Raz (eds), Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H.L.A Hart (1979) 268, at 268–84 (hereinafter Barry I); B. Barry, Theories of Justice – A Treatise on Social Justice (1989) (hereinafter Barry II). The philosophical theories relating to relationships between generations were the subject of a seminar on this subject organised by Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California. The seminar was mainly devoted to philosophical issues relating to intergenerational equity. The essays were published in 35 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review (2001–2): L.B. Solum, ‘To Our Children’s Children’s Children: The Problems of Intergenerational Ethics’, 35 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 163, at 163-322 (2001/2002); A.P. Grosseries, ‘Do we Owe to The Next Generation (s)’, 35 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 293, at 293...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.