We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this commentary on Itamar Mann’s rich re-reading of Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884), I want to draw attention to two issues. First, the salience of the distinction between abstraction and idealization for his argument. Second, the question of political form in relation to each of the three models of the lifeboat that Mann explore – the providential, the catastrophic, and the commonist. I do so in order to explore the implications of Mann’s proposal for the politics of global governance.
Beginning with the opening-up reforms of Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese government has treated law as a central tool for regulating the economy and guiding institutional transformation. Over the decades, since 1949, China’s path to modernization has been marked by profound, experimental transformations that selectively combined foreign expertise with Chinese foundations. A key feature of this process has been China’s strategic adoption and adaptation of legal transplants. While initially a recipient of foreign legal models, China is now increasingly exporting its own approaches through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This article examines how China’s engagement in shaping the legal and regulatory frameworks of host countries under the BRI differs from traditional models of legal transplants. Rather than imposing, China draws on its historical experience to adopt a pragmatic, adaptive strategy defined by three core characteristics: the combination of Chinese and Western practices; an emphasis on voluntariness tempered by asymmetrical power relations; and a prioritization of policy objectives over autonomous legal principles. While this strategy raises concerns about legal fragmentation and institutional coherence, it also fosters a space for legal pluralism, offering an alternative to the homogenization typically associated with Global North legal transplants.
How can wellbeing for all be improved while reducing risks of destabilising the biosphere? This ambition underlies the 2030 Agenda but analysing whether it is possible in the long-term requires linking global socioeconomic developments with life-supporting Earth systems and incorporating feedbacks between them. The Earth4All initiative explores integrated developments of human wellbeing and environmental pressures up to 2100 based on expert elicitation and an integrated global systems model. The relatively simple Earth4All model focuses on quantifying and capturing some high-level feedback between socioeconomic and environmental domains. It analyses economic transformations to increase wellbeing worldwide and increase social cohesion to create conditions that are more likely to reduce pressures on planetary boundaries. The model includes two key novelties: a social tension index and a wellbeing index, to track societal progress this century. The scenarios suggest that today's dominant economic policies are likely to lead to rising social tensions, worsening environmental pressures, and declining wellbeing. In the coming decades, unchecked rising social tensions, we hypothesise, will make it more difficult to build a large consensus around long-term industrial policy and behavioural changes needed to respect planetary boundaries. We propose five extraordinary turnarounds around poverty, inequality, empowerment, energy and food that in the model world can shift the economy off the current trajectory, improve human wellbeing at a global scale, reduce social tensions and ease environmental pressures. The model, the five (exogenous) turnarounds and the resulting two scenarios can be used as science-policy boundary objects in discussions on future trajectories.
Non-technical summary
Our world is facing a convergence of environmental, health, security, and social crises. These issues demand urgent, systemic solutions now that address not only environmental but also social dimensions. Weak political responses have stalled progress on the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. We have developed scenarios that explore interconnections between possible climate futures, rising living costs, and increasing inequalities that fuel populism and undermine democracy to the year 2100. We propose five turnaround solutions – energy, food and land systems, inequality, poverty, and gender equality – that if enacted are likely to provide wellbeing for a majority of people plus greater social cohesion. This will support long-term industrial policies and behavioural change to reduce emissions and protect the biosphere toward a long-term goal of living on a relatively stable planet.
Social Media summary
Our dominant economic model is destabilising societies and the planet. Earth4All found 5 turnarounds for real system change.
Support for a high-ambition plastics treaty is gaining strength, particularly within global civil society and among lower-income developing countries. Still, opposition to binding measures – such as obligations to regulate petrochemicals or reduce global plastics production – remains intense and widespread. We propose the concept of a “petrochemical historical bloc” to help reveal the depth and extent of the forces opposing strong global governance of plastics. At the bloc’s core are petrostates and industry, especially producers of oil and gas feedstock, petrochemicals and plastics. Extending its influence are broader social forces – including certain political and economic institutions, consultancy firms and nongovernmental organizations – that reinforce and legitimize the discourses and tactics thwarting a high-ambition treaty. This bloc is driving up plastics production, externalizing the costs of pollution, distorting scientific knowledge and lobbying to derail negotiations. Yet the petrochemical historical bloc is neither monolithic nor all-powerful. Investigating differing interests and evolving politics within this bloc, we contend, can expose disingenuous rhetoric, weaken low-ambition alliances and reveal opportunities to overcome resistance to ambitious governance. In light of this, and toward highlighting fractures and potential counter-alliances and strategies, we call for a global research inquiry to map the full scope and nature of the petrochemical historical bloc.
The path to global sustainable development is participatory democratic global governance – the only truly effective path to confronting pandemics, military conflict, climate change, biodiversity loss, and potential overall ecological collapse. Democracy for a Sustainable World explains why global democracy and global sustainable development must be achieved and why they can only be achieved jointly. It recounts the obstacles to participatory democratic global governance and describes how they can be overcome through a combination of right representation and sortition, starting with linking and scaling innovative local and regional sustainability experiments worldwide. Beginning with a visit to the birthplace of democracy in ancient Athens, a hillside called the Pnyx, James Bacchus explores how the Athenians practiced democratic participation millennia ago. He draws on the successes and shortfalls of Athenian democracy to offer specific proposals for meeting today's challenges by constructing participatory democratic global governance for full human flourishing in a sustainable world.
Public trust, political will, and the right leadership are all necessary to create and to lift up to the global level a living democracy for a sustainable world. Given the challenges before us, we are running out of time to bring about the necessary disruption in the stalled and stalemated political status quo by significantly expanding direct democratic participation through sortition as the first step toward creating and restoring mutual public trust. Trust must be built by exercising trust. We need trust in governments and between and among governments. Most important, we need trust between and among people who have faith in their fellow men and women to assume the responsibilities of self-rule. Trust can be created by working together in trust. With mutual trust, we can summon the political will to overcome our current inertia and make the changes needed to uplift democracy for a sustainable world. We can find and follow the right leadership. And we can follow the path from the Pnyx to secure at last the global realization of living democracy.
In addition to right representation, our new framework for democratic global governance must comprise global circles of participation chosen by global sortition. We must make something new work for the world by giving new life to human institutions at every level of governance. To accomplish this, we must employ random selection to create an interlinked network of global participation that will be a central part of a new system of democratic global governance. We must establish, globally, multiple levels of multidimensional and multiconnected circles of participation through random selection, reflecting the diversity of views in the entirety of the world, ascending and descending through interaction at different tiers of governance, linking, overlapping, and jointly acting in different sectors and on different subjects of governance, in an ongoing expression of human imagination and democratic will. Among these sortition circles must be circles for nature and circles for the future. We must make these global circles into rings of human action in which everyone throughout the world will have an equal opportunity to participate.
In 508 bc, after defeating a Spartan effort to restore authoritarian Peisistradid rule in Athens, Cleisthenes and the Athenian citizenry overthrew aristocratic rule in the city-state and replaced it with a form of direct popular rule that rapidly evolved into the world’s first genuine democracy. The reforms made by Cleisthenes and his popular allies at that time formed the foundation for an ever-evolving direct and participatory Athenian democracy that lasted for nearly two centuries before its demise by military defeat. The political structure of the city-state was reorganized to bring citizens from different places together in self-governance; the Assembly was accorded full political powers, and all Athenian citizens were made equal before the law and equally entitled to participate in the governance of the city-state. Central to direct democratic governance were random selection of officeholders by sortition and frequent rotation in office. Further reforms during the succeeding decades made Athenian governance still more democratic and – after brief authoritarian interruptions during and immediately after the Peloponnesian War – more committed not only to democracy but also to the rule of law, until ultimate military defeat by Macedon in 322 bc.
As Hannah Arendt taught us, we must create something new in the world. Human action can make a new beginning for humanity. We must pursue self-liberation through participation with others in mutual action to attain full human flourishing in a sustainable world. The participatory action we take must be democratic action. Democratic action is the only kind of action that can lead to the full flourishing of human freedom. Only democracy provides an institutional framework for the fullest extent of political freedom, economic freedom, and every other kind of freedom. We must embrace the responsibility of freedom by working together to apply reason to the world. This requires active engagement for a common purpose in a truly participatory democracy. A common purpose can be found in seeking accomplishment of the social, economic, and environmental aims of sustainable development. As John Dewey insisted, democracy must become a way of life. Democratic participation is the way to attain a deeper freedom. We see this in the emergence of a multitude of bottom-up sustainable development networks worldwide.
The most radically revolutionary idea in the world remains the notion that “we the people” are capable of governing ourselves. This idea began with Cleisthenes and the ancient Athenian democrats, but it is only partly fulfilled today. Human rights have meaning only if they have genuine content. It is in the exercise of rights with content through genuine democratic participation that our natural capacity for self-rule can be enlarged and we can become more capable of self-rule. In sharing the capability, knowledge, and potential that each of us possesses, we can confront the real world and cooperate to make it into a better world. By acknowledging our unity as one species, accepting our place as a part of nature, and asserting control of our technosphere, we can become one global network. As it is, we comprise a living system, a universal agent of systems thinking, and, through collective action, we can become a much more successful one. Full democratic participation can accomplish the fullest effectiveness of this living network. It can produce sustainable development. If everyone participates, then the benefits of this collective action will be maximized; but if some are left out then their knowledge and potential will be lost to the whole, and thus the network will be less capable of making a sustainable world. The billions of people who are invisible must be made visible by expanding the circle of our moral imagination, and all must be enabled to achieve self-liberation by participating in their own governance.
Participation is meaningless without communication. Just as the Athenian leader Pericles communicated with his citizens in his famous Funeral Oration, so must we communicate with one another to take and coordinate human action through human cooperation. Communication is not possible without a space in which to communicate. The basis of participatory democracy must be communication and action taken together in a public space. We must therefore have more public spaces for democratic participation by everyone, including those among us who have been excluded, who have been marginalized and invisible. Within these public spaces for participation, communication must occur through deliberation with people coming together and talking things through on fair and equal terms to arrive at a mutual decision based on mutual rational criticism. This deliberation must include everyone, and it must be face to face. Local experiments throughout the world have shown that this can be done. By using an ancient sortition machine they called the kleroterion, the ancient Athenians showed how the collective wisdom of the people can be summoned and employed in making public decisions. They also learned through hard experience – exemplified in the trial and execution of Socrates – that collective wisdom and collective action through democratic decision-making are best when the decision-makers are educated to be the best citizens and make the best decisions.
Not one of the numerous global risks we confront can be averted without better governance through global cooperation. All these risks – the ones we face now and the ones we may soon face next – transcend national borders, cross the globe, and therefore require global solutions. Moreover, many of these risks are interconnected; thus, they require interconnected solutions. Within the biological and chemical container of the Earth’s biosphere, human civilization is not a collection of individual structures of living that are entirely separate and distinct. It is a complex system of interconnected – and interdependent – networks of all kinds, many of which extend across our imagined political borders. Moreover, the ecologies of the world that human cities and states inhabit are all connected through natural systems. The atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere of the Earth, the biosphere that comprises the Earth’s ecosystems, are all connected. The many parts make a whole. To find planetary solutions, we must employ systems thinking to create institutions and other political arrangements to achieve effective Earth system governance, which must see and treat the world as a whole. To do this, we need human cooperation in problem-solving at every level of human endeavor. Foremost among our tools in this task must be democracy, and democracy must be devoted to sustainable development. Although democracy is in retreat throughout the world, we must fulfill our duty of optimism by establishing democracy everywhere and at every level, including democratic global governance.
The challenges for governance in ancient Athens are dwarfed by the challenges for governance in our own time. Humanity seems incapable of cooperation for collective action. We are failing in problem-solving. This failure is evidenced at every level of governance. It is especially obvious in global governance, where an escalating avalanche of ecological and other crises has already begun and hurtles toward us. The failure of democracies is particularly distressing in that it is the democracies that, in the eyes of those who support and believe in them, are supposed to do the most to meet the common needs of humanity. The human species has survived and thrived because we have cooperated. We must do so now if we are to meet the challenges before us and secure the fullness of human flourishing through sustainable development. We have, however, not yet found the common will that is indispensable to taking the collective action that is necessary to achieve our goals for humanity. Like the ancient Athenians in their triremes, we must learn to row together to serve the public good. We must, like them, form participatory knowledge networks for the public good. This requires vastly more public participation in self-rule at every level of human governance. New cooperative networks for sustainable development are examples of the kind and extent of popular participation we need to continue to survive and succeed as a species.
The ancient Greeks subjected nature to human questioning. As personified in the natural observations of Aristotle and the other work of his Lyceum, they pointed the way to our natural science. They believed in the unity of man and nature. So, today, must we. In the modern view, nature is something separate and apart from man that is to be subordinated to human purpose. Nature, too, is still treated today as something without limit. Our science, and the technology it has produced, are behind the material bounty that is enjoyed by billions of people in the modern world and that is sought by billions more who hope to share in it by securing and embracing the benefits of technology. Continued technological innovation and dissemination is necessary for sustainable development. Yet there is a long list of potential risks if technology is not deployed properly. Moreover, we humans are increasingly shaped and made captive even of the technosphere we have created that increasingly pervades our biosphere. The choices we make about technology will do much to shape our future. In making those choices, we must reorient our relationship with nature. We must see the world and our place within it differently. We must see ourselves as part of one connected form of life that is connected to all the other forms of life, which are in turn all connected to the rest of nature on the imperiled Earth and are mutually dependent on all these planetary connections for perpetuating life.
The growing number of global heat waves is one expression of the calamities of climate change resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions. Sea levels are rising as global temperatures continue to increase, creating an array of climate risks. While humanity postpones ambitious climate action, the planetary biosphere on which we depend is changing, perhaps irreversibly. Deforestation, desertification, habitat loss, biodiversity loss, environmentally harmful mining, ocean pollution, relentless consumption, and plastics addiction are all a part of this heedless destruction by our careless and wasteful species, which increasingly threatens the continuation of human civilization. Humanity is now an agent for geological change. Further, human-created ecological risks are compounded by the confluence of the risks of pandemics and armed conflicts. Alone among all the species of the Earth, we have the power either to destroy the world or to transform it to achieve the full measure of the flourishing of our species. Burdened by our lack of wisdom, and driven by the worst in our nature, we seem bent on our own destruction. Ours is a species that must wake up. We must recognize that not changing our ways may be an act of self-destruction. If we do not act together to lift ourselves up – and especially to lift up the majority of us who are at the bottom of our global social and economic pyramid – then time may soon run out for achieving the heights of human aspiration. Human life may become mostly a matter of survival.
Necessary tools for the success of the new participatory framework for democratic global governance will be expertise, rules and rule enforcement, and interaction among the new circles of participation across and up and down the different levels of governance. We must be able to discern when expert advice is needed and when to heed it to produce better results. We must also be able to tell what is expert advice and what is not. In the process of democratic decision-making in the new network of democratic global governance, there must be a balance between the combination of right representation and collective wisdom on the one hand and technical and other forms of expertise on the other; for such a balance will produce the best results. What is more, just as we need a different kind of democracy, so too do we need a different kind of rules. A reorienting of global rules away from the limitations of the Westphalian system and in a planetary direction is required for the new network of democratic global governance. There must also be continuous interaction among all the participating parts and all the different levels of the new framework of democratic global governance.
In the world today, we must make a new Cleisthenic moment. To achieve sustainable development and to accomplish its other global goals, the United Nations must be modernized and reformed to become more democratic. Other international institutions of all kinds must be made more responsive to the “grass roots” of the world through participatory and other democratic reforms. In addition, new global institutions must be established to address global concerns. Moreover, global democratic governance must be speeded up and enhanced through the rising voice emerging from new and parallel channels of democratic participation outside the bounds of borders and governments, including the global proliferation of grassroots networks for sustainable development. These participatory networks must surround and inspire the reshaping of global governance into a governance that is truly democratic. We must reform democratic representation to make it right. And we must couple it with collective wisdom derived from the random selection of sortition. We must construct a framework for enabling democratic global governance that will blend right representation with sortition to produce better results for sustainable development and for all else of common concern for all of humanity.
How do “novel” spaces of transnational law emerge rather than being captured within existing legal regimes? This article argues that processes driving how the subject matter of a transnational legal space is defined and framed and by whom are notable in mediating such outcomes. The article presents the empirical case study of global neurotechnology governance and examines socio-legal processes whereby individual and organizational actors have constructed and defended neurotechnology as a distinct space of transnational law. Here, I argue that this can be understood as boundary work, which examines discursive and spatial processes of demarcating social entities from one another. The article shows how attention to external and internal boundaries around and within a transnational legal domain can sensitize socio-legal analysis to the more emergent features of these spaces, including more subtle modes of exclusion, cooperation, and coordination. The article concludes by reflecting on how attention to processes of boundary work can enrich inquiry into, and critique of, the earliest stages of transnational legal ordering.
Digital constitutionalism rarely focuses on value creation, extraction, and distribution. This Article introduces a symposium that contributes to filling this gap, using data taxation as an entry point and sketching the elements of a normative agenda. The contributions advance different proposals, but they share the view that the externalities of informational capitalism have constitutional significance. Based on this, this introduction keeps four issues together: (1) the impact of excessive datafication on contemporary societies; (2) the role of data in contemporary economy; (3) concrete tax design; (4) the interaction of data taxation with other legal regimes and social justice issues, also at the global level. The first goal is to increase the dialogue among strands of legal scholarship that do not necessarily speak the same language. The second goal is to expand the analytical and normative scope of digital constitutionalism, which cannot address such issues as accidental elements but needs to be (also) an economic constitutionalism. The Article proceeds as follows. Section 2 focuses on the link between the digital revolution and constitutional states, especially on their role in value creation, extraction, and distribution. Section 3 identifies such an issue as a gap in digital constitutionalism and opens the way to the following sections. Section 4 is divided into four subsections. Section 4.A stresses the need for critical approaches to datafication, which needs to be seen as an autonomous object of regulation. Section 4.B highlights the role of data within contemporary economy and offers normative justifications for its taxation. Section 4.C highlights the need to include Pigouvian, progressive, and rent-targeting elements into data tax design. Section 4.D puts these issues within the context of economic governance, highlighting the role of (global) institutions in creating, extracting, and distributing value as well as the political nature of the underlying policy choices. Section 5 concludes.
When is science politicized in the international climate change regime? Does greater scientific certainty protect it from becoming politically contentious? I study these questions in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization responsible for communicating the global scientific consensus on climate change. Using newly digitized data from inter-state negotiations at the IPCC, I show that states attempt to influence the IPCC’s assessment of scientific consensus in line with their bargaining positions in climate change negotiations. Estimating an ideal-point model, I find that the predominant cleavage over climate science is distributional—between new and old industrializers with broader ideological disagreements, rather than between large polluters and vulnerable countries. Next, I show that this cleavage is mediated by scientific uncertainty. Large polluters are more likely to agree with each other on interpretations of relatively uncertain science, which allows them to jointly weaken the scientific basis for strong climate agreements. Conversely, these countries are less likely to agree on relatively certain science, which heightens conflict over the distribution of the burden of mitigation. Thus greater scientific certainty may change the nature of politicization rather than reducing it.