Book contents
- Representing Future Generations
- Series page
- Representing Future Generations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- 1Introduction
- Part INormative Framework
- Part IIInternational Law and Institutions
- 4Criteria for Evaluating Mechanisms for Representation of Future Generations
- 5Lessons from Existing International Institutions to Represent Vulnerable Groups
- Part IIICase Studies
- Index
- References
4 - Criteria for Evaluating Mechanisms for Representation of Future Generations
from Part II - International Law and Institutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2025
Book contents
- Representing Future Generations
- Series page
- Representing Future Generations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- 1Introduction
- Part INormative Framework
- Part IIInternational Law and Institutions
- 4Criteria for Evaluating Mechanisms for Representation of Future Generations
- 5Lessons from Existing International Institutions to Represent Vulnerable Groups
- Part IIICase Studies
- Index
- References
Summary
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.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Representing Future GenerationsClimate Change and the Global Legal Order, pp. 93 - 115Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Andresen, S. (2021). Effectiveness. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 988–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, T. (2006). Democracy. In Dobson, A. & Eckersely, R., eds., Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 131–47.Google Scholar
Beyleveld, D., Düwell, M. & Spahn, A. (2015). Why and How Should We Represent Future Generations in Policymaking? Jurisprudence, 6(3), 549–66.10.1080/20403313.2015.1065642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. (1999). The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law? American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 596–624.10.2307/2555262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodandy, A. von & Venzke, I. (2013). On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of their Burgeoning Public Authority. Leiden Journal of International Law, 26(1), 49–72.10.1017/S0922156512000647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdandy, A. von & Venzke, I. (2014). In Whose Name? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, J. (2016). Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow, Bingley: Emerald.10.1108/S2053-7697201725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, J. (2021). Protecting Long-term Interests: The Role of Institutions as Commitment Devices. In Linehan, J. & Lawrence, P., eds., Giving Future Generations a Voice: Normative Frameworks, Institutions and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 86–107.Google Scholar
Boyd, E. et al. (2021) Loss and Damage from Climate Change: A New climate Justice Agenda. One Earth, 4(10), 1365–70.10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations or International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caney, S. (2009). Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds. In Humphreys, S. ed., Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; reprinted in Gardiner, S., et al., eds., Climate Ethics, Essential Readings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 29 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945), XV UNCIO 335, amendments in 557 UNTS 143, 638 UNTS 308, and 892 UNTS 119.Google Scholar
Cho, R. (2021). How Close Are We to Climate Tipping Points? Columbia Climate School, Climate, Earth, and Society. State of the Planet (11 November 2021). Available at: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/11/11/how-close-are-we-to-climate-tipping-points/.Google Scholar
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 20 November 1989; entered into force 2 September 1990), 1577 UNTS 3.Google Scholar
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Its Democratic Legitimacy, London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230590144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, K. (2014). Global Democracy and the Democratic Minimum: Why a Procedural Account Alone is Insufficient. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 1124–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donger, E. (2022). Children and Youth in Strategic Climate Litigation: Advancing Rights through Legal Argument and Legal Mobilization. Transnational Environmental Law, 1(2), 263–89.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (2015). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 1–20.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive Representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–93.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. & Pickering, J. (2018). Politics of the Anthropocene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198809616.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. et al. (2019). Deliberative Global Governance. Cambridge Elements, Earth System Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108762922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. (2011). International Law and Domestic (Municipal) Law. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R., eds., The Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law (online ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy among Nations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195061789.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giladi, R. & Shany, Y. (2023). Assessing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. In Espósito, C. & Parlett, K. eds., The Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–20.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. & Rey, F. (2019). Enfranchising the Future: Climate Justice and the Representation of Future Generations. WIREs Climate Change, 10, e598, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. (1996). Enfranchising the Earth, and Its Alternatives. Political Studies, 44(5), 835–49.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00337.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. (2007). Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 35(1), 40–68.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, T. N. (2008). Transparency, Accountability, and Global Governance. Global Governance, 14, 73–97.10.1163/19426720-01401006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, K., Yoshioka, R., Kuroda, M., Kurimoto, K. & Saijo, T. (2019). Reconciling Intergenerational Conflicts with Imaginary Future Generations: Evidence from a Participatory Deliberation Practice in a Municipality in Japan. Sustainability Science, 14(6), 1605–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00684-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, J. & Dijk, N. van. (2023). How to Design better Institutions for the Future: An Evaluative Framework. In Dijk, N. van Playing the Long Game: Considering the Interests of Young People and Future Generations in Climate Law-making. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania, 67–85.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice. (2024). Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Press Release 2024/81, 13 December 2024: Available at: www.icj-cij.org/case/187.Google Scholar
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. & Vihma, A. (2009). Comparing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Global Hard and Soft Law: An Analytical Framework. Regulation & Governance, 3(4), 400–20.10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01062.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, P. W., Galaz, V. & Dyer, M. et al. (2019). Anthropocene Risk. Nature Sustainability, 2, 667–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0327-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KNMI [Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute]. (2015). Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. KNMI’14 Climate Scenarios for the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. (2021). International Institutions for Future Generations and Democratic Legitimacy. In Cordonier Segger, M. C., Szabó, 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. & Köhler, L. (2018). Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework. German Yearbook of International Law, 60, 639–66.Google Scholar
Merrills, J. (2011). International Dispute Settlement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511973550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, S. L. L., Swingedouw, D. & Ortega, P. et al. (2022). Early Warning Signal for a Tipping Point Suggested by a Millennial Atlantic Multidecadal Variability Reconstruction. Nature Communications, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32704-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niemeyer, S. & Jennstål, J. (2017). The Deliberative Democratic Inclusion of Future Generations. In González-Ricoy, I. & Gosseries, A., eds., Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–21.Google Scholar
Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015; entered into force 4 November 2016), 3156 UNTS 79.Google Scholar
Pill, M. & Hammersley, G. (2024). A Climate Loss and Damage Fund that Works. Lowy Institute Policy Briefs (9 September 2024). Available at: www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/climate-loss-damage-fund-works.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1967). The Concept of Representation, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratner, S. R. (2015). The Thin Justice of International Law: A Moral Reckoning of the Law of Nations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2008). Representation and Democracy: Revisions and Possibilities. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 1000–13.10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00102.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Y. (2012). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, A Goal-based Approach. American Journal of International Law, 106(2), 225–70.10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199643295.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 29 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945), XV UNCIO 355.Google Scholar
Stokke, S. & Vidas, D., eds. (1998). Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, J. (1954). Fictional Elements in Treaty Interpretation – A Study in the International Judicial Process. Sydney Law Review, 1(3), 344–68.Google Scholar
Tams, C. & Tzanakopoulos, A. (2010). Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(4), 781–800.10.1017/S0922156510000361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underdal, A. (2004). Methodological Challenges in the Study of Regime Effectiveness. In Underdal, A. & Young, O. R., eds., Regime Consequences: Methodological Challenges and Research Strategies. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2208-1_2, 27–48.10.1007/978-1-4020-2208-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (adopted 9 May 1992; entered into force 21 March 1994), 1771 UNTS 107.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resolution 217A (III). UN Doc. A/810 at 71. Available at: www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/universal-declaration-human-rights-1948.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (2022). The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/76/L.75.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2023). Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Resolution of the General Assembly. UN Doc. A/RES/77/276.Google Scholar
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR). (1996–2024). Committee on the Rights of the Child (OHCHR). Available at: www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crc.Google Scholar
Uwasu, M., Kishita, Y., Hara, K. & Nomaguchi, Y. (2020). Citizen-Participatory Scenario Design Methodology with Future Design Approach: A Case Study of Visioning of a Low-Carbon Society in Suita City, Japan. Sustainability, 12(11), 4746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderheiden, S. (2008). Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change (online ed.), New York: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195334609.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wewerinke-Singh, M. (2019). State Responsibility, Climate Change and Human Rights under International Law, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.