Suchergebnisse

Abstract Researching socio-ecological justice issues in earth system governance can be operationalized through an Access (securing minimum needs) and Allocation (allocating the remaining resources, responsibilities and risks) framework. This paper synthesizes the review articles in this special issue. It concludes that (a) although international trade, investment and aid aim to enhance access, efficiently allocate resources and reduce risk, in practice the volume of trade and investment, the geographical distance between production and consumption, the pursuit of competitiveness and use of market instruments have concentrated wealth at great cost to socio-ecological justice; (b) research on food, water, energy, climate change and biodiversity reveal multiple linkages among the sustainable development goals, underlining the limitations of sectoral and incremental approaches to socio-ecological justice, for example, for smallholders; (c) while access issues are becoming difficult for politicians to ignore, allocation issues are being side-stepped because they draw too much attention to the underlying causes of inequality and poverty, (d) corrective justice is not enough, substantive justice approaches are needed emphasizing a rights-based framework and allocation cannot be exclusively left to market forces and mechanisms when it concerns public and merit goods; and (e) the terms access and allocation, although individually used, are not popular as a paired framework in the socio-ecological justice literature, but remain highly salient and cover the key justice issues for improving earth system governance.

Le juge n'agit pas dans le brouillard et au hasard, mais il demeure que la prise de décision survient à l'intérieur d'une marge d'incertitude quant aux éléments de la situation en cause et davantage quant aux conséquences de l'orientation qu'il prendra. L'acte de jugement ne se réduit pas à un automatisme découlant d'une situation fort claire à partir d'un droit d'une portée évidente. Il ne s'agit pas de mettre en marche un mécanisme à l'égard duquel le magistrat ne porterait aucune responsabilité. Au contraire, son action est une activité de jugement au sens large. Elle fait appel à une prudence, à une certaine sagesse et à une sensibilité à la nature et aux effets de la décision. Il s'agit à juste titre de sagesse prudentielle et, ainsi, d'un rapport à une philosophie de la vie et de la nature humaine. Ces articles se rattachent dans ce sens à l'examen de quelques aspects de l'action prudentielle du juge et de la nature de son activité. Certains de ces textes s'attachent aussi à divers éléments du problème des rapports entre le droit et l'art de juger qui découlent en partie de cet art comme d'autres qui ont des liens avec l'action législative. Certes, il ne s'agit sans doute pas d'une activité philosophique au sens courant du terme. Ces textes ont seulement voulu souligner la complexité du droit et la nécessité d'une réflexion à son sujet. J'ai cru à ce titre qu'il s'agissait aussi d'une activité reliée à l'art de juger lorsque l'on tente d'expliquer celle-ci. Au terme d'une vie dans l'administration de la justice, il n'est sans doute pas interdit à un magistrat de s'interroger sur le sens du droit et de son action dans la mise en œuvre et le développement de celui-ci.

AbstractResearching socio-ecological justice issues in earth system governance can be operationalized through an Access (securing minimum needs) and Allocation (allocating the remaining resources, responsibilities and risks) framework. This paper synthesizes the review articles in this special issue. It concludes that (a) although international trade, investment and aid aim to enhance access, efficiently allocate resources and reduce risk, in practice the volume of trade and investment, the geographical distance between production and consumption, the pursuit of competitiveness and use of market instruments have concentrated wealth at great cost to socio-ecological justice; (b) research on food, water, energy, climate change and biodiversity reveal multiple linkages among the sustainable development goals, underlining the limitations of sectoral and incremental approaches to socio-ecological justice, for example, for smallholders; (c) while access issues are becoming difficult for politicians to ignore, allocation issues are being side-stepped because they draw too much attention to the underlying causes of inequality and poverty, (d) corrective justice is not enough, substantive justice approaches are needed emphasizing a rights-based framework and allocation cannot be exclusively left to market forces and mechanisms when it concerns public and merit goods; and (e) the terms access and allocation, although individually used, are not popular as a paired framework in the socio-ecological justice literature, but remain highly salient and cover the key justice issues for improving earth system governance.

AbstractIntegration of climate change adaptation with development planning at multiple scales is widely seen as preferable to reactive, fragmented, or highly centralized responses. At the same time, there are growing concerns on when intervention is most appropriate, the transaction costs of coordination, and the adequacy of institutional capacity at local levels, especially in developing countries. This article examines entry points and mechanisms for integrating concerns with climate change into local development planning in Cambodia. An institutional ethnography of the planning process indicates that subnational planning is participatory and flexible; and thus, provides plausible entry points to integrate climate change concerns. Case study methods applied to two externally supported, climate‐resilient development projects identify promising mechanisms and strategies, as well as obstacles to integration. A vulnerability reduction assessment tool and top‐up grant scheme both included promising deliberative and participatory elements from which lessons for future and elsewhere can be drawn. At the same time, key stakeholders concede that local integration more widely is hampered by multiple obstacles, including weak institutional capacity, low community participation, and lack of resources and incentives. Addressing these challenges requires political commitments for good governance, capacity development, and additional resources.