Suchergebnisse

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) recognized the human right to the environment on July 28, 2022 (resolution. 76/300). It came as a sequel to the Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution (48/13) of October 8, 2021 on the identical theme. The right is the foundation for all other human rights and for the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (SDGs 2030). Most States have recognized the right in national constitutions and law. While international tribunals can be expected to clarify and enforce the human right to the environment, it is the national and sub-national courts where the right will be invoked and enforced. These national legal proceedings have begun. They face significant opposition by vested interests, as well as the inertia favoring business as usual. A case study examining the initial decisions in the State of New York (USA) illustrates the character of opposition to observing the right to the environment. Ultimately, procedural "due process of law" will combine with the substantive "human right to the environment" to build needed rigor into laws mandating stewardship of the nature and human wellbeing.

Earth, and its human societies, are seized with the triple crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pervasive and escalating levels of pollution. In the 50 years since the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), States and UN Environment Program (UNEP) have created an entirely new body of international environmental law, and agreed on the UN Sustainable Development Goals for further socio-economic developments to help the 7.9 billion people on Earth today, and the 1.5 more billion expected soon. The article highlights the accomplishments of the past five decades, launched in Stockholm. However, beyond depleting the resources of Earth's natural and physical environment, humanity has also depleted time itself. There is not enough time left to permit the pace of environmental law-making to lead to success. Political will has eroded too, leaving "business as usual" to continue to harm the environment. Fortunately, most nations have recognized the right to the environment, and the UN General Assembly is asked to do so in 2022. At the same time, courts around the world are increasingly enforcing environmental rights. If courts world-wide begin to enforce the right to the environment, pathways to attaining sustainable development can be developed beyond Stockholm+50 (2022).

Human activities have vastly altered the Earth. Scientists posit that Earth has entered a new geological epoch, termed the 'Anthropocene'. Yet, although physical conditions have changed, human socio‐economic endeavors still proceed as in the past, on the basis of increasingly obsolete assumptions about natural systems and resources ('business as usual'). As currently conceived, sustainable development is insufficient to cope with the global trends in environmental degradation and the emerging conditions of life on Earth. A holistic approach will be needed. Environmental management systems, designed for sustainable development, can help society adapt to the challenges of the Anthropocene, but their use remains marginal. Greater recourse to two fundamental principles, cooperation and resilience, is essential to build effectively toward holistic environmental stewardship. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article explores the way that politicians and legislators have responded to concerns over the link between videogames and violence in the UK, particularly in terms of ensuring that inappropriate content remains inaccessible to minors. It explores the recent changes to the regulatory framework centred on videogames, arguing that the move to a universal statutory framework has implications that are more symbolic than real‐policy is still underpinned by the 'precautionary principle' and the framework remains equally likely to be undermined by the actions of parents who ignore ratings and purchase age‐inappropriate games for their children. Perhaps predictably, the political establishment has been unwilling to engage with this parental neglect, attributing it to 'ignorance' and 'the need for a simplification of the ratings system'. This paper argues that such responses are essentially a smokescreen used by governments which are understandably unwilling to take prosecutions into the home and retail space.