It is a fact that the issue of responsibility towards future generations is less debated in the field of legal sciences than in other disciplines. The perceived urgency is the same, but in the law there is an apparently insurmountable obstacle: the alterity between present and future generations would prevent attributing to the first duties that reflect the rights of the second. No legal theory is possible, it has been said, to solve the problem of future generations, because all legal theory implies the granting of rights to people. Hence the dilemma. How is it possible to impute rights to people who have not yet been born? Consequently, if this is not possible, it is not possible to impose the corresponding duties on the present generations. But is it possible to think differently? If, for example, the ultimate goal of guaranteeing the survival of the human species were attributed to the law, it would make no sense to distinguish between present and future generations. It is just a suggestion, but it is worth reflecting on, also because there are examples of concrete solutions, at the jurisprudential level, that go in that direction.
"El simio egoísta". Reflexiones para glosar el concepto de especie en relación con la solidaridad intergeneracional
Sergio Gerotto
2023
Abstract
It is a fact that the issue of responsibility towards future generations is less debated in the field of legal sciences than in other disciplines. The perceived urgency is the same, but in the law there is an apparently insurmountable obstacle: the alterity between present and future generations would prevent attributing to the first duties that reflect the rights of the second. No legal theory is possible, it has been said, to solve the problem of future generations, because all legal theory implies the granting of rights to people. Hence the dilemma. How is it possible to impute rights to people who have not yet been born? Consequently, if this is not possible, it is not possible to impose the corresponding duties on the present generations. But is it possible to think differently? If, for example, the ultimate goal of guaranteeing the survival of the human species were attributed to the law, it would make no sense to distinguish between present and future generations. It is just a suggestion, but it is worth reflecting on, also because there are examples of concrete solutions, at the jurisprudential level, that go in that direction.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
