Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainability Principle

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Constitutionalism

  • 41 Accesses

Abstract

Many people talk about and use the word “sustainability,” and lawyers and policymakers speak of the “sustainability principle.” However, the meaning of the word and the term have been contested for some time. Recently, however, it is possible to identify an emerging consensus globally about the meaning of the word “sustainability” and a more commonly agreed upon definition of the “sustainability principle” – and how to achieve sustainability and realize the promise of the sustainability principle via concrete goals and metrics. This consensus will be further solidified if sustainability and the sustainability principle are evermore systematically included into the environmental protection provisions of national constitutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Babcock, Hope M. 2018. The federal government has an implied moral constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm due to climate change: Throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. Ecology Law Quarterly 45: 735–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, Filkret. 2017. Sacred ecology. 4th ed. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Betaah, Azaufa Takunjuh Ngundem, Eike Albrecht, and Terence Onang Egute. 2019. The human right to a healthy environment in Cameroon: An environmental constitutionalism perspective. Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 34: 61–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosselmann, Klaus. 2015. Global environmental constitutionalism: Mapping the terrain. Widener Law Review 21: 171–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruch, Carl, Wole Coker, and Chris VanArsdale. 2001. Constitutional environmental law: Giving force to fundamental principles in Africa. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 26: 131–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruckerhoff, Joshua J. 2008. Giving nature constitutional protection: A less anthropocentric interpretation of environmental rights. Texas Law Review 2008: 615–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynhildsen, Megan. 1996. Constitutional provisions for environmental protection. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 1996: 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Eric C. 2013. Empowerment, fairness, integration: South African answers to the question of constitutional environmental rights. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 32: 215–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Santa Monica. 2014. Sustainability guiding principles. Office of Sustainability and the Environment. https://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Guiding_Principles.aspx

  • Craig, Robin Kundis, and Melinda Harm Benson. 2013. Replacing sustainability. Akron Law Review 46: 841–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Savornin Lhoman, A.F., and J. Van Straalen. 2018. Sustainable justice, a social responsible focus on innovation justice. IUS Gentium 67: 143–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2010. Making sustainable consumption and production a reality: A guide for business and policy makers to life cycle thinking and assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Sustainable consumption and production. Newsletter #3: February 2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021. Citizen support for climate action 2021 survey. Special Eurobarometer 513. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/citizen-support-climate-action_en

  • Farber, Daniel A. 2015. Coping with uncertainty: Cost-benefit analysis, the precautionary principle, and climate change. Washington Law Review 90: 1659–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillroy, John M. 2006. Adjudication norms, dispute settlement regimes and international tribunals: The status of “environmental sustainability” in international jurisprudence. Stanford Journal of International Law 42: 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, Mohamed. 2006. Energy and environment: Challenges and opportunities. Vienna: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/press_room/967.html

  • Hirokawa, Keith H. 2016. Saving sustainability. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 46: 10151–10157.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Environmental sustainability report 2020. https://www.imf.org/

  • Iorns Magallanes, Catherine J. 2015. Maori cultural rights in Aotearoa New Zealand: Protecting the cosmology that protects the environment. Widener Law Review 21: 273–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Robert A., and Anthony Page. 2013. Sustainable business. Emory Law Journal 62: 851–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee, Robert J. 2004. Enabling environmental sustainability in the United States: The case for a comprehensive material flow inventory. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 23: 131–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotze, Louis J. 2015. The conceptual contours of environmental constitutionalism. Widener Law Review 21: 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A., E. Mailbach, S. Rosenthal, J. Kotcher, J. Carman, L. Neyens, J. Marlon, K. Lacroix, and M. Goldberg. 2021. Public support for climate change and congress is surging, Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Program, on Climate Change Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, James R. 2013. Constitutional directions in procedural environmental rights. Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 28: 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Symposium on global environmental constitutionalism: An introduction and overview. Widener Law Review 21: 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Sustainability constitutionalism. UMKC Law Review 86: 855–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, James R., and Erin Daly. 2011. New directions in earth rights, environmental rights and human rights: Six facets of constitutionally embedded environmental rights worldwide. IUCN Academy of Environmental Law E-Journal 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, Donella H. 1972. The limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mikitish, Joseph P. 2011. Achieving sustainability through existing environmental regulations. Arizona State Law Journal 43: 835–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porras, Ileana M. 2009. The city and international law: In pursuit of sustainable development. Fordham Urban Law Journal 36: 537–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2016. 147 A. 3d 536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, Philippe, ed. 1993. Greening international law. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • SG Analytics. 2021. Top sustainable companies in 2021. https://us.sganalytics.com/blog/top-10-most-sustainable-companies-in-2021/

  • State of California Office of Sustainability. n.d. See. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OS

  • Steinzor, Rena I. 1996. Regulatory reinvention and project XL: Does the emperor have any clothes? Environmental Law Reporter 26: 10527–10537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takacs, David. 2021. We are the river. University of Illinois Law Review 2021: 545–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, Alec, and Brian Kennedy. 2020. Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. Report: 30 June 2020. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. various dates. Conferences on environment and sustainable development. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992 (archive of documents since 1972).

  • United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA). 2021. Stakeholders thematic E-consultation for the United Nations high-level dialogue on energy summary report. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/stakeholders-thematic-e-consultation-HLDE-summary-report

  • ———. n.d. Sustainable development: The 17 goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

  • United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UNMDGS). n.d. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2007. State of world population 2007: Unleashing the potential of urban growth. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/state-world-population-2007

  • United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. 2021. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/unced

  • Varrall, Merriden. 2021. ASEAN’s way to sustainable development. 4: Disruptive Asia. Melbourne: Asia Society Australia. https://disruptiveasia.asiasociety.org/aseans-way-to-sustainable-development

  • World Bank Global Program on Sustainability. n.d.. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/global-program-on-sustainability/overview

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf

  • Wyeth, G.B., and B. Termini. 2015. Regulating for sustainability. Environmental Law 45: 663–712.

    Google Scholar 

Essential Reading

  • Ascencio, Luis Jose Torres. 2017–2018. Greening constitutions: A case for judicial enforcement of constitutional rights to environmental protection. Revista Juridica Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico 52: 277–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Elizabeth F. 1993. In defense of environmental rights in East European constitutions. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 1993: 191–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robin Kundis. 2019. Constitutional environmental law, or the constitutional consequences of insisting that the environment is everybody’s business. Environmental Law 49: 703–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, Erin. 2018. Environmental constitutionalism in defense of nature. Wake Forest Law Review 53: 667–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunec, JoAnne L. 2012. Principles of constitutional environmental law. Natural Resources & Environment 26: 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Barry E. 2019. Time for a new age of enlightenment for U.S. Environmental law and policy: Where do we go from here? Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 49: 10362–10384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Barry E., Steve Wolfson, and Nicholas Targe. 2004. Human right and the environment: A synopsis and some predictions. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 16: 359–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Blake. 2015. Structural environmental constitutionalism. Widener Law Review 21: 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalen, Sam. 2016. An essay: An aspirational right to a healthy environment? UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 34: 156–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledewitz, Bruce. 1998. Establishing a federal constitutional right to a healthy environment in us and in our posterity. Mississippi Law Journal 68: 565–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, James R. 2010. New and emerging constitutional theories and the future of environmental protection. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 40: 10989–10993.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021. The case for environmental human rights: Recognition, implementation, and outcomes. Cardozo Law Review 42: 983–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, J.R., and E. Daly. 2009. Vindicating fundamental environmental rights worldwide. Oregon Review of International Law 11: 365–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, Bryan G. 1996. Integration or reduction: Two approaches to environmental values. In Environmental pragmatism, ed. Andrew Light and Eric Katz, 105–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, Bryan G. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinguelo, Fernando M. 1997. Laboratory of ideas: One state’s successful attempt to constitutionally ensure a healthier environment. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 4: 269–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popovic, Neil A.F. 1996. Pursuing environmental justice with international human rights and state constitutions. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 15: 338–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. 2009. Constitutional law. In Environmental laws and their enforcement 1: § 2, ed. Dan Tarlock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Irma S. 2009. The sustainability principle. Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal 4: 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvo, Mark N. 1997. Constitutional law and sustainability development in Central Europe: Are we there yet? South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 5: 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Colin Crawford

Authors
  1. Colin Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Crawford .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo Abogados, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Cremades

  2. Public Law II & Philology, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Cristina Hermida

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Crawford, C. (2022). Sustainability Principle. In: Cremades, J., Hermida, C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Contemporary Constitutionalism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31739-7_161-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31739-7_161-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31739-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31739-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation