The European Sustainability Model: From the Global Governance Scenario to the European Picture ‘Integrating’ Intergenerational Justice and Accessible Governance Mechanisms

  • María Dolores Sánchez Galera


This chapter begins by distinguishing the conceptual scope of sustainability and sustainable development that are used interchangeably. It contains a short historical overview of the notion questioning its capacity to foster social and ecological justice whilst economic growth ambitions are in general disdained. The need for a systemic ecological transition has taken International scholars most recently to make ultimate efforts to recast the importance of law in the Anthropocene by joining alternative analytical frameworks relating to the ‘earth systems’ approach. The analysis includes a brief account of some of those critical views contrasting normative versions of sustainability based on interdisciplinary views (see Sect. 3.2). After such global contextualisation that finds broad consensus with UN 2030 Global Agenda, the chapter presents the European Union Sustainability Model (EUSM) (see Sect. 3.3.1). This unique model is characterised by a drastic evolution of environmental protection law developing into a more emblematic multidimensional version of ‘sustainable development’ that is already part of the European identity despite of its social concerns weaknesses (see Sect. 3.3.2). Attention is then drawn to the education and cultural policies as key areas gaining increasing interest and defining important aspects of the social policy dimension of the EUSM that is reinforced by its emblematic constitutional framework (see Sects. 3.3.3 and 3.3.4). The chapter ends by addressing governance mechanisms and making the case for the commons supporting intergenerational justice (see Sects. 3.3.4 and 3.3.5).


Sustainability Sustainable development Environment UN Anthropocene Global agenda EU Governance Commons 


  1. Aloniitty, T. (2016). The Weser Case: Case 461/13 Bun v Germany. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonioli, F. (2017). Francesco e noi. Milano: Piemme.Google Scholar
  3. Arena, G. (2003). Users, customers, allies: new perspectives in relations between citizens and public administrations. In G. Arena & M. Chiti (Eds.), Public Administration, competitiveness and sustainable development (p. 9 et seg). Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arias Maldonado, M. (2015). Environment and society: Socionatural relations in the Anthropocene, Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Arrowsmith, S., & Kunzlik, P. (Eds.). (2009). Social and environmental policies in EC procurement law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ba, A., & Hoffmann, M. J. (Eds.). (2005). Contending perspectives on global governance: Coherence, contestation and World Order. Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bailey, S. (2013). The architecture of commons legal institutions for future generations. In S. Bailey, G. Farrell, & U. Mattei (Eds.), “Protecting future generations through commons”, in Trends in social Cohesion (Vol. 26, p. 107). Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Barnes, P., & Hoerber, T. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable development and governance in Europe. Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bauman, Z. (2017). Retrotopia. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bertacchini, E. E., Bravo, G., Marrelli, M., & Santagata, W. (Eds.). (2012). Cultural commons: A new perspective on the production and evolution of cultures. Chelthenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Biermann, F. (2007). Earth System Governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birnie, P. W., & Boyle, A. E. (1992). International law and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bosselmann, K. (2004). In search of global law: The significance of the Earth Charter. Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion, 8(1), 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bosselmann, K. (2008). The principle of Sustainability. Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Bosselmann, K. (2015). Germany’s ‘Energiewende’: What can environmental law scholarship learn from it? In J. Jaria I Manzano, N. Chalifour, & L. Kotzé (Eds.), Energy, governance and sustainability. Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Boyle, A., & Freestone, D. (Eds.). (1999). International law and sustainable development. past achievements and future challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brown Weiss, E. (1988). In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. New York: Dobbs, Ferry.Google Scholar
  19. Brundtland Report. (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development, Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Capra, F., & Mattei, U., (2015). The Ecology of law. Toward a legal system in tune with nature and community, Berrett and Koehler.Google Scholar
  21. Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability. A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Caranta, R., & Trybus, M. (Eds.). (2010). The law of green and social procurement in Europe. DJOF.Google Scholar
  23. Cardesa-Salzmann, A., & Cocciolo, E. (2019). Global governance, sustainability and the earth system: Critical reflections on the role of global law. Transnational Environmental Law, Symposium Article, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. Casini, L. (2018). “The future of (international) cultural heritage law”, guest editorial. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cassese, S. (1991). Le Basi del Diritto Amministrativo. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  26. Castells, M (1977). The Urban question. A Marxist approach. From original work La question urbaine (1972, 1976). (Trans: Alan Sheridan). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  27. CEU. (2014). Conclusions on Cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting. Brussels, 20 May 2014.Google Scholar
  28. CEU. ‘Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of Member States, meeting within the Council, on the Work Plan for Culture 2011-14’ [2010] OJC325/1, Annex 1.Google Scholar
  29. Closa, C., & Casini, L. (2016). Comparative regional intregration. governance and legal models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Collins. (2007). Environmental rights for the future? Intergenerational equity in the EU. RECEIL, 16(3), 325.Google Scholar
  31. Cordonier Segger, M. C., & Khalfan, A. (2004). Sustainable development law: Principles, practices and prospects (p. 95). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cremona, M. (2008). The European neighbourhood policy: More than a partnership? In M. Cremona (Ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (pp. 244–300). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. De Búrca, G., & Scott, J. (2000). Introduction. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU external relations law (pp. 244–300). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. De la Porte, C. (2002). Is the open method of coordination appropriate for organising activities at European level in sensitive policy areas? European Law Journal, 38(8).Google Scholar
  35. De Witte, B. (2019). Foreword. In C. Ferri (Ed.), The EU social market economy and the law. Theoretical perspectives and practical challenges for the EU. Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Dernbach, J. C., & Cheever, F. (2015). Sustainable development and its discontents. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), 247–287.Google Scholar
  37. Dimond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking Press.Google Scholar
  38. Downes, P. (2014). Access to Education in Europe: A framework and Agenda for system change. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dragos, D.-C., & Neamtu, B. (2014). Sustainable Public Procurement in the EU: Experiences and Prospects (April 27, 2014). In The collective works of Lichere, F. Caranta, & R. Treumer (Eds.), Novelties in the 2014 Directive on Public Procurement. DJØF Publishing. Available at SSRN:
  40. Edenhofer, O., Flachsland, C., & Jakob, L. (2013). The atmosphere as global commons: Challenges for international cooperation and governance. Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Harvard Kennedy School of Governement.Google Scholar
  41. European Commission. (2007). Conclusions from the Consultation on a European Maritime Policy (COM (2007) 574 final), Retrieved October 10, from
  42. Evelyn, J. (1664). Sylva or a Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber in His Majesties Dominions, London, 1664, p. 279.Google Scholar
  43. Farrell, G. (2013). Common goods in urbanised societies. In S. Bailey, G. Farrell, & U. Mattei (Eds.), “Protecting future generations through commons”, in Trends in Social Cohesion, no. 26. Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Ferri, D., & Cortese, F. (Eds.). (2019). The EU social market economy and the law. Theoretical perspectives and practical challenges for the EU. Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (1998). Sustainable development: Socio-economic metabolism and colonization of nature. International Social Science Journal, 50(158), 573–587.Google Scholar
  46. Fligstein, N. (2008). Euroclash: The EU, European identity, and the future of Europe. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Foster, S., & Iaone, C. (2016) “The City as commons”. Yale Law and Policy Review, 34(281).Google Scholar
  48. Fracchia, F. (2005). “The Legal definition of environment: From rights to duties”, in Bocconi legal studies research paper, No. 06–09.Google Scholar
  49. Francesco. (2015). Laudato Si’. Sulla cura della casa comune. Lettera encíclica, EDB.Google Scholar
  50. Garben, S. (2011). EU higher education law. Kluwer Law International: The Bologna Process and Harmonization by Stealth.Google Scholar
  51. Garben, S. (2015). Confronting the competence conundrum: Democratising the European Union through an expansion of its legislative powers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1), 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gillroy, J. 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, 2.Google Scholar
  53. Giubboni, S. (2015) Free movement of persons and European solidarity revisited. Perspectives on Federalism, 7(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. González García, J. V. (2015). Sostenibilidad Social y ambiental en la Directive 2014/24/UE de Contratación pública. Revista Española de Derecho Europeo, Dic, 13–42.Google Scholar
  55. Göpel, M. (2016). The great mindshift. How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Springer Open.Google Scholar
  56. Gordon, R. (2015). Unsustainable development. In S. Alam et al. (Eds.), International environmental law and the global South (pp. 50–73). Cambridge University Press, 55.Google Scholar
  57. Gornitzka, A. (2018). Organising soft governance in hard times. The unlikely survival of the open method of coordination in the EU Education policy. European Papers, 3(1), 235–255.Google Scholar
  58. Grober, U. (2007). Deep roots. A conceptual history of “sustainable development” (Nachhaltigkeit), Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin.Google Scholar
  59. Habermas, J. (2006). February 15, or: What Binds Europeans, in the Divided West 39 (Ciaran Cronin translation).Google Scholar
  60. Habermas, J. (2015). The lure of technocracy (p. 17). Polity.Google Scholar
  61. Halász, G. (2013). European Union: The strive for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. In Y. Wang (Ed.), Education Policy Reform Trends in G20 Members (pp. 267–288). Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2017). The concept of energy justice across the disciplines. Energy Policy, 105, 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Herrmann, R. K., Risse, T., & Brewer, M. (Eds.). (2004). Transnational identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  64. Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. In Conference governing shared resources: connecting local experience to global challenges, the Twelfth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Commons, Chelthenham. Available at:
  65. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hewson, M., & Sinclair, T. J. (Eds.). (1999). Approaches to global governance theory. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  67. Heyvaert, V. (2009). Globalizing regulation: Reaching beyond the borders of chemical safety. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 110–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hornborg, A. (2010). International Trade and environmental justice: Toward a global political ecology. Nova Science.Google Scholar
  69. Hornborg, A., Clark, B., & Hermele, K. (2013). Ecology and power: Struggles over land and material resources in the past, present and future. Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Hornborg, A., McNeill, J. R., & Martínez-Alier, J. (Eds.). (2006). Rethinking environmental history: World-system history and global environmental change. AltaMira.Google Scholar
  71. Humphreys, M. (2018). Sustainable development in the European Union. A general principle. Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (1980). World conservation strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development (p. iv). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  73. Jagielska-Burduk, A. (2019). “Cultural heritage, education and research in the European Union”. In Jakubowski, Hausler & Fiorentini (Eds.), cultural heritage in the European Union. A critical enquiry into law and policy, Nijhoff, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  74. Jans, H. J. (2011). Stop the integration principle? Fordham International Law Journal, 33(5)., Article 8.Google Scholar
  75. Jimenez-Beltrán, D. (2001). (Executive director, European environment agency), ‘Making sustainability accountable: The role and flexibility of indicators. From Gothenburg to Barcelona’, Speech delivered in Brussels, Retrieved July 9, 2001, from
  76. Kelemen, R., & Vogel, D. (2010). Trading places: The role of the United States and the European Union in international environmental politics. Comparative Political Studies, 43(4), 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1974, October). Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics, 27, 39 and following.Google Scholar
  78. Kingston, S. (2013). European perspectives on environmental law and governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Klabbers, J., & Palombella, G. (2019). The challenge of interlegality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Kotzè, L. (2019). Global environmental constitutionalism in the anthropocene, Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  81. Krämer, L. (2001). Differentiation in EU environmental policy. In B. De Witte, D. Hanf, & E. Vos (Eds.), The many faces of differentiation in EU law (pp. 83–100). Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  82. Krämer, L. (2013). Environmental governance in the EU. In M. Alberton & F. Palermo (Eds.), Environmental protection in multi-layered systems. Comparative lessons from the water sector (pp. 11–30). Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  83. Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Kulovesi, K., Morgera, E., & Muñoz, M. (2011, June 9). Environmental Integration and multi-faceted international dimensions of EU law: Unpacking the EU’s 2009 climate and energy package. Common Market Law Review, 48(3), 829–891.Google Scholar
  85. Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  86. Lenschow, A. (2002). New regulatory approaches in ‘greening’ EU policies. European Law Journal, 8(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Llorente-González, L., & Vence, X. (2019). Decoupling or 'decaffing'? the underliying conceptualisation of circular economy in the European Union monitoring framework. Sustainability, 11(18), 4898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lowe, V. (1999). Sustainable development and unsustainable arguments. In A. Boyle & D. Freestone (Eds.), International law and sustainable development. Past achievements and future challenges (p. 19 et seg). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Marella, M. R. (2017). “The Commons as a legal concept”, in Law Critique, Springer pub.Google Scholar
  90. Marín-Durán, G., & Morgera, E. (2012). Environmental integration in the EU’s external relations, modern studies in European law (Vol. 29). UK: Hart.Google Scholar
  91. Mata, R. (2008). “Acercamiento al paisaje’en Sostenibilidad local”. Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España. Informe inédito.Google Scholar
  92. Mattei, U. (2011). Bene Comuni. Laterza: Un Manifesto.Google Scholar
  93. Mattei, U. (2013). Future generations now! A commons-based analysis. In S. Bailei, G. Farell, & U. Mattei (Eds.), Protecting future generations through commons, Trends in social Cohesion, no. 26. The Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  94. Mattei, U., & Quarta, A. (2015). Right to the City or urban commoning? thoughts on the generative transformation of property law. The Italian Law Journal, 01(02).Google Scholar
  95. McAffe, K. (1999). “Selling nature to save it? biodiversity and the rise of green developmentalism” in Environment and Planning, vol. 17, nº 2, pp. 133-154.Google Scholar
  96. McCrudden, C. (2007). Buying social justice. Equality, government procurement, & legal change. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. McIntyre, O. (2013). Environmental protection of international watercourses under international law, AshgateGoogle Scholar
  98. Mendes, J. (2011). Participation and the role of law after Lisbon: A legal view on Article 11 TEU. Common Market Law Review, 48(6), 1849–1878.Google Scholar
  99. Mete, G., & Heffron, R. (2019). The social dimension of EU energy law. In D. Ferri & F. Cortese (Eds.), The EU social market economy and the law. Theoretical perspectives and practical challenges for the EU. Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Miller, R. A. (2019). The day the earth stood still?-Reading Jürgen Habermas’ Essay “February 15” Against Ian McEwan’s Novel Saturday. German Law Journal, 10(1)., (Special Issue: The Kantian Project of International Law).Google Scholar
  101. Molinari, C. (2015). From a right to development to intergenerational equity. In J. E. Viñuelas (Ed.), Rio declaration on environment and development: A commentary (p. 141). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Morgera, E. (2012). Bilateralism at the service of community interests? Non-judicial enforcement of global public goods in the context of global environmental law. European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Novitz, T. (2011). “Big unions and big business: Can international framework agreements promote sustainable development at a local level?, in T. Novitz & D. Mangan. The Role of Labour Standards in Development, British Academy.Google Scholar
  104. Novitz, T. A. (2015). The paradigm of sustainability in a European social context: Collective participation in protection of future interests? International Journal of Comparative Labour Law, 31(3), 243–262.Google Scholar
  105. Oliver, A., Dawn, H., & Prosser, T. (2010). The Regulatory state: Constitutional implications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Orlando, E. (2014). “The Evolution of EU policy and law in the environmental field: Achievements and current changes”, In C. Bakker & F. Francioni (Eds.), The EU, The USA and Global Climate Governance, Routledge.Google Scholar
  107. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Pallmaerts, M. (2006). The EU and sustainable development: An ambiguous relationship. In M. Pallmaerts & A. Azmanova (Eds.), The European Union and sustainable development: Internal and external dimensions. Brussels University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Palonitty, T. (2016). The Weser Case: Case 461/13 Bun v Germany. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Parks, L., & Morgera, E. (2019). Reflections on Methods from an Interdisciplinary Research Project in Global Environmental Law. BENELEX Working Paper No. 20.Google Scholar
  111. Pavoni, R., & Piselli, D. (2016). “The sustainable development goals and international environmental law: normative values and challenges for implementation”, in Veredas do Direito. Belo Horizonte, 13(26), 13–60.Google Scholar
  112. Pieraccini, M. (2015). Democratic legitimacy and new commons: Examples from English protected areas. International Journal of the Commons, 9(2), 552–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Piermattei, M. (2014) “The Union’s political parties: historical evolution and research” In M. Mascia (Ed.), Towards a European Transnational Party System, Associazione Universitaria di Studi Europei, pp. 35–44.Google Scholar
  114. Pollack, M. (2000). The end of creeping competence? EU policy‐making since Maastricht. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(3), 519–538.Google Scholar
  115. Psychogiopoulou, E. (2015). The cultural open method of coordination. In E. Psychogiopoulou (Ed.), Cultural governance and the European Union: Protecting and promoting cultural diversity in Europe (p. 39 et seg). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  116. Psychogiopoulou, E. (2017). The cultural open method of coordination: A new boost for cultural policies in Europe? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 24(2), 264–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Psychogiopoulou, E. (2018). The cultural open method of coordination: A new but different OMC? European Papers, 3(1), 257–279.Google Scholar
  118. Radkau, J. (2000). Natur und Macht. Eine Weltgeschichte der Umwelt (p. 245). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  119. Randhir, T. (2011). Towards sustainability of the earth system. Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change, 2(2), e101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Rehbinder, E., & Stewart, R. (1985). Environmental protection policy. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  121. Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution. St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  122. Ringel, M., & Knodt, M. (2018). The governance of the European Energy Union: Efficiency, effectiveness and acceptance of the Winter Package 2016. Energy Policy, 112, 209–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Robinson, J. (2004). “Squaring the circle? some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development” in Ecological Economics, vol. 48, nº 4, pp. 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Roche, S. (2017). Listening to the grassroots. Bottom-up approaches to lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 63, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Rodrigo, Ángel J. (2015). El desafío del desarrollo sostenible. Los principios de Derecho internacional relativos al desarrollo sostenible, Centro de Estudios Internacionales, Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
  126. Sachs, J. D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sadeleer, N. (2012). Principle of subsidiarity and the EU environmental policy. Journal for European Environmental Planning Law, 9(1), 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Sadeleer, N. (2015). Trade v environmental law-the fable of the earthen pot and the iron pot. Environmental Policy and Law, 45(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  129. Sánchez Galera, M. D. (2016). “A European vision of “sustainability” and what it entails in a global legal system”, Revista relaciones internacionales, UAM.Google Scholar
  130. Sánchez Galera, M. D. (2018). “Sustainable Development: The “hedgehog” or the fox of the European integration dream? a closer look to its social dimension”. In P. Masala (Ed.). La Europa Social: Alcances, retrocesos y desafíos para la construcción de un espacio jurídico de solidaridad, CEPC.Google Scholar
  131. Savaresi, A, & Auz, J. (2019) Climate change litigation and human rights: Pushing the boundaries. Climate Law. Available at SSRN:
  132. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful. Economics as if People Mattered. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  133. Sjåfjell, B. (2009). Towards a sustainable European Company Law. A normative analyses of the objectives of EU Law, with the takeover directive as atTest case, Kluwer Law International, European Company Law Series, vol. 3.Google Scholar
  134. Slim, A. (2013). The impact of de-growth (la décroissance) on the discourse of sustainability. In P. M. Barnes & C. H. Thomas (Eds.), Sustainable development and governance in Europe. The evolution of the discourse on sustainability. Routledge.Google Scholar
  135. Stern, P. C. (2011). Design principles for global commons: Natural resources and emerging technologies. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Strife, S., & Downey, L. (2009). Childhood development and access to nature: A new direction for environmental inequality research. Organization and Environment, 22(1), 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Tornos Mas, J. (2016). Servicios Públicos y Remunicipalización. PUCP, 76. Accessible on line:
  138. Unger, R. (1996). What should legal analyses should become?, 1st edition, Verso Books.Google Scholar
  139. United Nations. (2015c). Addis ababa action agenda financing development. Google Scholar
  140. United Nations. (2015e). Work from the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDGs (IAEG-SDGs).Google Scholar
  141. Valguarnera, F. (2013). Access to Nature and intergenerational justice. In S. Bailei, G. Farell, & U. Mattei (Eds.), Protecting future generations through commons, Trends in social Cohesion, no. 26. The Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  142. Valguarnera, F. (2017). Legal ideology and the commons: Why are jurists falling behind? Philosophy and Society, 29(2), 153–316.Google Scholar
  143. Viñuales, J. E. (2013). The rise and fall of sustainable development. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 22(3), 3–13, p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Viñuales, J. E. (2018). The organisation of the anthropocene: In our hands? Brill Research Perspectives in International Legal Theory and Practice, 1, 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. von Bogdandy, A. (2005). The European Constitution and European identity: Text and subtext of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Vos, E. (2000). Reforming the European Commission: What role to play for EU agencies? Common Market Law Review, 113 et seg.Google Scholar
  147. Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  148. Walker, N. (2015). Intimations of global law. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  149. Weiss, B. (1984). The Planetary trust: Conservation and intergenerational equity. Ecology Law Quaterly, 495.Google Scholar
  150. World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED). (1987). Our common future, ‘Brundtland Report’ (p. 43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  151. Yang, T., & Percival, R. V. (2009). The emergence of global environmental law. Ecology Law Quartely, 36, 615–664.Google Scholar
  152. Young, O. R., & Steffen, W. (2009). In C. Floke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin III (Eds.), The earth system: Sustaining planetary life-support systems. Principles of ecosystem stewardship (pp. 295–315). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  153. Zagrebelsky, G. (2013). “In the name of children: If the law had the duty to think of the future”, in Protecting future generations through commons , Council of Europe publishing, Trends in Social Cohesion, No.26Google Scholar
  154. Zeitlin, J. (2005). Conclusion: The open method of coordination in action. Theoretical promise, empirical realities, reform strategy. In J. Zeitlin, P. Pochet, & L. Magnusson (Eds.), The open method of co-ordination in Action: The European employment and social inclusion strategies (p. 447). P.I.E.-Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  155. Zeitlin, J. (2009). The open method of coordination and reform of national social and employment policies: Influences, mechanisms, effects. In M. Heidenreich & J. Zeitlin (Eds.), Changing European employment and welfare regimes: The influence of the open method of coordination on national reforms (p. 214). Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Dolores Sánchez Galera
    • 1
  1. 1.Public Law DepartmentCarlos III University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations