Industrial and Environmental Democracies as Models of a Politically Organized Relationship Between Society and Nature

• Authors: Richard St’ahel

Abstracts

EN

This paper is based on the concept of environmental political philosophy and from its perspective, it highlights the weaknesses and contradictions of contemporary, existing democracies. It aims to formulate an outline of the concept of environmental democracy, following the accounts of M. Bookchin, R. Morrison and H. Skolimowski, as well as international environmental law enshrined in United Nations documents and resolutions. It is based on the hypothesis that the preservation of a democratic political system in a situation of a collapsing planetary system (the Anthropocene) requires improving the foundations of democratic theory with the insights of the Earth system sciences, particularly of political ecology and critical environmentalism. Through philosophical analysis, explanation and interpretation, this paper explores an environmental democracy that would, on the one hand, preserve the basic constitutional principles of current democratic constitutional regimes, and, on the other hand, reconcile them with the current state of understanding in the Earth sciences concerning the vulnerability of the planetary system. In a sense, J. Habermas’s understanding of human rights characterizes the concept of environmental democracy as a realistic utopia. The author concludes by drawing up the imperative of sustainability, which he sees as a guiding organizing principle of institutions and public policies for the climatic, demographic and economic regime of the Anthropocene.

Keywords

EN

environmental political philosophy; industrial democracy; environmental democracy; human rights; Anthropocene

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Studia Philosophiae Christianae
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 59
• Issue: 1

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Richard St’ahel

• Filozofický ústav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied -

• https://orcid.org/0000000216655795

References

• Bookchin, M. (2006). Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland – Edinburgh: AK Press.
• Crutzen, P.J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a.
• Crutzen, P.J., Stoermer, E.F. (2000). The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change News Letter, 41, 17-18. Retrieved from http://www.igbp.net/publications/globalchangemagazine/globalchangemagazine/globalchangenewslettersno4159.5.5831d9ad13275d51c098000309.html
• Habermas, J. (2001). Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?. Political Theory, 29(6), 766-781. DOI 10.1177/0090591701029006002.
• Habermas, J. (2005). Legitimation Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Habermas, J. (2012). The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights. In: J. Habermas, The Crisis of the European Union, 71-100. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Heinberg, R. (2022). The Final Doubling: on the growth Ahead. Common Dreams, November 6. Retrieved from: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/11/06/final-doubling-growth-ahead.
• Hickel, J. (2020). Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(9), e399-e404. DOI 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0.
• Hickel, J., Dorninger, Ch., Wieland, H., Suwandi, I. (2022). Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South unequal exchange, 1990-2015. Global Environmental Change, 73, article no. 102467, 1-13. DOI 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102467.
• Horyna, B. (2022). Hybné síly environmentální politické filosofie. [Motive Forces of Environmental Political Philosophy]. Filozofia, 77(4), 251-267. DOI https://doi.org/10.31577/filozofia.2022.77.4.2.
• IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Jonas, H. (1992). Philosophische Untersuchungen und metaphysische Vermutungen. Frankfurt am Main – Leipzig: Insel Verlag.
• Morrison, R. (1995). Ecological democracy. Boston: South End Press.
• Risse, M. (2012). On Global Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Sklair, L. (2009). The globalization of Human Rights. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(2), 81-96.
• Skolimowski, H. (2003). Cosmocracy: As the Next Stage in the Development of Democracy. World Affair, 7(2). Retrieved from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/wa/wa_apr03_d.html.
• Sťahel, R. (2016). Environmental limits of personal freedom. Philosophica Critica, 2(1), 3-21. DOI 10.17846/PC.2019.2.1.3-21.
• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
• United Nations. (1973). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 5-6 June 1972. New York: United Nations.
• United Nations. (2022). The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Retrieved from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3982508?ln=en.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/spch.2023.59.A.06

Biblioteka Nauki

22764199