This book proposes a holistic transdisciplinary approach to sustainability as a subject of social sciences. At the same time, this approach shows new ways, as perspectives of philosophy, political science, law, economics, sociology, cultural studies and others are here no longer regarded separately. Instead, integrated perspectives on the key issues are carved out: Perspectives on conditions of transformation to sustainability, on key instruments and the normative questions. This allows for a concise answer to urgent and controversial questions such as the (...) following: Is the EU an environmental pioneer? Is it possible to achieve sustainability by purely technical means? If not: will that mean to end of the growth society? How to deal with the follow-up problems? How will societal change be successful? Are political power and capitalism the main barriers to sustainability? What is the role of emotions and conceptions of normality in the transformation process? To which degree are rebound and shifting effects the reason why sustainability politics fail? How much climate protection can be claimed ethically and legally e.g. on grounds of human rights? And what is freedom? Despite all rhetoric, the weak transition in energy, climate, agriculture and conservation serves as key example in this book. It is shown how the Paris Agreement is weak with regard to details and at the same time overrules the growth society by means of a radical 1,5-1,8 degrees temperature limit. It is shown how emissions trading must – and can – be reformed radically. It is shown why CSR, education, cooperation and happiness research are overrated. And we will see what an integrated politics on climate, biodiversity, nitrogen and soil might look like. (shrink)

The debate on climate change needs normative visions and principles to provide orientation and to line up normative requirements. This may enable to provide a comprehensive view on energy and climate topics. This contribution, while dealing with justice, gives a perspective from ethics respectively from a (re-)interpretation of national constitutions, the EU Charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights in the light of sustainability. It takes us to human rights as the basic norm of any liberal (...) democratic constitution (on national and transnational level), but criticizes the academic international law debate (unlike the practice of international law) which seems to be focused on the idea of even absolute, i.e. not subject to any balancing, environmental fundamental rights. Overall, it turns out that an interpretation of fundamental rights which is more multipolar and considers the conditions for freedom more heavily – as well as the freedom of future generations and of people in other parts of the world – develops a greater commitment to climate protection. Regarding the theory of balancing, for the purpose of a clear balance of powers the usual principle of proportionality also proves specifiable. (shrink)

This article examines the following questions: Is there a human right to food and water in the international sphere? Is it possible to derive such human rights as “general principles of law” within the meaning of public international law, which are independent from contractual agreement or recognition by States? What exactly would such a right to food and water comprise? Is there a constitutional rank relationship evolving between human rights and public international law which might affect the interpretation of, e. (...) g., WTO law? How can conflicting considerations be balanced? (shrink)

With the cost-benefit analysis, economists cultivate a specific decision-making procedure that is also partially accepted in politics. The objections raised in the tradition of criticizing utilitarianism and against the economization of decision-making, such as the criticism of balancing, of an allegedly lack of distributive justice, or of the tendency to describe human beings in behavioral scientific terms as self-interested, are, however, hardly convincing upon closer examination. But first, the empiricist theoretical basis of (covertly normative) cost-benefit analysis seems untenable. This refers (...) to its idea that normative questions have to be transformed into questions of factual preferences. Second, there are massive collisions with a liberal-democratic constitutional law whose principles are at the same time basic ethical principles. This concerns both the rights of freedom (which must not depend on the ability to pay) and the model of democracy and respect for the rule of law. Third, there are insoluble application problems for cost-benefit analysis, which becomes visible especially (but not only) in the context of climate protection, both in overall considerations and in individual analyses, such as the construction of a coal-fired power plant. (shrink)

This article examines the rise of modern secular, individualistic and rational legal thought from a historical point of view. It will be argued that the well known assumption needs to be critized, that the philosophical background of this development can only be traced back to Hobbes, Locke and Kant. Instead, the two authors of this article will point out that it was rather Ockham who first mentioned notions of modern liberal democracy in his philosophical opus. Furthermore, it will be shown (...) that the traditional interdisciplinary discourse on Thomas Hobbes falls short of a serious discussion of the most critical arguments. On a normative level it will be asked, what a Hobbesian (or for example Kantian discourse-ethical) conception can do for a normative justification of liberal democracy, nationally and transnationally. (shrink)

This paper deals with the challenges of rationing of existential goods due to scarcity and conflicting interests (at the latest in the question of costs). The legal-political example pursued in this paper is rationing in the health care system, i. e. in curative and partly also in preventive measures. In each case - and in everyday life and by no means only in extreme corona pandemic situations - it is a question of whether there are absolute, ponder-proof claims to certain (...) goods. Ultimately, this is to be denied, even if rationing, especially in Germany, is usually concealed behind vague concepts such as the medical necessity and economic efficiency of treatment. But the public authorities cannot escape the weighing process - even if its consequences are often fatal in industrial society. In particular, misunderstandings of human dignity as well as skewed accusations of utilitarianism and a misleading pseudo-controversy between deontology and consequentialism have for a long time obscured the fact that in liberal democracies a balancing of different aspects of freedom and freedom preconditions is inevitable. Due to parliamentary reservations, however, this weighing must not be outsourced to administrative committees. Caution is called for in all of this with the economic cost-benefit analysis, which is hardly tenable in its foundations, with egalitarian approaches, and with the traditional but unfounded idea that fundamental rights are primarily (or exclusively) protected in single situations and are not relevant in the case of mass concern. Based on the latter point, it can also be shown that the previous tendency is not convincing to judge areas such as curative health treatment, preventive corona hazard control and fine dust or climate policy as being completely different from each other in terms of fundamental rights. (shrink)