Sustainability Principle Role in the Economic Growth Promotion and Social Development

Abstract

The present essay seeks to answer the question whether economic growth should be constrained by the consideration of environmental and social development. The latter two elements make part of the sustainability concept that has gained a great deal of traction in the last few decades. The brief historical overview makes it clear that despite global sustainability awareness, there are still doubts about how reasonable the entire approach is, especially given that it is often seen to be counteractive to entrepreneurship and economic growth.

The essay showcases the often dismissed “dark” side of economic growth and how by ignoring the social development aspect, it leaves many people behind. This paper gives multiple reasons for adopting sustainability: globalization, uncertainty, inequality, and the planet’s finite resources. The main conclusion is that sustainability does not contradict economic growth: it transforms it. In the long run, the expenses caused by the need to anticipate damages and make precautions will pay off in the form of the manifestation of a more sustainable, neatly working system.

Introduction

The ideas of sustainability and sustainable development are not the product of the modern age. Throughout the ages, the growth (economic or otherwise) of humankind was associated with the interference with nature as well as human rights. Therefore, the concept of marrying the needs of development with environmental and social development is not exactly new. Some of the concerns were expressed hundreds of years ago and translated to the modern age where their resolution took an entirely different form dictated by the evolving demands.

Today, it has been recognized that infinite economic development, that seeks constant increases in key economic metrics such as GDP, has detrimental side effects on the status of human rights and environment. The principle of sustainability put on legal grounds come from well-established areas of international law¹. The principle encompasses human rights, state responsibility, corporate social responsibility, economic law, and good neighborliness – that to mention a few.

As sustainability was gaining more traction in the face of adverse global events and tendencies, its principles have been embedded into a significant number of binding and far-reaching multinational agreements. The transition of sustainability from political slogans to the world of law meant its greater recognition on the international arena. However, the general support of the international community does not mean that every single country adheres to the principles of sustainability.

It appears that to this day the relationship between economic growth and sustainability remains unclarified. Its critics remain short-sighted and see sustainability as another economic constraint that is trying to stunt the spurs of economic growth. However, if in the pursuit of profits, social development and the environment are neglected, in the long run, the situation may escalate to something much worse than a temporary deceleration of economic growth. This essay argues that environmental and social development may need to put constraints on economic growth for the sake of building a more sustainable global system.

Sustainability, Its History, and Current State

The international environmental law and sustainability are a relatively young field, even though this claim has been protested by environmental lawyers². Doherty refers to some early examples where policy-makers tried to make environmentally friendly decisions such as Edward I’s prohibitions on burning coal in England or Royal decrees on forest protection³. Before 1987, sustainability was mentioned in legislative documents such as a Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration of 1983 and the 1946 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling⁴.

The paper that galvanized the new concept was the 1987 “Our Common Future” report, authored by the World Commission on Environment and Development⁵. Following the “Our Common Future” report, the key ideas of sustainability were largely endorsed at the international and domestic levels⁶. One of the most significant events since then took place in 1992 in Rio-de-Janeiro that hosted the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The conference proclaimed sustainable development as the central goal of the international community⁷.

Principle 1 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states that “human beings [were] at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature⁸.” However, apart from that, many of the proposed “Principles, Rights and Obligations” only concerned the issues of transboundary natural resources and disruption of the environment⁹. It was evident that the conception of these principles drew on the international body of environmental law without much attention to the social side.

Between 1992 and 1997, the success of the international community in disseminating and implementing the ideas of sustainability was sporadic at best. French writes that the activists tried to regain political momentum in 1997 with the Special Session of the UN General Assembly (also known as ‘Rio+5’) and in 2002 with the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)¹⁰. The latter event was particularly significant because it succeeded in bringing together not only states and international organisations but also various elements of local government, civil society and global businesses.

In the light of all these global events, the idea of sustainable development gained an unlikely ally in the face of the World Bank. Freestone writes that before the 21st century, the World Bank used to be the preferred villain of the sustainable development movement¹¹. The organization started leaning toward environmentalism in the 1980s and since then made considerable progress in translating sustainable development considerations into its operations. Freestone characterizes its early environmental policies as immature and giving the impression of being written by economists and not lawyers¹². However, overtime, the organization made amends to its guidelines and incorporated the sustainability principle more.

In 2015, the United Nations’ General Assembly set 17 sustainable development goals (SDG) that allegedly addressed all aspects of human life and its interactions with the environment that needed improvement¹³. Since then, the SDGs were criticized for their vagueness and even profanity due to the expert group’s inability to operationalize development beyond the terms of the GDP¹⁴. To sum up, in spite of some progress in uniting efforts and starting discussions, the international community remained divided.

Economic Growth vs. Sustainability: Friends or Enemies

Sustainability: A Complex Concept with Many Definitions

Barral goes as far as saying that lately, sustainability has become an unavoidable paradigm whose principles should inform all human action¹⁵. French concurs with this bold statement saying that sustainability is one of these concepts that one cannot disagree with¹⁶. Truly, sustainability has become one of the most used buzzwords today. Balatsky et al. share a curious piece of statistics that demonstrate how much traction the term is gaining at the moment¹⁷. They refer to Google Trend analysis that shows that “sustainability” as an Internet search term is twice as popular as “economic growth”. This trend dates back to 2007 when the United States and the entire world were anticipating a financial crisis, which eventually happened.

An often-quoted definition of sustainable development that stems from the “Our Common Future” report is as follows: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs¹⁸.” Moore et al. offer a more in-depth method of operationalizing the term. They analyzed multiple scientific articles to detect patterns in the usability of the word. Citing their conclusion, sustainable development has the following components:

1. a sustainability program, intervention, and/or implementation works for a defined period of time;
2. a program, intervention, and/or implementation strategies continue to yield results;
3. a change toward sustainability is maintained;
4. a program and changes evolve and adapt meeting the arising needs;
5. a program continues to produce benefits for individuals/systems¹⁹.

Drawing on the presented constructs, sustainability is continuous, adaptable, maintainable, and beneficial for all parties involved.

Environmental sustainability can be defined as accountable, thoughtful interaction with the environment to prevent depletion or degradation of natural resources²⁰. Environmentally sustainable models strive to maintain long-term environmental quality. Environmental sustainability is about finding a balance between the planet’s two most complex systems: the human culture and nature. By doing so, humankind will be able to satisfy its current needs without compromising the quality of life of the future generations.

While environmental protection is often on the forefront of sustainability policies, social sustainability is sometimes misunderstood. Social development is not always neatly quantifiable: as it will be shown later in this paper, economic growth does not equal happiness or prosperity for all. The most simple definition of social sustainability is the creation and preservation of a healthy community and its transfer to the next generations²¹. To eliminate some vagueness, there needs to be a clarifying addendum. Today, social sustainability entails such concepts as social equity, livability, health equity, community development, social capital, social support, human rights, labour rights, and others. Environmental and social sustainability are interconnected as the quality of the environment is often a predictor of the quality of life.

The Two Faces of Economic Growth

Traditionally, economic growth is understood in terms of gross national product (GNP) or gross domestic product (GDP)²². Economic growth is commonly perceived as an undoubtedly good phenomenon to the point where its practical impact is neither properly assessed or criticized²³. Bell summarized the flawless reputation of capitalism by stating that “economic growth [had] become the secular religion of advancing industrial societies²⁴.”

Over the last two decades, the critical examination of the so-called FGIP (finance–growth–inequality–poverty) nexus has sought to find relationships between the involved phenomena. While an ample body of evidence suggests that the development of the financial sector does correlate with subsequent economic growth, the latter does not always imply inequality and poverty reduction.

Seven and Coskun revealed that the financial development of banks and stock markets had been routinely failing to reach the poorest demographics of developing countries. The impact of fairly well-developed stock markets is somewhat positive but statistically weak. Seven and Coskun point out that financial systems have shown a lot of progress in the last twenty years, especially in terms of size and liquidity²⁵. Yet, the poor and underprivileged barely benefit from these improvements for reasons such as restricted access to credit markets, institutional barriers, disempowerment, and faulty government policies. One of the most essential implications of the research by Seven and Coskun is that the challenge of income inequality and poverty reduction is a global threat that requires a global response.

Apparently, economic growth is not sufficient when it comes to building a prosperous state or advancing the international community. The question arises what other changes should accompany it to harness its potential and serve many and not a few. In his opinion piece, Friedman draws an association between society and economics. He claims that such a bond is reciprocal: economic changes give rise to social changes, and vice versa²⁶.

He also explains that material prosperity does make citizens more satisfied, open-minded, and entrepreneurial. However, the examples of many countries in Africa and Latin America have shown that this prosperity can fall apart and turn backwards very fast if the system is not solidified in democratic principles²⁷. Therefore, there needs to be an overarching framework that oversees economic activities and makes sure that they meet the needs of the people.

Lastly, many proponents of unbound economic growth with no social or environmental constraints seem to ignore that economic growth does not happen on its own. Semuels opines that constant economic growth comes at a cost²⁸. She explains that the stimulation of economic development often means neglect of environment and humans’ rights²⁹. For example, companies grow more quickly and show higher performance if they have fewer regulations to deal with³⁰.

In the real world, the laissez-faire attitude and loosened regulations mean more pollution and less safety in the workplace. Sometimes it means cutting on workers’ benefits – a trend brought about by the rising gig economy that is based on flexible freelance jobs³¹. Samuels closes her argument saying that economic growth does not necessarily have a relationship with health, distributional aspects of growth patterns, security, and freedoms³². Sometimes economic growth is something that prevents these aspects from happening in the first place.

The necessity of a new economic approach has been recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. One of its 2019 reports addresses the fragility of the economic system that only seeks to maximize growth with no regard for what it takes to maintain the continuous forward movement. The OECD writes that the 2008 economic crisis showed the world that it was no longer to “do business as usual.” In particular, the organization states that the world’s financial systems have long ignored the innate sociality of human life³³.

People should not be seen as “individual utility maximisers”; nor should they be left alone amid the laissez-faire economy³⁴. The OECD concludes that the change requires a full-fledged paradigmatic shift that will change the very notion of economic progress. The new notion will reach beyond material prosperity and include social well-being, environmental friendliness, and empowerment; in other words, it will promote global sustainability.

Motivation for Sustainability

Sustainability as a Response to Globalization

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, the faulty policies and environmental neglect of one country, especially if it is powerful on the international arena, may lead to global catastrophes. In its report “Our Common Future,” the World Commission on Environment and development describes the new challenges that the world faces as “interlocking crises³⁵.” According to the commission, until recently, crises could be neatly compartmentalized within one country, one region, or one sector³⁶. It is no longer the case: the transition that the entire world is undergoing now has transformed what used to be regional economies and ecosystems into the global economy and ecology.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the World Commission for Environment and Development made a few insightful projections³⁷. The commission reported that economic activity had accelerated to create a $13 trillion world economy, and the projected growth could be as massive as tenfold in the first five decades of the new century³⁸. During the 20th century, industrial manufacturing had grown more than fifty times as compared to the times before the Industrial Revolution. What is compelling about this tendency though is that those observed spurs of growth were not equally distributed: on the contrary, four-fifths of them happened after 1950³⁹. The WCED concludes that such impressive figures are reflective of how profound the impact of human activity must be on the biosphere.

In response to the interlocking crises, the academic community coined the term “common concern.” According to Bowman, a common concern can be defined as awareness of the international community about the existence of a looming problem and its commitment to resolve it by uniting its forces⁴⁰. The key implication made by Bowman is that “common concern” is not equal to a formal transfer of power or the rejection of sovereignty by some states⁴¹. If anything, common interests and concerns are not about wealthier nations imposing their rules on less developed nations. Instead, the notion of common concern requires each member to be conditioned to show regard to the needs of the community at large.

Sustainability for Bridging Gaps between Countries

Another characteristic of the modern world is the growing inequality and economic, social, and political gaps between countries. In his piece on the state of sustainability in today’s world, Atapattu discusses the divide between Northern and Southern countries. He shows that Southern countries have often been on the periphery of decision-making⁴². On the contrary Northern countries, that are known for their history of conquest and colonization, have long been controlling the narrative.

Developed countries largely benefit from developing countries, using their resources. At the same time, they neglect the problems of emerging economies because addressing them does not bring any instant gains or other types of economic gratification. Therefore, excluded from decision-making alliances, Southern states are left to their own devices and have to handle the irreversible consequences of the unequal exchange. This dangerous power dynamic has been the cause of many humanitarian crises that would later affect the entire world.

One of such crises was described by the World Commission on Environment and Development⁴³. The commission claims that the recent human development crisis in Africa serves an example of how economy and ecology can interact in destructive ways and lead the continent to a disaster. On the surface, the crisis was triggered by natural disasters, but the experts say that the real reasons lie much deeper⁴⁴.

Firstly, the national policies pay unacceptably little attention to the needs of smallholder agriculture that seeks to meet the needs of the rapidly rising populations⁴⁵. The roots of these faulty policies can be traced back to the global economic system that is taking more out of the continent than it is investing in it. Emerging nations grow dependent on natural resources and commodity sales. They do so to help their economies to stay afloat, and trade barriers set by the wealthier nations make it challenging for developing nations to receive reasonable returns.

To maximize profits, developing countries resort to overusing their fragile ecosystems: soils, forests, and water reservoirs. As a result, they bring about environmental catastrophes that, surely, are not entirely their fault. The poor fell victim to these tendencies: as Galizzi and Herklotz note, the quality, purity, and safety of the environment matters most to underprivileged demographics⁴⁶. For many of them, the natural world serves as a main if not only source of food, fuel, medicine, and building materials. From this example, it becomes clear how this disarray of interlocked events hurts both nature and people.

Of course, at this point, one may argue as to how exactly imposing sustainability on developing countries promotes equality. If anything, it may occur in the same lane as the current problematic power dynamic that has existed for centuries. Previously, developing countries were given trade rules and deprived of their right to take advantage of their own resources, and today it seems that they are expected to oblige once again⁴⁷.

Bowman addresses this piece of criticism in his article on the notion of common concern⁴⁸. He writes that emerging nations may indeed be attached to national conceptions of identity that they were denied by exploiters and colonizers⁴⁹. So now that they have finally acquired the freedom to self-determination, they might resist the pervasive and continuing pressure from the international community. The centuries-long colonial domination might be a reason for a certain distaste for relinquishing some of such countries’ sovereignty to benefit broader forms of political organization.

As it was stated before, the principle of sustainability has quite a broad application due to its adaptability to ever-changing and evolving conditions as well as unique needs of each country, region, or ecosystem. The empirical evidence provided by Johnson et al. only confirms this point: they claim that it is not only possible but highly favorable to find a middle ground between scientific and indigenous sustainability practices ⁵⁰. Johnson et al. seek to showcase how nations whose sustainability methods are often ignored by the scientific community in Western countries often thrive and succeed in preserving the environment. For instance, they describe how indigenous tribes of South America used to build water reservoirs for wild animals that suffer from forest fires⁵¹. Other examples include ancient irrigation systems endemic to Pacific Islands and East African countries. They conclude that emerging nations that often end up on the periphery of the sustainability discussion actually have a lot to contribute and share with others.

Sustainability for Dealing with Uncertainty

Today’s world is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty: because the global system is so complex and interconnected, it is extremely difficult to make predictions even if all the data needed is available. Therefore, quantifying and projecting progress purely in terms of economic growth with no regard for the environment and social development is not only challenging but also harmful. Pyhala et al. reasons at length about the foundational principle of sustainability: the precautionary principle⁵². She defines it as the taking of measures that avert potential harm to people or the environment. The harm is caused by actions or policies that prove to be potentially damaging in the light of scientific uncertainty. The concept includes sub concepts such as risk management and prevention, cost effectiveness, ethical responsibilities, common ownership, and the maintenance of the integrity of natural systems⁵³.

Pyhala et al. elaborate on two elements of the precautionary principle that might be useful for explaining why economies need sustainability to resolve uncertainty. Firstly, Pyhala et al. state that the precautionary principle means predicting the foreseeable⁵⁴. More often than not, states and institutions can pick up on subtle clues of a looming crisis but decide to ignore it. The cost of handling the collapse down the road is typically greater than the cost of managing and preventing risk. The second element of the precautionary principle prescribes states and institutions to anticipate damages and make relevant adjustments. Drawing on this explanation, it is apparent how being proactive can help to mitigate risks and spare potential expenses in the future.

Sustainability for Addressing the Finite Resources

The myth of unbound economic growth gets debunked the moment one takes into consideration the finite nature of the planet’s resources. Balatsky et al. demonstrate that the current level of consumption is not possible in the long run ⁵⁵. The data-driven model developed by Balatsky et al. estimated the level of consumption of energy, food and fresh water for both developed and developing economies. Surely, Balatsky et al. simplified the model operating on the assumption that resources are consumed uniformly. However, even considering the oversimplification, the analysis has shown linear expansion growth that is absolutely unsustainable due to how limited the planet’s resources are. In conclusion, Balatsky et al. stated that the anticipated shortage of resources has to be tackled by the world economies⁵⁶. The explicit calculation by Balatsky et al. suggests that economies across the globe will have to make massive adjustments to accommodate the existing constraints.

The dialogue about finite resources often glosses over human resources that can also be barely classified as unlimited. Policy-makers who advocate for economic growth that does not make people the center of its agenda ignores those who make the said growth possible. If they are left behind in the pursuit of increasing the GDP, the quality and quantity of the workforce that is responsible for propelling the key economic metrics may as well decrease.

In his review, Ford addresses the phenomenon of the so-called race to the bottom. Race to the bottom is an umbrella term for governmental and business practices that seek to cut expenses and maximize profits. The author says that while stimulating economic growth, the race to the bottom does not give back to the workforce. Instead, it allows for the consolidation of wealth and power at the top.

To make his point, Ford provides quite gloomy statistics of the US workforce: the analyst reports that as many as 44% of all Americans are stuck in low wage jobs with median earnings of 18,000 a year⁵⁷. Most of them are adults in the prime years for building a career; many sustain families off their work paychecks. These statistics are not surprising: capitalist practices are rarely made for promoting common good. It is not clear what happens if the quality of human resources will be compromised by corporations mistreating it. It is likely that the lack of timely health interventions, poor medical insurance, and zero work-life balance will lead to public health catastrophes. What has been saved by corporations will be spent by the government on health care and other social benefits.

The Need for A Legal Framework to Support Sustainable Practices

To preface this subsection, some key findings from the previous two shall be summarized. As seen from what has been described before, at least two factors explain why sustainability should be turned into a legal framework. The first factor is the rationale for using sustainability principles that lies in dealing with uncertainty, globalization, and growing inequality. The second factor is the unclarity of the legal meaning of sustainability and the inconvenience of its implementation. This final subsection seeks to fuse the contents of the previous parts to try to answer the question of how sustainability should be interpreted to transition from politics to the law and why it needs to happen.

Each country can retain its sovereignty in deciding how to harness economic development and respond to its challenges. This approach is partly reasonable: to think, each state’s government is most intimately familiar with problems at hand and, therefore, can develop measures tailored for their situation.

However, the incidental nature of measures are not compatible with the globalized state of today’s world. As Paradell-Trius writes, without the overarching principles of sustainability with the power of overruling local treaties, no legislation can be held to the international standards⁵⁸. The principle of sustainability provides a framework for creation and evaluation; it is apt for the dynamic and evolutionary nature of modern legal systems.

Another reason for why sustainability is in dire need of global legal support is that many legal systems already use sustainability principles. For instance, as Fitzmaurice points out in her paper that the administered survey of the various watercourse treaties revealed that the majority of those have sustainable development as an overarching objective⁵⁹.

Fitzmaurice admits that in the normative context, sustainable development often proves to be vague and lacking substance. For these reasons, it is typically quite challenging to develop a certain course of concrete actions that would advance the cause. Her observation, however, counters this common piece of criticism: she writes that the investigated watercourse treaties set well-defined goals. They also outline methods that need to be adopted in order to achieve the set objectives regarding intergenerational equity, intra-generational equity, and the polluter-pays principle. This information shows that a comprehensive principle would help states and institutions delineate their legal procedures to fit the international standard.

Criticism and Constraints

Some of the drawbacks of the sustainability approach have already been addressed in this paper. For instance, it is evident how the new policies could come off as another instrument of control in the hands of former colonists⁶⁰. Further, some documents such as the UN’s sustainable development goals are somewhat vague and made to be as inoffensive and neutral as possible⁶¹. Gomula elaborates on a worthwhile point: she draws attention to the ongoing trade-environment dilemma. The author supposes that the dilemma cannot be solved with a method as simplistic as introducing sanctions and restrictions on trade in the name of environmental protection⁶². Gomula explains that the rigid enforcement of the environmental law may have detrimental effects on the economies of certain countries⁶³.

Apart from that, the development of international trade can have a positive impact on the world’s environment. According to Gomula, what the world really needs is to reach an equilibrium between the enhancement of more liberalized trade and environmental concerns. At that, the liberalization of trade should not mean that environmental concerns can be ignored. On the contrary, trade restrictions under the guise of environmental protection should not become a means of manipulation. Gomula refers to the example of the World Trade Organization whose approach to sustainability has been driven by a number of WTO disputes⁶⁴.

Some cases involving the WTO have demonstrated that restrictive measures were directly justified by using environmental protection as an excuse. In summation, for now, it remains unclear exactly how states should cooperate and develop a common legal framework on sustainability that could render manipulations impossible.

Conclusion

Today, the principles of sustainability permeate and find its use in a plethora of sectors and industries. Alongside many supporters, the sustainability approach has found its critics who pointed out the ways in which it impedes and counteracts economic growth. This paper argues that economic growth cannot and should not be the only purpose of human development. Since the industrial revolution, economic growth has been seen as something strictly positive and associated with the well-being and advancement of nations. However, an ample body of evidence demonstrates that unbound economic growth for the sake of economic growth comes at a high cost which is social and environmental disruption.

This paper argues that economic growth needs social and environmental constraints offered by the principle of sustainability. Sustainability is a response to the accelerating globalization that transforms the world into a unified system where a single crisis in one region can have a transnational impact. The new economic approach based on sustainability considers the gaps in development between countries and offers a framework that relieves their struggles.

As a result, social and environmental crises can be averted as the resources are not misused for the sake of survival. Sustainability puts constraints on the use of finite resources, which makes more sense in the long term. Due to its adaptability, the principle of sustainability helps with tackling uncertainty. To sum up, economic growth in its traditional meaning is destructive to the environment and human potential. In the long run, the expenses caused by the need to anticipate damages and make precautions will pay off in the form of the manifestation of a more sustainable, neatly working system.

Bibliography

Atapattu, S., “The Significance of International Environmental Law Principles in Reinforcing or Dismantling the North-South Divide”, 2015, pp. 74-108.

Balatsky, A.V., Balatsky, G.I., and Borysov, S.S., “Resource Demand Growth and Sustainability Due to Increased World Consumption”, Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 3, 2015, pp. 3430-3440.

Barral, V., “Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 23 no. 2, 2012, pp. 377-400.

Bell, D., “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 6, no. ½, 1972, p. 11-38.

Bosselmann, K., The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance, Abingdon-on-Thames, Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Bowman, M., ‘Environmental Protection and the Concept of Common Concern of Mankind’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 493-518.

Caradonna, J.L. ed., Routledge Handbook of the History of Sustainability, Abingdon, Routledge, 2017.

Cheever, F. and Dernbach, J., Sustainable Development and Its Discontents, 2015. Web.

De Stefano, V. ‘The Rise Of The Just-in-time Workforce: On-demand Work, Crowdwork, And Labor Protection In The Gig-economy’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, vol. 37, 2015, p. 471.

Doherty, M. G., “Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules by Nicolas de Sadeleer”, Oxford, King’s Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2003, pp. 93-97.

Elder, M. and Olsen, S.H., ‘The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDG s’, Global Policy, vol. 10, 2019, pp. 70-82.

Fitzmaurice, M., ‘The Relationship between the Law of International Watercourses and Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 605-636.

Emas, R., The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles, 2015. Web.

Ford, G., “Booming” US Economy Means More Bad Jobs and Faster Race to the Bottom, 2019. Web.

Freestone, D., ‘The World Bank and Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 138-160.

French, D., ‘Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 51-68.

Friedman, B. M., ‘The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth’, In Markets, Morals, and Religion, Routledge, 2017, pp. 29-42.

Galizzi, P., and Herklotz, A., ‘Environment and Development: Friends or Foes in the 21st Century?’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 69-99.

Goldstone, B., and Obarrio, J., eds., African Futures: Essays on Crisis, Emergence, and Possibility, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2017.

Gomula, J., ‘Environmental Disputes in the WTO’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 401-425.

Johnson, J.T., et al., ‘Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods’, Sustainability Science, vol. 11, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-11.

Klapper, L., El-Zoghbi, M., and Hess, J., ‘Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’, CCGAP, vol. 23, no. 5, 2016, p. 2016.

Moore, J.E. et al., “Developing a Comprehensive Definition of Sustainability”, Implementation Science, vol. 12, no. 1, 2017, p.110.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Beyond Growth: Towards a New Economic Approach, 2019. Web.

Paradell-Trius, L., “Principles of International Environmental Law: An Overview”, Reciel, vol. 9, no. 2, 2000, pp. 93-101.

Pfister, S. and Scherer, L., ‘Uncertainty Analysis of the Environmental Sustainability of Biofuels’, Energy, Sustainability and Society, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015 p. 30.

Pyhälä, M., Brusendorff, A.C., and Paulomäki, H., ‘The Precautionary Principle’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 203-226.

Semuels, A., Does the Economy Really Need to Keep Growing Quite So Much?, 2016. Web.

Seven, U. and Coskun, Y., “Does Financial Development Reduce Income Inequality and Poverty? Evidence from Emerging Countries”, Emerging Markets Review, vol. 26, 2016, pp. 34-63.

Schrijver, N. J., Evolution of Sustainable Development in International Law: Inception, Meaning and Status, Leiden, BRILL, 2008.

Smith, J. and Gladstein, A., How the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals Undermine Democracy, 2018. Web.

The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987. Web.

United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992. Web.

United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, n.d.. Web.

Victor, P.A., Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster, Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.

Weeramantry, C.G., “Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry Hungary v Slovakia”, vol. 97, no. 10, 1997, pp. 88-119.

Footnotes

1. C.G. Weeramantry, “Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry Hungary v Slovakia”, vol. 97, no. 10, 1997, p. 91.
2. M.G. Doherty, “Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules by Nicolas de Sadeleer”, Oxford, King’s Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2003, p. 94.
3. Doherty, p. 94.
4. D. French, ‘Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 54.
5. French, p. 54.
6. N. J. Schrijver, Evolution of Sustainable Development in International Law: Inception, Meaning and Status, Leiden, BRILL, 2008.
7. J.L. Caradonna, ed., Routledge Handbook of the History of Sustainability, Abingdon, Routledge, 2017, p. 90.
8. United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992. Web.
9. Caradonna, p. 95.
10. K. Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance, Abingdon-on-Thames, Taylor & Francis, 2016, p. 89.
11. D. Freestone, ‘The World Bank and Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 145.
12. Freestone, p. 145.
13. United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, n.d.. Web.
14. M. Elder and S.H. Olsen, ‘The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDG s’, Global Policy, vol. 10, 2019, p. 78.
15. V. Barral, “Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 23 no. 2, 2012, pp. 377-400.
16. French, pp. 55.
17. A.V. Balatsky, G.I. Balatsky, and S.S. Borysov, “Resource Demand Growth and Sustainability due to Increased World Consumption”, Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 3, 2015, p. 3437.
18. The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987. Web.
19. J.E. Moore et al., “Developing a Comprehensive Definition of Sustainability”, Implementation Science, vol. 12, no. 1, 2017, p.110.
20. Emas.
21. Emas.
22. P.A. Victor, Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster, Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, p. 17.
23. D. Bell, “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 6, no. ½, 1972, p. 20.
24. Bell, p. 20.
25. Seven, U. and Coskun, Y., “Does Financial Development Reduce Income Inequality and Poverty? Evidence from Emerging Countries”, Emerging Markets Review, vol. 26, 2016, pp. 34-63.
26. B.M. Friedman, ‘The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth’, In Markets, Morals, and Religion, Routledge, 2017, p. 29.
27. Friedman, p. 29.
28. A. Semuels, Does the Economy Really Need to Keep Growing Quite So Much?, 2016. Web.
29. Semuels.
30. Semuels.
31. V. De Stefano, ‘The Rise Of The Just-in-time Workforce: On-Demand Work, Crowdwork, And Labor Protection In The Gig-economy’, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, vol. 37, 2015, p. 471.
32. Semuels.
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Beyond Growth: Towards a New Economic Approach, 2019. Web.
34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
35. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
36. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
37. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
38. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
39. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
40. M. Bowman, ‘Environmental Protection and the Concept of Common Concern of Mankind’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 498.
41. Bowman, p. 498.
42. S. Atapattu, “The Significance of International Environmental Law Principles in Reinforcing or Dismantling the North-South Divide”, 2015, p. 74.
43. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
44. The World Commission on Environment and Development.
45. B. Goldstone and J. Obarrio, eds., African Futures: Essays on Crisis, Emergence, and Possibility, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2017, p. 100.
46. P. Galizzi and A. Herklotz, ‘Environment and Development: Friends or Foes in the 21st Century?’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 69.
47. M. Bowman, ‘Environmental Protection and the Concept of Common Concern of Mankind’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 498.
48. Bowman, p. 498.
49. Bowman, p. 498.
50. J.T. Johnson et al., ‘Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify Our Methods’, Sustainability Science, vol. 11, no. 1, 2016, p. 11.
51. Johnson et al., p. 11.
52. M. Pyhälä, A.C. Brusendorff, and H. Paulomäki, ‘The Precautionary Principle’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 214.
53. Pyhälä et al., p. 214.
54. Pyhäl et al., p. 220.
55. A.V. Balatsky, G.I. Balatsky, and S.S. Borysov, “Resource Demand Growth and Sustainability due to Increased World Consumption”, Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 3, 2015, p. 3437.
56. Balatsky et al., p. 3437.
57. G. Ford, “Booming” US Economy Means More Bad Jobs and Faster Race to the Bottom, 2019. Web.
58. L. Paradell-Trius, “Principles of International Environmental Law: An Overview”, Reciel, vol. 9, no. 2, 2000, p. 93.
59. M. Fitzmaurice, ‘The Relationship between the Law of International Watercourses and Sustainable Development’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, pp. 625.
60. L.Klapper, M. El-Zoghbi, and J. Hess, ‘Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’, CCGAP, vol. 23, no. 5, 2016, p. 2016.
61. F. Cheever and J. Dernbach, Sustainable Development and Its Discontents, 2015. Web.
62. J. Gomula, ‘Environmental Disputes in the WTO’, in Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Pub, 2010, p. 420.
63. Gomula, p. 406.
64. Gomula, p. 408.