135097 PROSECUTORS REACTION PAPER 2

Article: Environmental Law and the Unsustainability of Sustainable Development: A Tale

of Disenchantment and of Hope (2022) by Louis J. Kotzé. and Sam Adelman

Kotzé and Adelman posit that Buen vivir, as an alternative to sustainable development, can
pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable future. Buen vivir is a holistic and culturally
grounded philosophy that promotes living in harmony with nature, with others and with
oneself. Rather than focusing solely on economic growth and material accumulation, it
prioritizes the overall well-being of individuals, communities and the environment.
It is my opinion that any reformulation or reorientation should not be based on the replacement
of sustainable development with one alternative worldview. We should adopt a pluralistic
approach rather than the simple exchange of one view for another. Pluralism in this context
would look like picking positive attributes of and lessons from different world views to
reformulate the existing body of international environmental. Deep Ecology, for example,
promotes holistic thinking that acknowledges the complex interconnections and
interdependencies among all elements of the ecosystem. That development plans need to
consider the broader ecological implications and long-term consequences. It also calls for a
radical reduction in resource consumption which includes reducing wasteful practices and
adopting more frugal lifestyles.
One economic principle we can also borrow from is Steady State Economy. Steady State
Economy advocates for, among other things, principles of a circular economy; where
products, materials and resources are kept in use for as long as possible through reuse, repair,
and recycling. It also supports the implementation of full-cost pricing, where the
environmental and social costs of products and services are included in their prices. This
encourages responsible consumption and production. These are only two examples of
philosophies from which we can borrow lessons. I cannot exhaust multiple examples in the
confines of this paper. It is, however, important to note that they both reject the idea of
anthropocentrism and recognize the intrinsic value of nature – which can be a good baseline to
select what principles to draw lessons from.

To conclude, the authors acknowledge that adopting Buen vivir won’t lead to immediate and
straightforward changes in laws, politics or society. Moreso because powerful interests support
the neoliberal sustainable development model, and they will resist any attempts to dismantle it
and its strong hold on society. Consequently, even though Buen vivir represents a valuable
alternative to conventional development paradigms and has the potential to inspire new
thinking and approaches, its complete replacement of sustainable development in International
Environmental Law and global legal policies is challenging. A more realistic approach could
involve drawing on insights from various philosophies to enrich, complement and replace the
negative aspects of the existing frameworks.