Ecological sustainability and the design principles for modern governance systems

Abstract: In recent years, sustainability has become a buzzword, always mentioned in the political and legal agendas of the international community as well as in scientific forums. However, the use of the term sustainability is often confused with the term sustainable development. Are sustainability and sustainable development completely the same? How should sustainability be understood, where do the historical and theoretical roots of sustainability come from? What is the ecological core of sustainability? How should a national governance system be designed, based on what principles or requirements to ensure ecological sustainability? In this article, the author will analyze to gradually clarify the above questions.

Keywords: Sustainability; Ecological core of sustainability; Sustainable development; modern governance systems

I. Introduction

In the context of escalating climate crises, biodiversity loss, and the depletion of natural resources, the concept of sustainability has become central to academic and policy debates. However, this concept is often confused or conflated with “sustainable development”, leading to simplified, skewed interpretations that are difficult to apply in governance practice. At the same time, the need to design a modern governance system that ensures both the effective functioning of the state apparatus and compliance with ecological and intergenerational constraints has emerged as one of the defining challenges of our era.

This article seeks to address four key research questions: (i) Distinguishing “sustainability” from “sustainable development”; (ii) Tracing the historical origins and theoretical foundations of the concept of sustainability; (iii) Clarifying the “ecological core” of sustainability; and (iv) Proposing design principles for a modern governance system capable of ensuring ecological sustainability.

Methodologically, this article adopts a selective scholarly review approach, combining normative analysis and comparison with illustrative model frameworks (best practices) drawn from several countries. The scope of inquiry focuses on principles and institutional design rather than sector-specific technical solutions. In doing so, the article not only sheds light on the theoretical foundations of ecological sustainability but also outlines a reference framework that can be applied to the construction and reform of governance systems in Vietnam and beyond.

In this article, the following terms are used consistently: “governance” refers to the structures, principles, and mechanisms of multi-actor and multi-level coordination in the formulation and implementation of policies and laws; this term emphasizes system-level dynamics, participation, and coordination in complex environments. Meanwhile, “management” refers to operational, administrative, and implementation activities within specific agencies, organizations, or projects. The article employs the term “modern governance system” consistently, without interchangeability with “management”, in order to underscore the institutional design and operating principles of the system as a whole.

II. Theoretical framework and central concepts

2.1. Distinguishing “sustainability” from “sustainable development”

In both academic research and public policy, the concepts of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” are often used interchangeably, yet they carry distinct meanings. Sustainability primarily reflects a state or condition: the ability to maintain stability, balance, and resilience of socio-natural systems within their limits. It emphasizes long-term viability and alignment with fundamental ecological laws. In contrast, sustainable development is a strategy or process in which humans utilize resources to meet current needs while ensuring the capacity to satisfy the needs of future generations. The 1987 Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

This distinction is significant: “sustainability” represents a foundational condition that is objective and non-anthropocentric, whereas “sustainable development” is a policy and social orientation designed and pursued by humans. In other words, sustainable development can only be achieved if it remains within the limits defined by sustainability. Clearly differentiating these two concepts helps prevent the risk of treating sustainable development merely as an economic–social goal, while overlooking the ecological constraints that ultimately determine humanity’s long-term survival.

2.2. Historical origins and theoretical foundations

The idea of sustainability has its roots early in human history, linked to the tendency to respect and live in harmony with nature.[1] In the Middle Ages, this spirit was clearly expressed in the "Cantico delle Creature" (1224), which praised the harmony between humans and all living beings.[2] Judge Weeramantry once affirmed that the love of nature, the desire for its preservation, and the imperative that human behavior respect the natural world are universal values recognized internationally.[3] More recently, Pope Francis, in his encyclical "Laudato Si" (2015), reaffirmed this spirit, calling on humanity to cultivate a new attitude toward the environment, celebrating sustainability and emphasizing harmony rather than domination and the overexploitation of nature.[4]

The concept of “sustainability” originated in the German forestry sector in the early 18th century.[5] Hans Carl von Carlowitz’s work, "Sylvicultura Oeconomica" (1713), laid the foundation for the principle of "Nachhaltigkeit" - harvesting forests without exceeding their natural regenerative capacity.[6] This marked an important starting point in which sustainability was regarded as a normative standard for resource management.

By 1987, the Brundtland Report introduced the well-known definition of “sustainable development”: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[7] However, many scholars have criticized this definition for not sufficiently emphasizing the “ecological core” of sustainability, which can lead to treating the environment merely as a pillar equal to economic and social dimensions.[8] Bosselmann warns that human needs can only be met within ecological boundaries, and ignoring these limits undermines the meaning of sustainability.[9]

Similarly, Westerlund emphasizes: if the law is not grounded in ecological sustainability, it may implicitly protect unsustainable behaviors.[10] Therefore, promoting sustainability “in policy and legislation”[11] is a prerequisite.[12] Meadows, in "The Limits to Growth",[13] also points out that the Earth is a finite system; economic development that exceeds resource boundaries threatens human security itself.[14]

Thus, from its roots in forest resource management, through international political discourse, to modern legal and ecological theories, sustainability has evolved from a descriptive concept into a normative principle guiding the design of modern governance systems.

2.3. Ecological Core

One of the key contributions of modern sustainability theory is the recognition of the ecological core as an irreplaceable foundation. This means that all socio-economic development activities must operate within the Earth’s ecological limits, as exceeding these thresholds can cause irreversible degradation. The concept of planetary boundaries, introduced by Rockström and colleagues (2009), identifies nine safe boundaries, ranging from climate change and biodiversity loss to ocean acidification and the nitrogen–phosphorus cycles.[15]

From a legal perspective, sustainability is not merely a balance among the three pillars (economic, social, and environmental), the environment must be regarded as a prerequisite. Treating it as merely one pillar among others risks trade-offs for short-term economic gains, which would render the concept of sustainability meaningless. Many scholars warn that the ecological core has been obscured as the notion of “sustainability” has gradually merged with “sustainable development”. Engelmann argues that “ecological sustainability” should be restored as the central noun, rather than merely serving as an adjective for development.[16] Montini and Volpe also emphasize that sustainability is not “sustainable economic growth”, but rather a form of human development that harmonizes economic, social, and environmental dimensions.[17]

Thus, the ecological core serves as the irreplaceable reference point for all sustainability thinking. It reminds us that socio-economic development can only be legitimate and enduring if it remains within the planet’s safe boundaries. By treating the environment as a foundation rather than merely a “pillar” on par with others, we can avoid short-term trade-offs and ensure the survival of future generations. This also delineates the boundary between a development model aimed solely at growth and a truly sustainable modern governance model.

2.4. Modern Governance System

Based on the theoretical foundations presented, a modern governance system can be understood as a polycentric and multi-level structure in which multiple actors participate in policy formulation and implementation. Such a system is adaptive and evidence- and risk-based, ensuring transparency, participation, and accountability at all levels.

Unlike traditional management models, which tend to be command - control oriented, modern governance systems operate through continuous learning loops, allowing policy adjustments based on practical feedback and scientific advancements. A core feature is interdisciplinarity and ecological integration, ensuring that every policy decision is assessed within planetary boundaries and aimed at preserving ecological integrity.

Thus, a modern governance system not only seeks administrative efficiency but also treats ecological sustainability as a hard constraint. Principles such as precaution, intergenerational responsibility, mandatory impact assessment, medium- and long-term objectives, and conflict-of-interest control become permanent mechanisms within the policy – law cycle, shaping a governance framework capable of responding to global risks and challenges.

III. Design Framework: Five principles of a modern governance system ensuring ecological sustainability

Based on the theoretical foundations analyzed, it is clear that designing a modern governance system that ensures ecological sustainability cannot remain at a general conceptual level; it must be operationalized into guiding principles. These principles serve as a “compass”, ensuring that the entire operational mechanism of the system aligns with ecological constraints and intergenerational interests. According to Montini, ecological sustainability is “the requirement of human civilization to live in harmony with nature and ecosystems that support life on the planet and human development”.[18] This perspective aligns with Bosselmann, who argues that humanity has an “obligation to protect and restore the integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems”.[19] The core challenge, however, is how to design a modern governance system that realizes this principle.[20] This article proposes five design principles to meet the demands of ecological sustainability, including: (1) moving beyond reductionism; (2) moving beyond anthropocentrism; (3) moving beyond pure positivism; (4) moving beyond short-termism; and (5) moving beyond the logic of profit maximization.

3.1. Moving beyond Reductionism

Many current management systems are still influenced by reductionist thinking, treating nature as a machine that can be separated and analyzed in isolation. This mechanistic approach disrupts the unity between humans and nature and leads to the fragmentation of scientific disciplines.[21] According to Montini and Volpe, an ecological approach is needed, in which humans and nature are viewed as an integrated whole; at the same time, disciplinary silos must be overcome in favor of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary thinking.[22] Only in this way can emerging, unprecedented issues, such as artificial intelligence, cybercrime, or climate change, be effectively addressed. This principle should therefore be institutionalized through mandatory interdisciplinary impact assessments for major policies and projects, along with inter-ministerial or inter-institutional councils to review initiatives with potentially far-reaching effects on ecosystems.

Global governance practice also shows that reductionist thinking often leads to policy failures. Many environmental protection programs are neglected or ineffective because they focus on a single factor, such as emissions or water resources, while overlooking the close interconnections with economic, social, and cultural dimensions. This narrow perspective not only undermines comprehensiveness but also generates unforeseen “side effects”. In contrast, when a systems approach is applied - viewing humans, technology, and nature as an integrated whole - policies have the opportunity to address root causes rather than merely treating symptoms. This demonstrates that the principle of moving beyond reductionism is not an optional choice, but a prerequisite for building a truly effective modern governance system. Overcoming reductionist thinking is the foundation for tackling deeper challenges - specifically, the need to move beyond an anthropocentric perspective.

3.2. Moving beyond Anthropocentrism

Current management systems in many countries are characterized by an anthropocentric approach. This approach is evident even in the 1992 United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development (also known as the Rio Declaration). The centrality of human considerations in the sustainable development approach is clearly illustrated in Article 1 of the Rio Declaration, which states that “human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development”.[23]

Montini points out that this way of thinking tends to prioritize the needs of the current generation while neglecting intergenerational obligations.[24] Therefore, a modern governance system aimed at sustainability must move beyond anthropocentrism, integrating both human and ecological dimensions within a comprehensive vision.[25] This principle should be institutionalized through dual-purpose standards, in which human well-being is always linked to the preservation of ecological thresholds. It should also be formalized through the inclusion of legal provisions protecting ecosystems in constitutions and laws as legal “red lines” that must not be crossed. The principle should be operationalized through dual-purpose standards (well-being + ecological thresholds) and legal provisions protecting ecosystems as “red lines” that must not be crossed.

In practice, the consequences of anthropocentric thinking have become evident in many development policies, where humans’ short-term economic interests are placed above ecosystem health. Excessive logging, sand extraction, and rapid urban development often reflect the immediate needs of the current generation, while ecological losses are borne by future generations. In contrast, when humans are regarded as part of the ecosystem rather than its center, modern governance can achieve a balance: human well-being is truly sustainable only when linked to ecological integrity. Therefore, moving beyond anthropocentrism is not merely an ideological adjustment, but a fundamental shift in shaping laws and policies, ensuring that ecological limits become “red lines” for all development decisions. Once the anthropocentric constraint is overcome, the next question arises: how should laws be constructed and interpreted to prioritize ecosystems, rather than relying solely on the literal wording of legal norms.

3.3. Moving beyond Rigid positivism

Over the past decades, environmental laws and policies have often been dominated by positivist thinking, focusing on the mechanical application of legal texts rather than the purpose of protecting fundamental interests. This approach has resulted in a narrow and ineffective legal framework for addressing long-term ecological risks.[26] Many scholars argue that the health and integrity of ecosystems should be regarded as fundamental standards, upon which a legal system harmonious with the natural order can be built.[27] Capra and Mattei also emphasize the need to establish a legal order closely linked to ecosystems and social communities.[28] In line with this approach, modern governance must impose scientific accountability when policies go against ecological warnings, while applying legislative purpose interpretation standards that prioritize the protection of ecosystems as a foundational value. Therefore, this principle should be institutionalized through scientific accountability requirements and legislative purpose interpretation standards that give priority to ecosystem protection.

A typical example is Article 20a of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), added in 1994 and amended in 2002, which stipulates that: “The state, in responsibility toward future generations, shall protect the natural foundations of life through legislation and in accordance with law and justice”. This constitutional standard demonstrates that the law does not merely stop at the literal text, but imposes an obligation to protect ecosystems as a foundational value, directly linked to intergenerational justice. This provision also paves the way for interpreting the law with an ecological priority, while placing scientific and political accountability on the state for all decisions affecting the environment. Thus, moving beyond rigid positivism is not merely a theoretical requirement, but has become a constitutional principle within a modern legal system. Establishing ecological foundations as legal standards also means that policy cannot merely chase short-term interests, but must be shaped by a medium- to long-term vision.

3.4. Moving beyond Short-termism

One of the major limitations of current governance is the tendency to address problems in a situational, short-term, and urgent manner, without accounting for the future. Bodansky points out that this short-termism is a significant factor undermining the effectiveness of environmental and sustainable development law. In contrast, sustainability requires an intergenerational perspective, in which policies must aim at medium- and long-term objectives rather than merely meeting immediate needs.[29] Therefore, a modern governance system needs to establish binding medium- and long-term targets in laws, strategies, and planning (for example, carbon neutrality by 2050), while implementing budgets and plans based on ecological limits, such as a carbon budget or nature budget, to ensure that public spending and development investment align with the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. The author argues that this principle should be institutionalized through binding medium- and long-term targets and budgets/plans based on ecological limits.

Thus, moving beyond short-termism is not merely a technical adjustment in policy-making, but a fundamental shift in governance thinking: from reactive problem-solving to shaping an intergenerational vision. Experience from Germany with the Climate Act 2019 (amended 2021) - which stipulates carbon neutrality by 2045 and binding emission reduction targets for each sector - or from the European Union with the European Climate Law 2021 - setting a target to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 - demonstrates that institutionalizing medium- and long-term targets is entirely feasible. When laws link development to ecological limits and long-term budgets, the governance system can escape the cycle of “firefighting” and lay the foundation for truly sustainable development. However, even with a long-term vision, the governance system will fail if it continues to follow the logic of profit maximization; therefore, the final principle is to move beyond the goal of mere profit.

3.5. Moving beyond Profit maximization

Many current policies and laws are still dominated by the logic of infinite growth and profit maximization, while paying little attention to social and environmental consequences.[30] This approach ignores external costs and shifts ecological risks onto communities and future generations. To achieve modern governance aimed at ecological sustainability, it is necessary to assess and adjust the existing legal system to prioritize the protection of ecosystem health and integrity. An important institutional mechanism includes environmental taxes and the pricing of externalities to accurately reflect the social costs of economic activities, along with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which holds businesses accountable for the entire lifecycle of products, from production and consumption to waste disposal. This principle should be institutionalized through environmental taxes, externality pricing and EPR.

In practice, when profit is regarded as the ultimate goal, environmental and social costs are often “hidden” and shifted onto the community. From air pollution in major cities, the plastic waste crisis, to uncontrolled mineral extraction, all stem from markets ignoring external costs. To address this, many countries have implemented environmental taxes and carbon pricing to internalize these costs into product prices. For example, the European Union has established the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS), requiring companies to pay for emissions exceeding thresholds, thereby creating incentives for green transition. At the same time, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms have been widely implemented in OECD countries, holding businesses accountable for the collection, recycling, or disposal of post-consumer products. These examples clearly demonstrate the institutionalization of the principle of moving beyond profit maximization: economic benefits cannot be achieved at any cost, but must be linked to the obligation to preserve ecosystems and ensure intergenerational equity.

IV. Findings/Results

This study asserts that a modern governance system aiming to ensure ecological sustainability must pursue three core objectives: (i) maintaining the integrity and resilience of ecosystems, (ii) ensuring intergenerational equity, and (iii) enhancing human well-being within the planet’s safe limits. These are not merely theoretical guidelines, but also provide the foundation for designing concrete governance mechanisms.

Based on the analysis, this article proposes five design principles: (1) moving beyond reductionist thinking, (2) moving beyond anthropocentrism, (3) moving beyond rigid positivism, (4) moving beyond short-termism, and (5) moving beyond profit maximization. Each principle is institutionalized into specific operational mechanisms, such as mandatory interdisciplinary impact assessments; establishing dual-purpose standards that combine human well-being with legal “red lines” protecting ecosystems; scientific accountability for decisions that go against ecological warnings; binding medium- and long-term targets in laws and planning; along with economic instruments such as environmental taxes, externality pricing, and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms.

To measure implementation effectiveness, a monitoring indicator system needs to be established, including: an ecosystem risk index, a public participation index, the proportion of medium- and long-term budget allocation for sustainability objectives, the level of corporate responsibility compliance, and a transparency – accountability index. This set of indicators helps link principles to practice, providing a basis for monitoring, comparison, and policy adjustment. These indicators can be fully integrated into Vietnam’s national statistical system, similar to how the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has integrated SDG indicators into sustainable development reports.

Thus, the proposed design framework does not remain at the conceptual level, but translates theoretical principles into feasible and verifiable tools. This is a direct contribution to the development of a modern governance system, helping to transform ecological sustainability from a theoretical vision into an operational approach that can be measured and controlled in state governance and public policy practice.

V. Illustrative experiences

The feasibility of the five-principle design framework does not exist solely at the theoretical level, but has been tested in numerous international practical cases. These experiences demonstrate that the principles are not “abstract ideals”, but have been and are being institutionalized into concrete public policies capable of maintaining long-term ecological sustainability.

The European Union has become a prominent model with the European Green Deal (2019) and the Nature Restoration Law (2023), which set the target of restoring at least 20% of land and sea areas by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.[31] This clearly demonstrates the principle of moving beyond short-termism, as legally binding long-term targets are established, combined with mechanisms such as externality pricing and carbon markets to ensure feasibility.

In the Netherlands, the Delta Programme 2010–2100 was implemented following the 1953 flood disaster, with the establishment of the Delta Fund to maintain stable resources over several decades.[32] This program exemplifies the principle of moving beyond reductionism, as water resource management is not treated in isolation but integrated with urban planning, agriculture, and ecosystem conservation, ensuring an interdisciplinary and long-term solution.

In New Zealand, the Wellbeing Budget 2019[33] marked an innovation in fiscal policy by placing human well-being and environmental protection at the center of budget allocation, rather than focusing solely on GDP growth. This represents the operationalization of the principle of moving beyond anthropocentrism, affirming that human well-being is only sustainable when closely linked to ecosystem health.

Germany, through its Energiewende strategy, has established legally binding targets for renewable energy and climate neutrality, while also amending its energy laws to prioritize emissions reduction and environmental protection.[34] This serves as a clear illustration of the principle of moving beyond rigid positivism, as the law is not confined to its literal wording but is interpreted and adjusted to prioritize ecosystem protection as a foundational value.

Notably, in Asia, China amended its Environmental Protection Law in 2015, for the first time recognizing the duty to protect the environment as a constitutional principle, thereby binding the responsibilities of the State, enterprises, and citizens in maintaining ecological integrity.[35] Similarly, Japan’s Basic Environment Act of 1993 established a long-term institutional framework that emphasizes intergenerational obligations in resource conservation.[36] These experiences demonstrate that even in countries with diverse development contexts, the principles for designing an ecologically grounded governance system can still be legally embedded and effectively implemented.

A common feature of these experiences is the codification of ecological principles into binding legal standards, something that Vietnam can fully draw upon in its ongoing institutional reforms. These cases show that the five design principles proposed in this article hold not only theoretical value but also broad and practical applicability. They demonstrate the power of translating sustainability-oriented thinking into concrete operational mechanisms, reinforcing the argument that ecological sustainability can and must become the core of every modern governance system.

VI. Conclusion

The article has demonstrated the fundamental distinction between “sustainability” and “sustainable development”, while establishing the “ecological core” as an indispensable foundation for any governance paradigm. Building on this premise, the study develops a design framework for a modern governance system consisting of five principles and corresponding institutional mechanisms, thereby transforming abstract concepts into verifiable normative standards. The theoretical contribution of the article lies in redefining ecological sustainability as an academic compass; its practical contribution is reflected in a feasible governance framework that can be directly applied to institutional reform in Vietnam and compared with international experiences. Future research should focus on assessing effectiveness through indicators such as ecosystem risk, public participation levels, and the share of long-term public spending, in order to empirically verify sustainability outcomes. In doing so, ecological sustainability becomes not merely a guiding slogan, but a core operational principle for all governance reforms in an era of global climate crisis.

References

Books, book chapters, monographs

1. DANIEL BODANSKY, THE ART AND CRAFT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Harvard University Press 2010).

2. KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016).

3. KLAUS BOSSELMANN & BENJAMIN J. RICHARDSON, Introduction: New Challenges for Environmental Law and Policy, in KLAUS BOSSELMANN & BENJAMIN J. RICHARDSON (eds), ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MARKET MECHANISMS: KEY CHALLENGES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND POLICY (Kluwer Law International 1999) 3–18.

4. FRITJOF CAPRA & PIER LUIGI LUISI, THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF LIFE: A UNIFYING VISION (Cambridge University Press 2014).

5. FRITJOF CAPRA & UGO MATTEI, THE ECOLOGY OF LAW: TOWARD A LEGAL SYSTEM IN TUNE WITH NATURE AND COMMUNITY (Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2015).

6. ROBERT ENGELMANN, Beyond Sustainable Development, in WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE (ed), STATE OF THE WORLD 2013: IS SUSTAINABILITY STILL POSSIBLE? (Island Press 2013) 3–16.

7. ULRICH GROBER, SUSTAINABILITY: A CULTURAL HISTORY (Green Books 2012).

8. MICHELE MONTINI, Revising International Environmental Law Through the Paradigm of Ecological Sustainability, in F. LENZERINI & A. VRDOLJAK (eds), INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR COMMON GOODS: NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE AND NATURE (Hart Publishing 2014) 271–87.

9. MICHELE MONTINI, Designing Law for Sustainability, in VOLKER MAUERHOFER, DANIELA RUPO & LARA TARQUINIO (eds), SUSTAINABILITY AND LAW (Springer 2020) 33–45.

10. STAFFAN WESTERLUND, Theory for Sustainable Development, in H.C. BUGGE & C. VOIGT (eds), SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW (Europa Law Publishing 2008) 54.

11. DONELLA H. MEADOWS, DENNIS L. MEADOWS, JØRGEN RANDERS & WILLIAM W. BEHRENS III, THE LIMITS TO GROWTH (Potomac Associates 1972).

12. HERMAN E. DALY, BEYOND GROWTH: THE ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Beacon Press 1996).

13. CRAIG MORRIS & ARNE JUNGJOHANN, ENERGY DEMOCRACY: GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE TO RENEWABLES (Palgrave Macmillan 2016).

Scientific articles

15. WILLIAM C. CALLICOTT & KAREN MUMFORD, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 32–40 (1997).

16. CUTLER J. CLEVELAND & MATTHEW RUTH, When, Where, and By How Much Do Biophysical Limits Constrain the Economic Process? A Survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s Contribution to Ecological Economics, 22 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 203, 203–23 (1997).

17. BERNARD C. PATTEN & EUGENE P. ODUM, The Cybernetic Nature of Ecosystems, 118 AM. NATURALIST 886 (1981).

18. MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, In Praise of Sustainability: The Encyclical Letter Laudato Sì and Its Legal-Economic Implications, 25 ITALIAN Y.B. INT’L L. 311, 311–24 (2016).

19. MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, Regulation for Sustainability: Promoting an Ecology-Based Approach, FEDERALISMI 3, 1–16 (2017).

20. WILLIAM STEFFEN et al., Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet, 347 SCIENCE 1259855 (2015).

21. EDITH BROWN WEISS, Our Rights and Obligations to Future Generations for the Environment, 84 AM. J. INT’L L. 198, 198–207 (1990).

Legal documents and international reports

22. CHINA, Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (2015 Revision) (adopted 24 April 2014, effective 1 January 2015), available at https://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/04/id/149207.shtml

23. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, The European Green Deal COM(2019) 640 final (11 Dec. 2019), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640.

24. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT & COUNCIL, Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on Nature Restoration [2023] OJ L150/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

25. JAPAN, Basic Environment Law (Law No 91 of 1993, enacted 19 November 1993), available at https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/policy/basic.html

26. UNITED NATIONS, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992), https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf (last visited Aug. 3, 2024).

27. WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, OUR COMMON FUTURE (Oxford University Press 1987).

International case law

28. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. REP. 7.

29. CHRISTOPHER WEERAMANTRY, Separate Opinion, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. REP. 105.

National policy

28. NEW ZEALAND TREASURY, THE WELLBEING BUDGET 2019 (New Zealand Government 2019).

[*] Assoc. Prof. Dr., Hanoi Law University, Vietnam National University. Email: tuannm@vnu.edu.vn, approved for publication on November 28, 2025

[1]KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016) 36; ULRICH GROBER, SUSTAINABILITY: A CULTURAL HISTORY (Green Books 2012) 39.

[2]ULRICH GROBER, SUSTAINABILITY: A CULTURAL HISTORY (Green Books 2012) 57.

[3]CHRISTOPHER WEERAMANTRY, Separate Opinion, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. REP. 105, 105.

[4] MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, In Praise of Sustainability: The Encyclical Letter Laudato Sì and Its Legal-Economic Implications, 25 ITALIAN Y.B. INT’L L. 311, 311–24 (2016).

[5] ULRICH GROBER, SUSTAINABILITY: A CULTURAL HISTORY (Green Books 2012) 82.

[6] Ibid 125.

[7] WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, OUR COMMON FUTURE (Oxford University Press 1987) 5.

[8] See WILLIAM C. CALLICOTT & KAREN MUMFORD, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 32–40 (1997); KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016) 5; MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, Regulation for Sustainability: Promoting an Ecology-Based Approach, FEDERALISMI 3, 1–16 (2017).

[9] KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016) 5.

[10] STAFFAN WESTERLUND, Theory for Sustainable Development, in H.C. BUGGE & C. VOIGT (eds), SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW (Europa Law Publishing 2008) 54.

[11] FRITJOF CAPRA & PIER LUIGI LUISI, THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF LIFE: A UNIFYING VISION (Cambridge University Press 2014); BERNARD C. PATTEN & EUGENE P. ODUM, The Cybernetic Nature of Ecosystems, 118 AM. NATURALIST 886 (1981).

[12] STAFFAN WESTERLUND, Theory for Sustainable Development, in H.C. BUGGE & C. VOIGT (eds), SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW (Europa Law Publishing 2008) 54.

[13] DONELLA H. MEADOWS, DENNIS L. MEADOWS, JORGEN RANDERS & WILLIAM W. BEHRENS III, THE LIMITS TO GROWTH (Potomac Associates 1972) 67; CUTLER J. CLEVELAND & MATTHEW RUTH, When, Where, and By How Much Do Biophysical Limits Constrain the Economic Process? A Survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s Contribution to Ecological Economics, 22 ECOLOGICAL ECON. 203, 203–23 (1997).

[14] WILLIAM STEFFEN et al., Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet, 347 SCIENCE 1259855 (2015).

[15] JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM et al., Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity, 14 ECOLOGY & SOC’Y 32 (2009), https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (last visited Aug. 3, 2024).

[16] ROBERT ENGELMANN, Beyond Sustainable Development, in WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE (ed), STATE OF THE WORLD 2013: IS SUSTAINABILITY STILL POSSIBLE? (Island Press 2013) 3.

[17] MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, Regulation for Sustainability: Promoting an Ecology-Based Approach, FEDERALISMI 3, 1–16 (2017).

[18] MICHELE MONTINI, Revising International Environmental Law Through the Paradigm of Ecological Sustainability, in F. LENZERINI & A. VRDOLJAK (eds), INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR COMMON GOODS: NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE AND NATURE (Hart Publishing 2014) 275.

[19] KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016) 116.

[20] MICHELE MONTINI, Designing Law for Sustainability, in VOLKER MAUERHOFER, DANIELA RUPO & LARA TARQUINIO (eds), SUSTAINABILITY AND LAW (Springer 2020) 33–45.

[21] FRITJOF CAPRA & PIER LUIGI LUISI, THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF LIFE: A UNIFYING VISION (Cambridge University Press 2014); FRITJOF CAPRA & UGO MATTEI, THE ECOLOGY OF LAW: TOWARD A LEGAL SYSTEM IN TUNE WITH NATURE AND COMMUNITY (Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2015).

[22] MICHELE MONTINI & FEDERICO VOLPE, Regulation for Sustainability: Promoting an Ecology-Based Approach, FEDERALISMI 3, 1–16 (2017).

[23] UNITED NATIONS, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992), https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf (last visited Aug. 3, 2024).

[24] MICHELE MONTINI, Revising International Environmental Law Through the Paradigm of Ecological Sustainability, in F. LENZERINI & A. VRDOLJAK (eds), INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR COMMON GOODS: NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE AND NATURE (Hart Publishing 2014).

[25] EDITH BROWN WEISS, Our Rights and Obligations to Future Generations for the Environment, 84 AM. J. INT’L L. 198, 198–207 (1990).

[26] MICHELE MONTINI, Revising International Environmental Law Through the Paradigm of Ecological Sustainability, in F. LENZERINI & A. VRDOLJAK (eds), INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR COMMON GOODS: NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE AND NATURE (Hart Publishing 2014) 271–287.

[27] KLAUS BOSSELMANN, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE (2nd edn, Routledge 2016).

[28] FRITJOF CAPRA & UGO MATTEI, THE ECOLOGY OF LAW: TOWARD A LEGAL SYSTEM IN TUNE WITH NATURE AND COMMUNITY (Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2015); see also MICHELE MONTINI, Revising International Environmental Law Through the Paradigm of Ecological Sustainability, in F. LENZERINI & A. VRDOLJAK (eds), INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR COMMON GOODS: NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE AND NATURE (Hart Publishing 2014) 271–87.

[29] DANIEL BODANSKY, THE ART AND CRAFT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Harvard University Press 2010).

[30] KLAUS BOSSELMANN & BENJAMIN J. RICHARDSON, Introduction: New Challenges for Environmental Law and Policy, in KLAUS BOSSELMANN & BENJAMIN J. RICHARDSON (eds), ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MARKET MECHANISMS: KEY CHALLENGES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND POLICY (Kluwer Law International 1999) 3–18.

[31] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, The European Green Deal COM(2019) 640 final (11 Dec. 2019), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640; EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT & COUNCIL, Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on Nature Restoration [2023] OJ L150/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

[32] PAVEL KABAT et al., Dutch Delta Programme 2010–2100: Working on Sustainable Water Safety (Deltares 2009).

[33] NEW ZEALAND TREASURY, The Wellbeing Budget 2019 (New Zealand Government 2019).

[34] CRAIG MORRIS & ARNE JUNGJOHANN, Energy Democracy: Germany’s Energiewende to Renewables (Palgrave Macmillan 2016).

[35] CHINA, Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (2015 Revision) (adopted 24 April 2014, effective 1 January 2015), available at https://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/04/id/149207.shtml

[36] JAPAN, Basic Environment Law (Law No 91 of 1993, enacted 19 November 1993), available at https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/policy/basic.html