T. N. Narasimhan

In 1976, a group of thoughtful scientists of the International Union of Geological Sciences expressed a vision of earth resources, time, and man thus:

Mankind is on the threshold of a transition from a brief interlude of exponential growth to a much longer period characterized by rates of change so slow as to be regarded essentially as a period of non-growth. Although the impending period of transition to very low growth rates poses no insuperable physical or biological difficulties, those aspects of our current economic and social thinking which are based on the premise that current rates of growth can be sustained indefinitely must be revised. Failing to respond promptly and rationally to these impending changes could lead to a global ecological crisis in which human beings will be the main victims.

In 1976, global-warming and climate-change were yet to engage the attention of scientists as threats to human habitat.

This vision admonishes President Obama’s team of economic advisers to identify the magnitude of economic growth that can be sustained in the long-term, given a finite, delicately interconnected earth subject unpredictable forces of Nature. The need for revising current economic and social thinking entails a balancing of individual rights to private property and economic prosperity against public guardianship of vital resources common to all. For Obama, the legal scholar, this poses the challenge of modernizing the two traditional models of law: the jus civile, the private law of individuals; and the jus gentium,  the public law of peoples and nations.Many seem to believe that the current economic catastrophe is merely a result of poor regulatory policies, and that with its technological heft, America can maintain uninterrupted economic growth and create unlimited wealth with clever policies to nurture market forces and nourish entrepreneurship. On the contrary, one could argue from an earth perspective that the present market collapse is an indication of virtual wealth created through arbitrary valuation of assets and speculative transactions. Ultimately, real wealth is constrained by the Earth’s resources that sustain humans and other living things. The constraint is fortified by the values of equality, compassion, and dignity to which we are committed in the name of democracy. That different countries, over the past decades, have experienced cycles of boom and bust, accompanied by serious damage to the human habitat, suggests that the present economic crisis portends another step towards the “global ecological crisis” envisioned above.

President Obama has assembled an impressive group of economists and scientists. He has an opportunity to integrate science and economic policy in unprecedented ways. Science can create or destroy: it is ethically neutral. Policy must therefore harness science with social values. Without science, policy will come to nought. Thus, the challenge for President Obama’s intellectual team is to define a magnitude of long-term economic growth that can be justified by Earth resources and so preclude speculative volatility. In this broad context, short-term remedies constitute the means to achieving long-term goals. The strength and the science-policy synergy that the team needs must flow from President Obama’s leadership.

President Obama spoke eloquently at his inauguration of balancing rights with responsibility. Invariably, in the post-WWII world, democracy is treated synonymously with “rights.” At one end, the poor have rights to resources adequate to their basic needs and inherent dignity. At the other, the rich have the rights to amass unlimited wealth. But, in a world whose resources have to be shared, “responsibility” remains elusive. Is there a philosophical, cultural, or historic basis for discussing rights and responsibility? Surprisingly, the roots of Roman law, dating back to the 6th century A.D., provide guidance.

Two thousand years ago, Greek philosophers departed from a theological view to a scientific view of Nature. Inspired by this, Roman jurists under Emperor Justinian of Byzantium recognized that water, air, and the oceans, vital for the survival of all, were subject to immutable laws of Nature, while human laws changed with time. Therefore, they revolutionized the foundations of law, which until then consisted exclusively of a jus civile devoted to rights of citizens to private property. To protect the rights of all people to share vital resources such as water, air, and the sea, they balanced the jus civile with the new concept of the jus gentium, the law of all peoples. The doctrine of public trust, which plays an important role in natural resources law, is founded on one of the major parts of the jus gentium. Although the system of jus gentium played an important role in the development of European law, including the Magna Carta, it fell largely into desuetude in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. For two centuries, humankind believed that technology could conquer Nature at will and achieve ever-growing economic prosperity. The second half of the twentieth century has taught otherwise.

This vision of a comprehensive legal order, including both the jus civile and the jus gentium, is not as far-fetched as it might seem. The European Union of 27 nations is headed in this direction with its Water Framework Directive, requiring all its members to formulate water policy conforming to a single unifying philosophy, according to which water is held in trust for all peoples, not for individuals.

President Obama’s challenge of balancing rights and responsibility in a democracy is fundamentally tied to the foundations of legal philosophy. His challenge is to modernize the concepts of jus civile and jus gentium in a technological world where science and freedom can take us down a path of harmony or conflict. Following Emperor Justinian of Byzantium, Obama may wish to assemble the best legal minds he can find to forge a balance between private and public, rights and responsibility, jus civile and jus gentium.

Some years ago, the noted biologist E.O. Wilson pleaded for consilience, a concurrence of ideas among different groups of thought. We now have consilience between Justinian’s scholars and modern science. Let us hope that this consilience guides our modern society in transition.

T.N. Narasimhan is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.