Introduction: Freedom as an Intergenerational Concern
The theme of “freedom” invites reflection on how justice is secured not only for present communities but also for those yet to be born. In legal and political discourse, freedom is often framed in terms of autonomy and procedural fairness. However, freedom is also relational and intergenerational—a responsibility extending beyond the living to those who will inherit the conditions we leave behind.
This paper engages the question of intergenerational justice, especially as it is embodied in “Future Generations” structures (such as the offices that have been established in Hungary, Wales, and the EU Commission). Having taken time to explain this emerging European movement (which may not be well known yet in the United States), it demonstrates how these legal structures represent fascinating theological propositions. It argues that current frameworks for intergenerational equity, particularly Edith Brown Weiss’s principles of planetary trust, provide a necessary but insufficient foundation for safeguarding future freedoms. Drawing on theological and ecological insights, I propose a vision of intergenerational justice that could be adopted by Future Generations Commissions that moves beyond proceduralism, incorporating a more expansive, covenantal view of freedom.
The Problem: Proceduralism and Its Limits
Weiss’s principles of intergenerational equity focus on procedural safeguards such as legal protections and governance mechanisms designed to preserve environmental and social well-being for future generations. However, this proceduralism has significant limitations.
It could be accused of anthropocentrism. The focus on human-centered governance neglects the broader ecological context in which future generations will exist.
I will argue it tends to hold a “presentist bias”. Procedural safeguards, while necessary, often reflect the priorities of the present rather than the needs of the future. Even as they grant there is “no basis for favouring one generation over another,” they end up doing so (In Fairness to Future Generations (1989), 21.).
Finally, the governance models built on arguments like Weiss’s risk reinforcing existing power structures rather than enabling substantive intergenerational freedom. Seeking to honour those who are not yet born, we may end up speaking over them.
Philosophers such as Bruno Latour, Kerry Whiteside, Timothy Morton, and Deborah Rose critique the limitations of proceduralist environmental governance, arguing for more holistic, relational approaches to justice. Building on these critiques, I turn to theological perspectives that provide an alternative vision of intergenerational responsibility.
Theological Resources: Covenant, Eschatology, and the Democracy of the Dead
Theological traditions provide rich resources for refining our thoughts around intergenerational justice and strengthening the points where proceduralism can fall short. Three key insights shape my argument.
Covenantal Framing: The biblical concept of covenant, as seen, for example, in Noah’s covenant (Genesis 9), extends beyond human relationships to encompass all of creation. Covenantal freedom is not merely autonomy but a structured, intergenerational responsibility. A Future Generations Commissioner, in this light, is not simply a legal innovation but a mechanism for fulfilling a covenantal obligation.
Christian eschatology resists deterministic narratives about the future, recognising that history is open-ended and shaped by moral responsibility. G.K. Chesterton’s notion of “tradition as the democracy of the dead” (Orthodoxy (2006), 43.) is often applied retrospectively, honouring past generations. However, I argue that tradition must also be prospective, acknowledging the rights and voices of those yet to be born.
Finally, the various Future Generations frameworks are all attempts to take seriously our moral responsibility for those who come after us but theological resources can offer an important corrective to the potential hubris in claiming to speak for those we have not actually heard. Theology can sketch how these structures could be seduced by a kind of temporal idolatry, thus harming the freedoms of those we intend to serve.
Case Studies: Governance Models for Future Generations
To ground these theological reflections in contemporary governance, I analyse case studies of existing legal and political institutions designed to represent future generations. I would want to draw attention to the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, which is a pioneering example of legal and political mechanisms designed to institutionalise intergenerational justice. I would want to note the different tack taken by the EU Commission with the appointment of Glenn Micallef with a brief for Intergenerational Fairness. It would also be apposite to contrast these models with an Indigenous approach, such as the kaitiakitanga concept present among the Māori of Aotearoa.
Each of these cases illustrate how law embodies an ethical vision of intergenerational freedom, providing models for expanding governance beyond presentist constraints.
Conclusion: A Freedom Worth Defending
The creation of a Future Generations Commissioner (or alternative) is not merely a procedural reform but a profound reimagining of freedom as an intergenerational responsibility. Theology contributes to this discussion by offering a vision of freedom rooted in covenant, eschatology, and the moral obligations that demonstrate solidarity between the past, present, and future.
If freedom is to mean more than personal autonomy – if it is to be sustained as a gift across generations – then our legal and political institutions must evolve to reflect this deeper understanding. A theological vision of intergenerational justice challenges us to expand our moral imagination, resisting the tyranny of the now in favour of a freedom that endures.
Indicative Bibliography
Deborah Bird Rose, Wild Dog Dreaming: Love and Extinction (University of Virginia Press, 2011).
Edith Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations (Transnational Publishers, 1989).
Yves Congar, Meaning of Tradition (Ignatius Press, 2016).
Anne Carpenter, Nothing Gained is Eternal (Fortress, 2022).
Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard University Press, 1993).
Tim Morton, Hyperobjects (University of Minnesota Press, 2013).
Kerry Whiteside, Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk (MIT Press, 2006).
The dominant legal and political frameworks for intergenerational justice, including Edith Brown Weiss’s influential principles, often focus on procedural safeguards that risk reinforcing present-day biases. This paper critiques such proceduralism through the lens of theological traditions that understand freedom not merely as autonomy but as a relational, covenantal responsibility to those who come after us. Drawing on Latour, Whiteside, Morton, and Rose, as well as biblical insights into covenant and eschatology, this paper argues for an expansion of intergenerational equity beyond anthropocentric and procedural constraints. Proposed Future Generations Commissioners are not merely a legal innovation but a recognition of freedom’s long arc – one that extends beyond the living to those yet to be born and the creation they will inherit. Case studies in governance models will illustrate how this broadened theological vision can reshape legal and political structures to embody a more radical, future-oriented freedom.