Constitutional law: a number of countries (for example. B, Brazil, Portugal, Germany) have perpetual provisions (clausula petrea) in their constitutions. They can be interpreted as including human rights in the environment. Ecuador`s 2008 Constitution14 recognizes non-regression in the field of the environment, and Bhutan`s 2008 Constitution15 states that 70% of the country`s forests are eternal. Legislators are sometimes prohibited from reducing or restricting fundamental rights (for example. B in Argentina or Spain): it should be possible to apply this limitation to environmental legislation that has become a fundamental right by insinuating it in national courts and raising awareness of constitutional doctrines and NGOs. 8 Faced with this diversity of forms of regression, environmental lawyers must react firmly and rely on implacable legal arguments. Public opinion, once alarmed, would not tolerate any reversal of the protection of the environment and therefore of health. 4 At a time when environmental law is enshrined in many constitutions as a new human right, it is paradoxically threatened in its substance. This could lead to a turnaround and a real setback that would damage the future of humanity and jeopardize environmental justice between generations. 12The principle of non-regression was first introduced by referendum in California17 on November 2, 2010, when a majority of voters refused to suspend a law on climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as requested by oil companies. The Swiss People`s Initiative, which banned more than 20% of second homes in rural areas at the end of 2011, can be interpreted as a rejection of the increasing degradation of the landscape and the environment. Legal theory and philosophy of law: Is it acceptable to depart from the theory of the variability of laws, the foundation of democratic systems? Classical authors believe that laws are necessarily subject to a permanent adaptation rule that reflects changes in social requirements.
Any legislation must be amended or repealed at any time, for it would be morally unthinkable for a „generation of people in each country to have the right or power to bind and control posterity until the „end of time“ or to forever control the way the world is governed“ (Paine, 1792, p. 555).