From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere is a monograph that argues for a fundamental reorientation of constitutional law around the realities of biospheric interdependence and ecological responsibility. It presents a comprehensive framework of “biospheric constitutionalism,” contending that legal systems must evolve to acknowledge humanity’s existence as part of the Earth’s biosphere in order to remain legitimate and effective in the 21st century. The work traces an intellectual journey from traditional constitutional comparison toward a new paradigm that integrates law with the planet’s ecological regularities, scientific insights, and cultural pluralism. Organized in three parts (Parts I–III) comprising eight chapters (Chapters I–VIII), the book moves from historical and theoretical foundations through philosophical and ethical explorations, and finally to forward-looking proposals for global legal duties. Throughout, it emphasizes that constitutional law – both at the national and transnational levels – must be reconceived not merely as a human-centered enterprise, but as a framework for sustaining life in common within our shared planetary home. Major concepts developed across the chapters include the revival of limited government and other checks on power in service of ecological limits, the recognition of interdependence (among societies and between humanity and nature) as a core constitutional principle, the idea of a constitutional law of the Biosphere that imposes supranational duties on states and individuals, the cultivation of conscious interdependence and education of consciousness to foster an ecological ethos, and the articulation of new erga omnes obligations (owed to all) to protect the global environment. What follows is an integrated synthesis of the book’s content, organized by its parts and chapters, highlighting these key themes and arguments. Part I: Between Comparison and Values Part I: “Between Comparison and Values” introduces the monograph’s foundational approach. It situates constitutional law in the context of comparative analysis enriched by core human values, arguing that traditional constitutional comparisons must be expanded to include the value systems underlying different legal orders. By examining enduring principles such as the common good, peace, human dignity, and human–nature relationships across civilizations, Part I lays a value-centered groundwork for re-imagining constitutionalism in light of our shared existence in the biosphere. In essence, this first part bridges classical constitutional theory with emerging normative commitments to environmental stewardship and interdependence, “setting the stage” for the rest of the book’s argument. Chapter I: The Constitutions from the Past to the Present – Between Theory and Method of Constitutional Comparison. Chapter I lays the philosophical and methodological groundwork for the book’s thesis that constitutional law must be reframed in light of humanity’s existence within the biosphere. Its central claim is that the “ legal problem” of how we govern our shared life cannot be separated from the metaphysical question of human existence, and thus law should respond to the regularities and limits of the planet. Methodologically, the chapter adopts a historical-comparative approach: it traces constitutional ideas “from the past to the present,” expanding a conventional constitutional analysis beyond textual and abstract reasoning to include linguistic, semantic, and systemic contexts. This represents a move away from purely rationalist and state-centric comparisons toward a more experiential and context-aware understanding of law. Key legal insights in Chapter I include a call to revive the principle of limited government as a means to safeguard biospheric conditions (resurrecting the classical notion that government power must be constrained by higher laws or principles). The chapter emphasizes interdependence – the relationships among societies and between society and nature – as central to constitutional theory. In fact, it introduces the idea of developing a “constitutional law of interdependence” that would align rule-of-law institutions with the preservation of life-supporting planetary regularities. By grounding the practice of constitutional comparison in biospheric context and advocating epistemological humility in legal reasoning, Chapter I establishes the value framework and interdisciplinary scope for the chapters that follow. In summary, this opening chapter asserts that any true understanding of constitutional governance must account for the ecological foundations of human life, thereby linking constitutional theory to the Earth’s biophysical reality. Chapter II: Superior Values and the Foundations of Constitutional Comparison – Peace, Symbiosis within the Biosphere, and Transnational Citizenship. Building on the philosophical basis of Chapter I, Chapter II argues that the highest values of constitutionalism must be reinterpreted in biospheric terms. In particular, it posits that principles like justice and the common good – traditionally paramount in constitutional thought – now compel peace among peoples and symbiosis with the biosphere as guiding ideals. This represents a reorientation of law toward shared global responsibilities that transcend nation- state boundaries. The chapter examines how different civilizations’ relationships to nature and patterns of resource use have historically shaped their constitutional orders. It highlights a contrast between societies that revered nature versus those that pursued an exploitative domination of life and resources, noting that exploitative paradigms (such as the modern capitalist model driven by unchecked economic growth and biopower) externalize human and environmental costs and have led to crises. Methodologically, Chapter II extends a comparative constitutional analysis beyond textual interpretation by engaging with history and philosophy – what it terms a “civilizational” analysis. It inquires how core civilizational values (for example, conceptions of the common good, or notions of living well together) might be reformulated in light of biospheric interdependence. Key insights include a critique of traditional constitutional models that treat nature as external to the legal order. Chapter II introduces an “overarching theory of constitution” centered on interdependence and sustainability, suggesting that constitutions should explicitly incorporate principles of ecological balance. It also calls for a new paradigm of transnational citizenship rooted in our status as co-inhabitants of a “common home,” emphasizing cross-cultural dialogue and mutual responsibility across borders. By proposing a constitutional law of interdependence built on shared responsibility, inclusive institutions, and plural knowledge systems, Chapter II links the book’s comparative approach to a normative vision of global constitutional ethics aligned with the planet’s limits. In sum, Chapters I and II (the entirety of Part I) together establish the fundamental premise that constitutional law, at its core values and methodology, must evolve by embracing human interdependence and ecological stewardship as foundational commitments. Part II: Biosphere as a Constitutional Issue Part II: “Biosphere as a Constitutional Issue” delves into the heart of the book’s argument by treating the biosphere itself as a fundamental concern of constitutional law. This part (comprising Chapters III–VI) critically assesses the limitations of conventional constitutional paradigms – particularly state-centric, liberal models – when faced with global ecological crises and complex interdependence. Through various analyses (ranging from social conflict and resource dissipation to hegemonic power structures), Part II articulates why a transformation in constitutional thinking is necessary under contemporary conditions. A key concept introduced here is “conscious interdependence,” the idea that constitutions and constitutional theory must become aware of and explicitly acknowledge the interconnectedness of all life and the Earth’s ecological limits. The chapters in Part II propose elements of a new, more inclusive constitutionalism – one that extends the circle of legal concern beyond solely human interests to include environmental systems and future generations. They emphasize bottom-up, participatory processes rather than top-down imposition as the means of achieving this paradigm shift. In essence, Part II reframes constitutionalism itself as an ecological and transnational project, arguing that the survival of constitutional democracy is inseparable from the health of the biosphere. Below is a synthesis of the four chapters in this part: Chapter III: Constitution and Conflict – Toward a Constitutional Policy Beyond Human and Resource Dissipation. Chapter III examines how constitutional orders manage social conflict and diagnoses the ways in which traditional approaches contribute to the dissipation of both human and natural resources. It argues for an inclusive constitutionalism grounded in “conscious interdependence,” meaning that constitutional design and interpretation should consciously recognize the interdependent nature of all people and the environment. The thesis of this chapter is that we must expand the circle of legal concern—broadening who counts as a subject of rights and what counts as an object of protection— in order to move beyond the current dissipative and hegemonic models of development. The dominant paradigm of ordo liberalis (the classical liberal constitutional order buttressed by coercive state power and global legal hegemony) is critiqued as inadequate in an era of deep global interconnection and ecological crisis. Instead of imposing universal solutions from the top down, Chapter III advocates bottom-up, deliberative transformation: it suggests that local communities and individuals, once aware of their mutual dependencies, should drive constitutional change in line with shared responsibilities to each other and to nature. The analysis in this chapter ranges from classical typologies of constitutions to contemporary critiques of globalization, using comparative and critical methods to show how “imaginary freedom” (a false sense of unchecked liberty) and unchecked concentrations of power can lead to the dissipation of human dignity and environmental integrity. Key insights include reinterpreting constitutional norms through the lens of interdependence – for example, understanding that the effects of laws and the duties of justice extend beyond national borders. The chapter also calls for challenging the mystique of power and legal violence in favor of democratic participation and genuine freedom. Ultimately, Chapter III contends that true constitutional renewal can only arise from recognizing every person and the biosphere as inherently valuable, linking the resolution of human conflicts with the imperative of biospheric care. This positions interdependence and ecological sanity as prerequisites for peace and conflict resolution in law. Chapter IV: Biosphere, Policy of Law and Education of Consciousness. Chapter IV continues the inquiry by arguing that nurturing an awareness of interdependence within the biosphere is both a moral duty and a constitutional imperative. It posits that even the fundamental concept of human dignity acquires a new biospheric dimension: only by recognizing our “being-together” in a common planetary home can we safeguard life in all its diversity. The methodology of this chapter is explicitly interdisciplinary, bridging law with philosophy, theology, and educational theory. The aim is to show that legal systems must actively cultivate an ecological conscience among citizens and institutions. Chapter IV draws on scientific insights (for example, Vladimir Vernadsky’s idea of life as a cosmic phenomenon and the genetic interconnectedness of all species) and on ethical perspectives (including Pope Francis’s environmental teachings and the philosophies of thinkers like Raimon Panikkar and Bruno Latour). By synthesizing these perspectives, it demonstrates that law and public policy should transcend narrow anthropocentric interests and foster solidarity with all forms of life. Key insights of Chapter IV include a proposal that the fundamental duty of human societies under law is to protect the “regularities” of the biosphere that make life possible – for example, stable climate patterns and biodiversity. Achieving this, the chapter argues, requires a profound reorientation of consciousness across society, which can only be accomplished through deliberate education at all levels (what the author calls an “education of consciousness”). Practical avenues for this transformation are highlighted: the chapter emphasizes “biospheric education” in schools and communities, as well as the scaling-up of grassroots initiatives (such as volunteer environmental stewardship and local sustainable development projects) as ways to counteract the forces of biopower and to build community resilience. By integrating cultural pluralism, spiritual ethics, and ecological science into constitutional discourse, Chapter IV enriches the book’s overarching argument: it shows that a viable constitutional order must be underpinned by an enlightened, life-centered public consciousness. In other words, without a citizenry educated in interdependence and committed to ecological responsibility, legal reforms risk being superficial; consciousness and culture must evolve hand-in-hand with constitutional norms. Chapter V: The Law of the Biosphere – Duties of the Nations and Common Good. Chapter V marks a shift to a more overtly legal-institutional paradigm, advancing a vision of constitutional law centered on the duties that states and individuals owe to the biosphere as a condition for achieving the common good. Confronting the reality of the Anthropocene (the age of pervasive human impact on Earth), this chapter argues that traditional geopolitics and the model of competitive, Westphalian state sovereignty are obsolete; they must give way to cooperative, biosphere-oriented forms of governance. The chapter’s approach is both theoretical and practical. It reinterprets core elements of public law – such as state legitimacy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights – through what it calls a “metaphysics of listening to nature”. This implies that legal legitimacy derives not only from social contracts or democratic consent, but also from whether governance respects the voice and limits of the natural world. Chapter V outlines how constitutional principles might be reformulated to ensure planetary sustainability and peaceful development of all communities. Key insights include a critique of Western hegemonic thought and its legacy of resource dissipation: the chapter traces how the expansion of industrial-technological civilization brought about global inequalities and ecological strain. In response, it proposes a “common shelter” perspective, envisioning the biosphere as a shared home that requires collective legal protection by all nations. In this view, even the legitimacy of state power is reframed: sovereignty is no longer absolute freedom of action, but rather entails biospheric responsibility. Pursuing the common good, therefore, must extend beyond national borders to include caring for global ecological commons. Chapter V emphasizes pluralism and cultural diversity as strengths in this project – acknowledging that different traditions and each community’s unique relationship with its land can inform locally appropriate ways of living within ecological limits. It also stresses that environmental duties are diffuse, incumbent upon both governments and citizens, since effective compliance requires widespread social awareness and participation. For example, laws can mandate pollution limits, but citizens and businesses must buy into those norms for them to work. By redefining the rule of law to prioritize human dignity expressed through active ecological citizenship – and by validating transnational cooperation in plural forms – Chapter V provides an institutional and ethical blueprint that connects the book’s earlier philosophical arguments to the realm of concrete constitutional transformation. In summary, this chapter sketches the outline of a constitutional law of the biosphere: one in which states become guardians of ecological well-being and individuals assume responsibility as ecological citizens beyond the confines of their nationality. Chapter VI: The Biospheric Principle between Religion, Universal Principles, and the Concept of Law – From Vico to Second-Order Cybernetics. Chapter VI serves as an intellectual bridge between the heritage of human thought and the innovative ideas needed for a biospheric future. It searches for a unifying biospheric principle – a set of universal values or a common moral bond – that can guide a pluralistic world society toward sustainability. The chapter undertakes a deep philosophical inquiry, drawing on historical and systems-theoretical perspectives. It revisits the ideas of the Enlightenment thinker Giambattista Vico, particularly his cyclical theory of history and the concept of religio (binding together), and connects them to modern insights like second-order cybernetics (which emphasizes feedback, self-observation, and interdependence in systems). A key thesis of Chapter VI is that “listening to the biosphere” as law’s metaphysical foundation requires complementing our spatial notions of justice with a reflection on time. In other words, legal thought must integrate the long temporal cycles of nature and the lessons of history, not just the immediate spatial distribution of rights and duties. By using Vico’s lens, the text explores how a metaphysics of responsibility over time could guide societies to recognize duties toward both the Earth and each other. The chapter underscores the importance of universal values as a medium for global legal communication: it suggests that the process of secularization in law can be reinterpreted as an attempt to uncover shared moral principles (across different religions and cultures) that can undergird care for our common home. Methodologically, Chapter VI weaves intellectual history with complexity science, illustrating law’s reflexive capacity – that is, the ability of legal systems to observe and adjust themselves given that human law-makers are themselves part of the biosphere and subject to its processes. Among the insights of this chapter is a critique of linear, progress-driven conceptions of history and law; instead, it affirms that embracing a cyclic and interdependent view of time could foster what it calls a “conscious symbiosis” between humanity and the planet. By proposing a convergence of ethical, scientific, and spiritual perspectives into a pluralistic yet universal framework, Chapter VI provides a theoretical cornerstone for the book’s vision of a shared biospheric constitutional ethos. In effect, it offers a philosophical foundation for why and how diverse societies might unite around principles of ecological responsibility, drawing on the deepest currents of human thought to do so. Chapters III through VI thus collectively expand the scope of constitutional discourse from human-centric and state-centric models to what might be termed life-centric or planet- centric constitutionalism. Part II demonstrates with both analytical critique and constructive theory that constitutional law must integrate ecological reality, cultural pluralism, and systemic complexity. It maintains scholarly rigor by invoking historical examples and cross-cultural comparisons, even as it pushes the boundaries of constitutional thought into new territory. The takeaway is that midway through the book, the argument has firmly established the need for a paradigm shift: constitutionalism should become conscious, inclusive, and explicitly oriented toward sustaining the biosphere as the basis for all political and legal life. Part III: On Our Duties Towards the Common Home – Some Proposals Part III: “On Our Duties Towards the Common Home. Some Proposals” is the culmination of the monograph, translating the preceding theoretical insights into concrete normative outcomes and legal duties. The phrase “common home” evokes the Earth as the shared dwelling place of humanity and all other forms of life, and accordingly the chapters in this final part focus on articulating the responsibilities of states and citizens to protect that home. Building on the paradigms discussed earlier, Part III contrasts the failing model of uncompromising national self-interest (a non-cooperative geopolitical approach) with a new paradigm of cooperative constitutionalism oriented around the global common good. It explores how constitutional and international law might formally recognize erga omnes duties – obligations owed to everyone and to the planet as a whole – by grounding those duties in universal values and practical necessity. This part integrates perspectives from philosophy, religion, and complex systems theory (echoing themes of Chapter VI) to give ethical and conceptual depth to these proposed duties. In sum, Part III provides a forward- looking blueprint for how constitutional law could evolve so that human societies live up to their responsibility to care for our planetary biosphere. It contains the book’s most concrete recommendations and paints a vision of legal innovation for the future. Chapter VII: Protecting Life in the Biosphere – Towards a New Generation of Public erga omnes Obligations. Chapter VII applies the book’s framework to urgent global challenges, making the case for new universal obligations (erga omnes duties) to protect life in the biosphere. It focuses especially on issues like climate change and human displacement (climate refugees), arguing that legal systems must develop proactive duties to prevent and address such crises. The underlying premise is that the stable functioning of the biosphere is a common interest of humanity, and thus safeguarding it is a responsibility owed by all to all. Methodologically, this chapter is profoundly interdisciplinary. It insists that as the natural sciences reveal the conditions necessary for the orderly existence of life, the law must incorporate that scientific knowledge in a systematic way. To that end, Chapter VII outlines a four-step method for jurists and policy-makers confronting planetary crises. The steps include: (1) describing reality – obtaining an accurate, science-based understanding of the problem (e.g. the dynamics of climate systems); (2) identifying what elements need protection – determining which aspects of the natural or social environment are critical to protect (e.g. atmospheric stability, vulnerable populations); (3) devising modes of protection – formulating legal and institutional mechanisms (like treaties, constitutional amendments, policies) to safeguard those elements; and (4) assessing their impact – monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of those measures and adjusting as needed. This approach embodies a preventive and iterative ethos, aiming to craft legal responses commensurate with the scale and complexity of ecological crises. Key insights of Chapter VII include an expansive view of the biosphere’s legal relevance. The chapter argues that the biosphere’s legal “sphere” should be understood to encompass not just land, air, water, and living organisms, but also the noosphere, semiosphere, and technosphere – that is, the realms of human thought, communication, and technology which interact with biological life. In practical terms, this means law must address interdependencies on multiple levels: within local communities, between states and their citizens, among different nations and regions, and between humanity and natural processes on a planetary scale. Chapter VII highlights, for example, the responsibility of industrialized societies for the vulnerabilities of less-industrialized ones. It describes how one community’s technological choices or carbon emissions can render distant regions uninhabitable, thereby creating a chain of causation that law has barely begun to address. To remedy such injustices, protecting the biosphere must become a constitutive element of the legal order – not an optional policy, but part of the fundamental duty of states. The chapter proposes concrete legal principles to support this shift: for instance, formally recognizing a stable climate and healthy biodiversity as global legal interests, and expanding the duty to avoid transboundary environmental harm into a more generalized duty to prevent ecological harm to the global commons. In doing so, Chapter VII effectively translates the book’s notion of biospheric constitutionalism into normative commitments and nascent rules. It argues that only through shared obligations – backed by law and informed by science – can law fulfill its basic purpose of ordering society in the face of ecological crisis. This chapter, in essence, provides a tangible blueprint for addressing issues like climate refugees, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss under a reimagined constitutional framework that treats these as fundamental justice issues rather than mere policy choices. Chapter VIII: On the Search for the Telos of a New Approach to Erga Omnes Duties – The Question of Life in Symbiosis with Nature. The final chapter is a concluding synthesis that asks: what is the ultimate aim (telos) of reorienting law toward universal duties to the biosphere? In answering this question, Chapter VIII argues that the telos lies in guiding humanity toward a form of life in symbiosis with nature. In other words, the long-term purpose of biospheric constitutionalism is to ensure that human societies learn to live in harmony with the Earth’s ecological systems, rather than in opposition to them. The chapter observes that there has been a paradigm shift underway in international legal thought over the past decades. As evidence accumulates that human survival (and flourishing) depends on the well-being of natural systems, the focus of law is gradually moving from the assertion of sovereign rights to the acceptance of shared responsibilities. States, under this emerging paradigm, are reconceived not merely as independent actors with rights over territories and resources, but as trustees of humanity and the biosphere. They bear obligations erga omnes – duties to refrain from activities that seriously degrade the planet, and positive duties to safeguard the integrity of global life-support processes. Chapter VIII reviews key milestones in the evolution of environmental norms, from the 1972 Stockholm Declaration to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and beyond, noting how each step expanded the notion of environmental responsibility beyond national borders. This legal-historical perspective illustrates a growing recognition that ecosystems cross political boundaries and that effective protection requires cooperation and new legal concepts of duty. The chapter then articulates a “new horizon” for constitutional law: one that fully accommodates ecological connectivity and complexity. Practically, it advocates an ecosystem approach to constitutionalism, meaning that legal frameworks should be consistent with the way ecosystems function – interconnectedly and dynamically. It calls for incorporating diverse knowledge systems into governance, from cutting-edge scientific models (like Earth system science) to indigenous and traditional insights (such as the concept of vivir bien or “living well” in harmony with nature). Chapter VIII reinforces the principle that environmental protection cannot remain an isolated domain of law or a mere policy silo; instead, ecological considerations must be integrated into all aspects of development and decision-making (echoing, for example, Principle 4 of the Rio Declaration that environmental protection is an integral part of the development process). It also asserts that the very notion of sovereignty must evolve: sovereignty today implies not just authority, but a responsibility to ensure one’s actions do not harm other communities or the global commons. Ultimately, Chapter VIII concludes that a pluralistic yet coordinated constitutional order – one grounded in humility, respect for life, and collective stewardship – is required to achieve the telos of biospheric constitutionalism. This would be a form of global constitutional ethos wherein human law aligns with the laws of nature, fostering a way of life in common that preserves the planet’s vitality for present and future generations. In essence, the final chapter crystallizes the book’s intellectual journey and normative vision: it imagines a world where constitutional law helps orchestrate a symbiotic relationship between civilization and the Earth system. At the end of Chapter VIII the work includes a program for the implementation of the Biospheric rule of law, underlining the importance of a democracy intermingling society, experience and know-how, with an accurate interplay of the institutions, and the approaches to legislation. In this sense, recognizing the importance of forests may be an appropriate starting point. The author announces that such issues will be developed in a subsequent monograph. Conclusion Across its three parts and eight chapters, From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere presents a tightly interwoven argument for transforming constitutional law in an age of an ecological crisis. It starts by linking classical constitutional principles and comparative methods to the realities of life in the biosphere (Part I), then broadens the conversation to include interdisciplinary insights and ethical imperatives for conscious interdependence (Part II), and finally articulates concrete duties and forward-looking principles for a life-centered legal order (Part III). The core thesis – that constitutional law must be reoriented around biospheric interdependence and ecological responsibility – is clearly articulated and reinforced at each stage. Philosophically, the work draws on metaphysics, theology, and complexity science to enrich legal reasoning; legally, it challenges entrenched doctrines of sovereignty and rights by introducing concepts like a constitutional law of the biosphere and obligations erga omnes to protect global commons; methodologically, it blends historical comparison with scientific awareness and cross-cultural dialogue. Major concepts are illuminated throughout: the idea of limited government is revived as a check against environmental overreach; interdependence becomes a guiding principle for understanding law’s scope; conscious interdependence and education of consciousness are proposed as cultural preconditions for any legal reform; and supranational duties and erga omnes obligations are framed as necessary innovations to address issues like climate change and biodiversity loss that no single state can solve alone. The evolution described in the book is one from a traditional paradigm – where constitutional law is a tool of human governance often isolated from nature – to a new paradigm where law is integrated with the “regularities” of Earth’s biosphere, informed by scientific realities and enriched by the ethical wisdom of multiple cultures. In advocating this transformation, the monograph contributes to an emerging field of environmental constitutionalism or biosphere constitutionalism, making a compelling case that the fate of constitutional democracy and the fate of the planet are inextricably linked. The vision it offers is both pragmatic and aspirational: a call for concrete legal reforms and duties at all levels of governance, and at the same time an invitation to reimagine our collective life in a way that honors the interdependent web of life. Ultimately, From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere encourages scholars, law-makers, and citizens to rethink the foundations of constitutional law, not only in theory, but in the practice of the society and the institutions, in order to better serve a future of ecological balance and shared humanity.