Toward a Fair Ecosocial Transition: A Critical Perspective on the Human Right to Life from Latin America*
Antonio Carlos Wolkmer**
Unilasalle (Brazil)
Maria de Fatima Schumacher Wolkmer***
Unilasalle (Brazil)
Daniela Mesquita Leutchuk de Cademartori****
Unilasalle (Brazil)
Naturaleza y Sociedad. Desafíos Medioambientales • número 13 • septiembre-diciembre 2025 • pp. 1-22
https://doi.org/10.53010/nys13.01
Received: September 09, 2024 | Accepted: May 28, 2025
Abstract. This study is part of an effort to recognize the multiple interconnected crises—social, political, economic, and environmental—that expose the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism. It aims to analyze critically the just ecological transition from Latin America, guided by the principles of sustainable living and the ethics of care, as an alternative to modern-colonial structures based on linear progress and infinite accumulation. Methodologically, it employs a dialogical and transdisciplinary approach grounded in bibliographic and documentary research. Among the main results, the need to reconfigure human rights, especially the right to life, stands out, incorporating the interdependence between human beings and nature. The climate emergency demands that we overcome the epistemologies of the Global North and adopt principles such as ecological justice and care. The study concludes that the civilizational crisis needs structural and epistemic transformations, proposing the concept of biocivilization as an integration between human rights, the rights of nature, and new social organizations founded on ecological balance, justice, and diversity. The originality of the work lies in its decolonial perspective, which articulates knowledge from the Global South with ethical-ecological principles to propose alternative futures centered on life.
Keywords: climate crisis, Latin America, ecosocial transition, the human right to life, ethics of care, biocivilization.
Hacia una transición ecosocial justa: una perspectiva crítica del derecho humano a la vida desde América Latina
Resumen. Este estudio es parte de un esfuerzo por reconocer las múltiples crisis interconectadas —sociales, políticas, económicas y ambientales— que exponen las contradicciones del capitalismo neoliberal. El artículo busca analizar críticamente la transición ecológica justa desde una perspectiva latinoamericana, guiada por los principios de la vida sostenible y de la ética del cuidado, como alternativa a las estructuras coloniales modernas que se basan en el progreso lineal y la acumulación infinita. Metodológicamente, el estudio emplea un enfoque dialógico y transdisciplinario basado en la investigación bibliográfica y documental. Entre los principales resultados se destaca la necesidad de reconfigurar los derechos humanos, especialmente el derecho a la vida, incorporando la interdependencia entre los seres humanos y la naturaleza. La emergencia climática exige superar las epistemologías del Norte Global y adoptar principios como la justicia y el cuidado ecológicos. El estudio concluye que la crisis civilizatoria necesita transformaciones estructurales y epistémicas, proponiendo el concepto de biocivilización como integración entre los derechos humanos, los derechos de la naturaleza y nuevas organizaciones sociales fundadas en el equilibrio ecológico, la justicia y la diversidad. La originalidad de la obra radica en su perspectiva decolonial, que articula saberes del Sur Global con principios ético-ecológicos para proponer futuros alternativos centrados en la vida.
Palabras clave: crisis climática, América Latina, transición ecosocial, derecho humano a la vida, ética del cuidado, biocivilización.
Rumo a uma transição ecossocial justa: uma perspectiva crítica do direito humano à vida a partir da América Latina
Resumo. Este estudo faz parte de um esforço para reconhecer as múltiplas crises interconectadas — sociais, políticas, econômicas e ambientais — que expõem as contradições do capitalismo neoliberal. O artigo busca analisar criticamente a transição ecológica justa a partir de uma perspectiva latino-americana, orientada pelos princípios da vida sustentável e da ética do cuidado, como alternativa às estruturas coloniais modernas, baseadas no progresso linear e na acumulação infinita. Metodologicamente, o estudo adota uma abordagem dialógica e transdisciplinar, fundamentada em pesquisa bibliográfica e documental. Entre os principais resultados, destaca-se a necessidade de reconfigurar os direitos humanos, especialmente o direito à vida, incorporando a interdependência entre os seres humanos e a natureza. A emergência climática exige a superação das epistemologias do Norte global e a adoção de princípios como justiça ecológica e cuidado ecológico. O estudo conclui que a crise civilizatória demanda transformações estruturais e epistêmicas, propondo o conceito de biocivilização como uma integração entre os direitos humanos, os direitos da natureza e as novas organizações sociais, baseadas no equilíbrio ecológico, na justiça e na diversidade. A originalidade da obra reside em sua perspectiva decolonial, que articula saberes do Sul global com princípios ético-ecológicos para propor futuros alternativos centrados na vida.
Palavras-chave: crise climática, América Latina, transição ecossocial, direito humano à vida, ética do cuidado, biocivilização.
Introduction
The primary objective of this reflection is to examine critically the need for international solidarity based on the ethics of care paradigm, challenging the anthropocentric structures of knowledge and economic organization. This approach aims to deconstruct dualistic ontologies imposed by historical processes of colonialism, which facilitated the exploitation of nature, guided by the principle of sustainable living.
The challenges of interconnected crises in the social, political, economic, and environmental spheres reveal the intrinsic contradictions of the neoliberal capitalist system. The relentless pursuit of profit and economic growth inherent in this system exacerbates social inequalities, generates political instability, and intensifies environmental degradation. Even with increasingly urgent scientific warnings, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that demonstrate the catastrophic impacts of global warming, the solutions designed to address the ecological crisis expand extractivism, disguised under the false veneer of sustainability.
It is necessary to build intercultural bridges and dialogues between different knowledge and perspectives, aiming at a new interaction between humanity and the Earth and the construction of a biocivilization as a model of social, economic, and cultural organization that seeks to integrate human activities with the natural processes and cycles of the planet, prioritizing the sustainability of life in all its forms and the promotion of social and environmental justice through the ethics of care.
The scope of this discussion is, firstly, to critically analyze the hegemonic narratives by questioning their logic of infinite accumulation and the ideology of linear progress, both of which are intrinsically linked to the unsustainable exploitation of natural and human resources. The second section, from a dialogical and transdisciplinary perspective, seeks to examine how the climate emergency challenges and destabilizes the hegemonic epistemologies of the Global North as well as modern/colonial ontologies and their ways of inhabiting the world. This seeks to outline what we call conceptual “germinating seeds”: ideas and theoretical constructs with transformative potential that emerge from the authors’ reflection on realities, especially those in Latin American eco-territorial contexts.
The objective is not to propose a single theoretical model but rather to identify principles and concepts that can be adapted and reinterpreted in different contexts of the Global South. The methodological basis for the research encompasses both direct and indirect sources, including national and international sources, as well as bibliographies, documents, and academic exhibitions. In summary, the article seeks to understand the context of multiple interconnected civilizational crises, proposing ways to mitigate their most severe effects, and outline fair ecosocial transitions from the perspective of Latin America, oriented towards a biocivilization that recognizes the fundamental interdependence between human and natural systems, recreating integrative forms of human rights and the rights of nature.
Ecological Collapse in the Face of the Vulnerability of the Colonizing Civilization Model
Inexorably, the capitalist economic model, based on the paradox of unlimited growth, has overlooked the fundamental connection between human beings and nature, as well as the regeneration of ecosystems, which are essential for sustaining life. This model expanded under a vision of dominance, characterized by a binary logic (man vs. nature), establishing a hierarchy that positions human beings as superior to nature and breaking the symbiosis observed in traditional societies that value interdependence. This anthropocentric perspective, which places human beings at the center of the universe and considers them a measure of all things, justifies the unbridled exploitation of natural resources in the name of progress and economic development, commodifying all aspects of life.
As Herrero (2023) points out, the cultural hegemony imposed by the West was the symbolic tool that legitimized not only the process of racist colonization, which classified other peoples as subhuman, but also the colonization of nature: “The transformative mother earth, which is alive, which welcomes and fosters life, has been converted into inert matter, mere raw material for industrial exploitation” (Instituto Humanitas Unisinos, 2020).
In contemporary times, neoliberal capitalism is rapidly advancing, exacerbating the climate crisis through the impact of green extractivism, primarily in Latin America and Africa, but also generating pressure in countries in the Global North, such as Spain and Portugal. Under the pretext of promoting sustainability and combating climate change, this policy perpetuates extractivist and neocolonial logics by exploiting strategic resources, such as rare earths, which are fundamental to the high-tech industry. The green political and economic agendas in these countries are shaped by this new dynamic of capitalist extraction. With this, government decisions guided by neoliberalism and perpetuated through green colonialism serve to ensure that transnational corporations exploit critical raw materials under the imperative of promoting decarbonization. Therefore, in the current situation, the transition strategy outlined by the European Green Deal exacerbates North-South inequalities, compromising human rights.
By directing extractivism in the name of decarbonization, the Global North promotes an unsustainable corporate and neocolonial energy matrix. This approach, often disguised under the veneer of sustainability, perpetuates the exploitation of natural resources in peripheral countries, aiming to meet the energy demands of developed countries. Energy colonialism is central to the “Decarbonisation Consensus” which focuses on the transition from fossil fuels to “renewable” energy, condemning peripheral countries to become sacrifice zones without changing the predatory relationship with nature, reproducing and intensifying neocolonial dynamics (Bringel & Svampa, 2023).
To promote a just ecosocial transition, a balance between human activities and ecological limits is essential, ensuring the protection of the most vulnerable. This requires a decolonization of epistemological perspectives, recognizing the vulnerabilities and interdependence (Riechmann, 2012). A just ecosocial transition, therefore, implies a “new culture of the land” with practices that consider the interdependence between human beings and ecosystems, prioritizing ecological regeneration, sustainability, and care for life.
Thus, it is crucial to challenge the hegemonic heteropatriarchal and individualistic rationality, proposing shared autonomy or biodignity,1 a concept that introduces a paradigm that values the intrinsic dignity of all forms of life, not just their utilitarian value, going beyond mere economic valuation. The proposal is guided by the principles of sustainable living and the ethics of care, which recognize and respect interdependencies both with the environment and among humans.
In this context, the sustainability of life implies adopting practices that guarantee the maintenance and regeneration of natural resources. Ethics of care, in turn, calls humankind to responsibility and action to protect and nurture interdependent relationships that sustain life since scientific diagnoses indicate the severity of the ecological crisis. However, despite the warnings, government actions have been insufficient to ensure the planet’s habitability. In the Meadows Report (Meadows et al., 1972), the scientific community highlighted the problem of “extralimitation,” which refers to the excessive use of resources beyond the regenerative capacity of ecosystems, driven by economic interests that are incompatible with planetary health. This incompatibility is evident, for example, in the prioritization of short-term economic growth over long-term environmental impact and preservation.
Overconsumption refers to the excessive consumption of natural resources, such as water and fertile soil, exceeding their capacity for renewal, which results in environmental degradation and scarcity for future generations. One example is large-scale deforestation for the expansion of agriculture and livestock farming, which compromises biodiversity and the carbon absorption capacity of forests. The constitutive logic of capital expansion is, in the words of Nancy Fraser (2024), a blind and brutal force that destroys the concreteness of life. Undoubtedly, the belief in economic growth, combined with consumption as an imaginary of happiness, has led humanity to a decisive moment that demands new horizons for proposals; in this sense, Dardot and Laval (2021) questioned if it is possible to “save the planet” even with each state acting as the owner of a part of it.
It is not possible to think of a transition while governments continue to expand the exploitation of fossil fuels, for example. The continued exploitation of fossil fuels, as highlighted by Mickaël Correia (Rivas, 2024), involves a “Bermuda triangle” of power between governments, companies, and banks, which prevents effective action against the climate crisis. Many oil companies are state-owned and continue exploration for budgetary reasons, such as guaranteeing revenue for the state and maintaining jobs, even in the face of known environmental and climate impacts.
In this sense, the discourse of countries in the Global North on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is more motivated by “energy descent”—the gradual reduction in the availability of non-renewable energy sources, such as oil and natural gas, due to the depletion of reserves and the increase in extraction costs—than by genuine ecological strategies. This transition is often seen as a business opportunity without necessarily questioning the current consumption and production model.
From the perspective of Latin America, it is criticized that green economy proposals do not alter the predatory and colonial patterns of global capitalism, perpetuating interconnected crises and the erosion of human rights (Lander, 2023). A fair ecosocial transition must consider geopolitical inequality, ensuring that the costs and benefits of the transition are distributed equitably among countries and communities and that the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional populations are respected. This implies rethinking power relations and the distribution of resources on a global scale. The IPCC’s finding that we are facing an anthropogenic climate emergency with terminal risks for humanity, as warned by Marques (2023a; 2023b), highlights the urgency of decision-making.
This scenario is described by Stengers (2015) as the “times of catastrophes”, suggesting that the web of life has become a crucial economic and political agent. In this context, the author argues that nature and ecological systems must be viewed as active elements, challenging the traditional anthropocentric view that separates humanity and nature. The author’s concept of “Gaia intrusion” emphasizes that this is no longer a future concern but a present reality. This paradigm forces us to recognize our interdependence and vulnerability to ecological processes.
Latour (2020) complements this view, stating that “without the awareness that we have entered a New Climate Regime, we cannot understand either the explosion of inequalities, nor the extent of deregulation, nor the critique of globalization” (p. 6). To clarify the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, it is important to recall that Donald Trump stated that Americans do not share the same common ground with other countries. This position reflects both a political and existential division, as emphasized by George Bush in 1992 when he affirmed, “Our way of life is not negotiable”. This shows that the ideal of a world shared by the “West” is no longer a horizon.
Unlike this American isolationist perspective, the Stockholm Resilience Center (2023), based on extensive diagnoses and prognoses, demonstrated that there are critical planetary limits that cannot be exceeded, requiring effective measures at a global level to ensure humanity has a predictive horizon. The stability and resilience of the planet depend on interrelated processes in the Earth’s biophysical system; global sustainability will not be achieved by focusing only on climate change, one of many threats to the Earth’s balance (Germano, 2023).
It is essential to consider climate, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles (such as carbon and nitrogen cycles), land use, and water resources, all of which are fundamental to planetary stability. Coordinated and comprehensive actions are necessary, as isolated interventions are not enough in the face of the complexity and interconnection of the vital processes that sustain life on Earth. In this sense, two critical planetary limits directly related to human survival and well-being stand out: the integrity of the biosphere and the use of freshwater.
Driven by deforestation, pollution, and climate change, the rapid loss of biodiversity poses a significant threat to the stability of global ecosystems, impacting food security, crop pollination, and the resilience of ecosystems to disturbances. For example, according to the World Wildlife Fund (2020), vertebrate populations have declined by 68% since 1970, highlighting the severity of the crisis and the urgent need for conservation and restoration measures. At the same time, freshwater scarcity, caused by limited availability (due to altered precipitation patterns and climate change) and pollution (from untreated sewage and agricultural chemicals), is alarming. Population growth, urbanization, and intensive agriculture (which uses large amounts of water for irrigation) put pressure on water resources, resulting in the drying up of rivers around the world. This inadequate management of water resources, including excessive use for irrigation and a lack of investment in water treatment infrastructure, further aggravates the situation.
Franco Berardi Bifo poses a dramatic question: “What can we do when the rivers are drying up?” (Traficantes de Sueños, 2023). This highlights the urgency of action and the need to rethink our consumption and production models beyond the confines of capitalism. The imminent water supply crisis transforms “Day Zero” into a real risk for large cities, requiring immediate and effective responses (Muller, 2018). In this context, the seriousness of global warming, often highlighted in public and scientific debates, was accentuated by a statement of UN Secretary-General António Guterres during the September 2023 climate summit affirming that “humanity has opened the gates of hell” to describe the devastating effects of the climate emergency (Instituto Humanitas Unisinos, 2023).
This statement serves as a stark warning about the far-reaching consequences of climate change, which include more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and storms. Hoesung Lee, former chair of the IPCC, warns that a 1.5 °C increase in global temperature—a critical limit set by the Paris Agreement to avoid severe climate impacts—could be reached as early as this decade if greenhouse gas emissions are not rapidly reduced.
The Paris Agreement, a global pact signed by nearly 200 countries, sets ambitious targets to limit global warming. However, the most recent IPCC report indicates that, with current policies, the world is on track for a temperature increase of well over 1.5 °C, possibly reaching 3 °C by the end of the century. The implications of such an increase would be catastrophic, including the disappearance of entire ecosystems, rising sea levels threatening coastal cities, and widespread food insecurity. This alarming projection underscores the need for immediate and drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Regardless of dystopian future scenarios, it is important to emphasize that extreme weather events are already occurring globally, such as the devastating disaster in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) in 2024, which clearly demonstrates the destructive impacts of global warming. The catastrophe marked by floods and landslides not only reflects the physical consequences of climate change but also exposes political decisions linked to neoliberal economic interests. The repeal of environmental laws, as noted by Mendes (2024), illustrates the conflict between immediate economic interests and ecological preservation, which are fundamental to the resilience of the Earth system. Although regional, this event has global repercussions, highlighting the urgency of actions aligned with the Paris Agreement and the need for integration between environmental policies, urban planning, and risk management. This tragedy represents a microcosm of the challenges faced in the Anthropocene, demanding a critical reassessment of the priorities established by political and economic elites.
Thus, the growing gap between the urgent need for climate action and neoliberal economic priorities exemplifies cognitive dissonance—a situation in which the recognition of a problem does not translate into practical actions, creating a barrier that prevents the implementation of sustainable policies. Furthermore, the concept of climate inertia exacerbates the situation, as even with immediate reductions in emissions, the effects will persist for decades due to the response time of climate systems, such as oceans and glaciers. This inertia requires a proactive and long-term approach that considers not only the reduction of emissions but also adaptation strategies to mitigate the inevitable impacts of climate change.
It is urgent to recognize that climate change transcends borders, revealing the global interconnection of ecosystems, as seen in the rise of sea levels that affects both island nations and coastal cities on different continents. Even economically privileged regions, such as Europe, face significant temperature increases, resulting in more frequent and intense heat waves, prolonged droughts, and devastating forest fires. This demonstrates that the climate crisis does not discriminate against geographic borders or levels of development.
Despite efforts within a neocolonial capitalist logic, piecemeal solutions are inadequate because they ignore the relational nature of the climate crisis. For example, investing in renewable energy in one country while continuing to finance fossil fuel exploitation in another perpetuates the problem rather than solving it. This compartmentalized approach overlooks the fact that greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the world contribute to global warming, affecting all countries.
In this way, in the Latin American scenario, the European Green Deal and EU international trade ultimately promote ecological destruction through “green” extractivism, neglecting human rights and worsening the climate crisis, as Tom Kucharz points out (Ecologistas en Acción, 2023). New extractive agreements facilitate the access of international capital to raw materials, exacerbating inequalities between the Global North and the Global South. This “green colonialism” consolidated by unjust environmental practices perpetuates unequal power relations and causes biodiversity loss and violence against local communities, as demonstrated by conflicts surrounding mining and agribusiness projects.
Brand and Wissen (2021) highlight that the imperial way of life relies on the exploitation of other people’s natural resources, as technological solutions to the climate crisis, such as wind and solar energy, depend on the intensive extraction of rare minerals, perpetuating the cycle of exploitation and degradation. The intersection of ecological and social crises requires a radical reconfiguration of economic structures and the political and ethical paradigms that guide global governance (Latour, 2020).
In short, the current decarbonization project merely greenwashes capitalism without altering patterns of power or the unequal distribution of wealth and resources. This “greening of capitalism” can be seen, for example, in the promotion of carbon credits, which allows companies and countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases while investing in environmental conservation projects elsewhere, often without addressing the structural causes of the climate crisis. In the face of the climate emergency, which is at the heart of geopolitical challenges and intrinsically linked to injustices and inequalities, Latour (2020) warns that it is illusory to expect that the trajectory guided by the hegemonic system will lead us to a shared future where everyone can prosper.
However, humanity lives under the aegis of an international law that is ineffective in the face of the explosion of inequalities, migrations, war refugees, and unprecedented environmental catastrophes. In this context, the elites of the central countries have already convinced themselves that there is no future for everyone within this model. As a result, they are increasingly accumulating not only wealth but also the Earth’s resources, excluding the marginalized populations of the Global South, where Latin America is located (Latour, 2020).
To face these complex challenges, a profound socioeconomic transformation is imperative, based on a fair ecosocial transition and the promotion of the sustainability of life in all its forms, with a view to common equity. The principle of sustainable living is fundamental and proposes that the central focus of all economic, political, and social decisions should be the maintenance and flourishing of life, both human and non-human, through the ethics of care. This implies a radical change in the way we evaluate progress and success.
There is an emerging need to reevaluate the priorities from a perspective that values ecological balance and social justice as fundamental to collective well-being (Herrero, 2018). The author proposes an ecofeminist approach that recognizes the significance of care, interdependence, and responsibility toward future generations. This implies restructuring global priorities to synergistically integrate climate stability, social equity, and genuinely sustainable economic prosperity without compromising resources for future generations.
Climate change, with its increasingly frequent and intense extreme events, is already impacting, directly and indirectly, several fundamental human rights, such as the right to health, food, and decent housing, and, ultimately, the right to life, defined not only as existence but as the right of everyone to maintain and reproduce life in fair and balanced conditions, in harmony with the environment. This complex challenge demands a new perspective on human rights, shifting from an individualistic paradigm to a relational and critical approach, which recognizes the profound interdependence and ecodependence of humans, that is, our total dependence on healthy ecosystems.
The role of law in social transformation depends on a plural and inclusive conception that goes beyond the figure of the abstract and decontextualized individual, considering complex social and environmental relations (Wolkmer & Wolkmer, 2021). Thus, an ontological and epistemological reformulation of human rights becomes necessary, placing them within a relational matrix that includes social, cultural, and ecological interconnections, thereby expanding the scope of protection beyond individuals and emphasizing collective responsibilities to ensure long-term socio-environmental sustainability. This reconceptualization not only broadens the scope of protection for rights, such as the rights of nature, but also emphasizes collective responsibilities in achieving this socio-environmental sustainability.
Amid the extreme inequality fostered by predatory neoliberalism, which exacerbates social disparities and environmental degradation, it is crucial to establish a new paradigm that redefines human existence and our relationship with the planet. This paradigm must be based on the sustainability of life and the ethics of care, promoting a common equity with the fair distribution of resources and opportunities. To achieve this, a regenerative and inclusive economy is essential, one that not only sustains but also regenerates ecosystems and social structures, guaranteeing the human right to life in its fullness.
The proposal is to build a society where the well-being of all is prioritized, creating economic systems that generate value through environmental and social restoration. This economy seeks not only to maintain but also to improve the conditions of ecosystems, promoting practices that ensure balanced and sustainable coexistence. The goal is to build common equity, that is, fair distribution and equitable access to resources, goods, and opportunities that are collectively managed. In the next section, we will advance in highlighting what we call conceptual “germinating seeds”: ideas and theoretical constructs with transformative potential that emerge from the reflection of authors on realities, especially those in Latin American eco-territorial contexts, that can drive a fair eco-social transition, both at a global level and on the Latin American continent.
The Human Right to Life: For Fair Ecosocial Transitions in Latin America
This challenge is not new. The processes of domination have been projected throughout history with renewed forms of normative and militarized neocolonial control to ensure the imperial way of life. In contemporary times, with the deepening of “green” extractivism projects, Latin America, according to Edgardo Lander (as explained by Maristella Svampa in a keynote lecture; see Facultad de Ciencias Sociales UdeC, 2022), is being shaped into a horizon with territories essentially marked by the dynamics of narcotrafficking, extractivism, and violent population control. It is crucial to recognize that extractive practices, particularly mining, have historically been associated with forms of intensive exploitation, whether using highly polluting technologies or labor practices that constitute the new slavery.
In response to this critical situation, the need for alternative paradigms that strongly challenge these forms of exploitation and dehumanization emerges. Wolkmer & Wolkmer (2021) propose an epistemological break with the paradigm of capitalist progress, grounded in an axiological rupture based on the ethics of care and the principle of sustainable living. In this sense, Boff’s (2014) contributions are fundamental in highlighting care as a primordial and intrinsic element of human existence, preceding any action or attitude. Undoubtedly, the ethics of care radiates new principles of conviviality, challenging the capitalist concept of homo economicus, technolatry, and irrational faith in progress. With the ethics of care (Gilligan, 2013), the myth of selfishness is reformulated as a presupposition of rational man.
As developed by ecofeminist thinkers such as Yayo Herrero (2024), this ethic has as its structuring element the principle of sustainable living and a perspective based on the recognition that human beings are interdependent and ecodependent, proposing a radical change in our understanding of human relationships and our interaction with the complex web of life that sustains existence. By establishing a new existential paradigm, this approach criticizes the dominant economic model; it recognizes the human being as an integral part of nature rather than as a separate or superior entity. Thus, historically relegated to the feminine sphere and undervalued, care emerges as an essential organizing principle for the survival and flourishing of all life on Earth.
Corroborating this view, Comins-Mingol (2015) emphasizes the relational nature of the individual from the perspective of caring, prioritizing the preservation of life and interpersonal bonds. Furthermore, this approach, by involving a relational responsibility that transcends human interactions, encompasses our connection with the natural environment. Consequently, care implies a shared responsibility across multiple dimensions, including institutions, communities, human beings, non-human animals, and the environment.
Care is the foundation of democratic coexistence and socio-environmental sustainability, as considered by Boff (2014), in line with the theories of ecological and social interdependence proposed by authors such as Fritjof Capra. Furthermore, it is argued that through care, our objectified vision of nature, which is often oriented toward dom-inating or exploiting it for the sake of economic growth, is transformed in accordance with the principle of sustainable living. This conception represents a strong critique of the predominant instrumental rationality, in line with the currents of decolonial thought.
By positioning care and the sustainability of life as the structuring axis of transformations, this approach dialogues with theories of good living, known as buen vivir, feminist ethics, and Gilligan’s theory of care (2013), challenging the modern dichotomies between nature and culture, production and reproduction. The proposal expands dialogically within the broader scope of contemporary critical theory, which seeks to deconstruct hegemonic narratives of development, suggesting reflections based on relational ontologies.
This theoretical framework not only challenges the foundations of the current socioeconomic order but also highlights the need for a transformative praxis that recognizes the interdependence between humanity and ecosystems. Thus, this reflection is part of a broader project aimed at rebuilding the ethical and epistemological foundations of society, with the goal of overcoming the current civilizational crisis (Wolkmer & Wolkmer, 2021).
The final document titled Pacto Ecosocial do Sul highlights the urgency of outlining “social dynamics capable of responding to and countering the dynamics of capitalist rearrangement, wealth concentration, and ecosystem destruction emerging amid the civilizational crisis and shaping, along with those who wish to join, a collective horizon of transformation for our America that guarantees a dignified future”. Subsequently, in 2023, the proposal Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur was launched, which acknowledges that humanity is already experiencing an ecological collapse process configured by “several interconnected crises (social, economic, political, ecological, health and geopolitical), which strengthen each other and have a civilizational dimension” (Declaración de Bogotá, 2023).
The proposal for a fair intercultural ecosocial transition outlined in the Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur, as well as in others emerging against war culture, does not intend to be an ideal or finished model as a recipe to achieve biocivilization2; however, it appears as a contextualized manifestation of this broader concept, incorporating elements of decolonial thought and Indigenous worldviews. It proposes a pluriversal3 alternative to the hegemonic civilizing model, recognizing biocultural diversity as the foundation for sustainable futures. Thus, the proposed transition aims not at a predetermined endpoint but at an evolving horizon characterized by the coexistence of multiple forms of life and social organization, guided by sustainable living in its ecological and cultural plenitude.
In this document, there are no certainties, only objectives guided by principles. There is no renunciation of epistemological achievements based on geographic criteria; the pluriverse is not chaotic, and reproducing life in the face of climate collapse requires global alliances. Therefore, in the face of the severe civilizational crisis affecting humanity, it is essential to consider the concrete possibilities for a fair transition centered on the realization of human rights and biodignity rights.
The Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur proposes the construction of libertarian collective autonomy, aiming at community emancipation through self-management and horizontal organization. This approach seeks to harmonize individual freedom and collective well-being, addressing the global ecological crisis through intercultural dialogue. The proposal interweaves global and territorial dimensions, recognizing the interconnectedness of solutions within the Earth system while emphasizing the importance of situated and territorialized knowledge.
It is imperative to highlight the libertarian socio-philosophical and legal theoretical propositions from Latin America. However, it is not enough to underscore that a fair ecosocial transition is not possible without an intercultural and pluriversal dialogue that considers the shift towards critical thinking based on the ethics of care and the biocivilizational horizon without inserting the geopolitical perspective. This implies the need to formulate a new conceptual framework for complex and interdisciplinary critical analysis directed toward a decolonial ecopolitical dimension.
As Svampa (2024) warns, a fair and comprehensive ecosocial transition must necessarily be articulated in a geopolitical perspective to be consequential. The Global North must reframe its economic growth and way of life within the limits imposed by nature’s regenerative cycles without exploiting the rest of the world and creating zones of sacrifice and death. As Bringel & Svampa (2023) indicate, a fair ecosocial transition cannot be a future promise; there are a variety of experiences that can inspire popular and territorial ecosocial transitions, whose strategic axes are, according to the authors, energy, food, production and consumption, work and care, infrastructure, culture and subjectivity, and political and normative dispute.
The urgency is evident because ecofascist solutions prevail in the global scenario, bringing new modalities of domination with dispossession dynamics articulated by “green” extractivist colonialism. The ecofascist transition, as conceptualized by Taibo (2022), refers to a response to ecological and climate crises. It is a militarized Social Darwinism in the face of imminent environmental collapse, prioritizing the survival of political and economic elites to the detriment of most of the population and democratic principles.
In conjunction with growing climate problems, marked by extreme events, rising sea levels, and increasing inequality that undermine the most basic conditions of survival, a consideration of this context is no longer a regional necessity in Latin America or even in peripheral countries. In fact, green colonialism, in a new stage marked by disputes between hegemonic powers, is colonizing some countries in the Global North, as already mentioned, with brutal green extractivism. A notable example is the exploration of lithium in Portugal (DGEG, 2022), which presents important data on the extraction plans and their possible impacts, allowing a critical analysis of the socio-environmental implications of this process. Indeed, the hegemonic countries are transforming Portugal into an energy colony, making the transformation processes more complex.
Understanding what it means to think about a fair transition based on the principles of sustainable living and care is urgent, given the current situation and projections for the future. As Yayo Herrero (2024) states, it is “imperative and necessary to analyze the emerging historical cycle as a new era of uncertainty and contingency in all aspects, with ecological destruction as a determining factor” (p. 4). Moreover, it is essential to emphasize that the central axis of the transition must be the inclusion of all peoples, as the exclusionary triage criteria established by countries that hold economic privileges and the monopoly of the capitalist system cannot be accepted.
The fair ecosocial transition “must be an exercise of political responsibility, [...] a commitment to building a society that does not abandon those most in need, preserves the environment and defends democracy, abolishing all forms of violence” (Herrero, 2024, p. 8). This transition is not only a response to the ecological crisis but also an opportunity to build more just and resilient societies capable of guaranteeing a dignified life for all within planetary limits. In this sense, the fair ecosocial transition is a process of radical transformation of socioeconomic and cultural structures aimed at creating sustainable and equitable societies.
This concept encompasses: a) the principle of sustainable living in all its dimensions, with the recognition of human ecodependence and interdependence, a profound cultural change in social values and practices towards a biocivilization; b) the ethics of care as the basis for the reorganization of work and the economy with the polycentric relocation of the economy and co-responsibility of local communities; and c) the dimension of community democracy with democratic processes for decision-making on production and consumption that promote common equity with the redistribution of collectively produced wealth (Herrero, 2017).
The decolonization and depatriarchalization of society are necessary to lead to non-patriarchal, non-capitalist, and non-racist forms of social organization. It is essential for the Liberación de la Madre Tierra to remake the relationships between humans and non-humans, to weave several spaces, the buen vivir, in which, in the evocation of Zapatismo, “many worlds fit” (Wolkmer & Wolkmer, 2021). The planning and implementation of transitions, whether ecosocial or ecofascist, will take place in a physical scenario of material scarcity and contraction.
Faced with this reality, Herrero (2024, p. 7) argues that human beings, whether we like it or not, will have to build life together in the context of material contraction. In this way, material contraction refers to the urgent need to reduce the consumption of material and energy resources, especially in industrialized societies and the wealthiest sectors of the global population. This concept is based on an understanding of the biophysical limits of the planet and a criticism of the model of infinite economic growth.
Degrowth, therefore, is the physical framework in which political proposals must be developed that focus on guaranteeing dignified conditions of existence. It can be a monstrous context that massively expels human life, or it can illuminate free, just, and democratic societies. The ethics of sufficiency, like a compass, can be defined as a guiding principle that seeks to achieve a virtuous path through democratically guided material contraction, with its radical priority being to sustain concrete, dignified lives with full rights.
Herrero’s perspective, in line with the Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur, reinforces the urgency of a just ecosocial transition that not only recognizes the material limits of the planet but also challenges the patriarchal, colonial, and capitalist structures that have perpetuated inequalities and ecological destruction. The construction of a biocivilization, as mentioned above, must necessarily incorporate these dimensions of depatriarchalization and decolonization, promoting a profound cultural change that goes beyond mere economic or technological reorganization.
Thus, the just ecosocial transition is not only a response to the ecological crisis but also a holistic project of social transformation that seeks to create more equitable, sustainable, and respectful societies for all forms of life, human and non-human. Those reflections and proposals, based on a global intercultural dialogue, must define what the elements of a fair transition are to build a life in common. To achieve this, it is essential to understand the context of ecological collapse and its implications for the realization of human rights.
Considering that uncertainties are accumulating, as the climate emergency is configuring a highly unstable context, having seen the occurrence of extreme events or even the scarcity of food that already affects a large part of humanity, the question that arises is the following: how will critical thinking give a new meaning to human rights in a context of scarcity of natural resources and ecological collapse? It is a rebellion, where the fight for a new way of life radiates and reframes human rights as biodignity rights. The principle of sustainable living establishes the minimum that all human beings are entitled to live, and the ethics of care imply the indispensable platform of action for a human right to the future, aiming to build a fair and sustainable future for all forms of life.
To extinguish the flame of hope, it is worth remembering that the trenches of ideas are worth more than the trenches of stone (Martí, 2004). In this sense, for the principle of sustainable living to be politically effective on different scales, it is necessary to question the values, desires, and dreams that shape the imaginary happiness associated with capitalism. This article argues that problematizing the civilizational model based on economic growth using macroeconomic indicators that disguise the confrontation of the crisis with false solutions is essential; however, it is crucial to go beyond diagnosis.
Thus, the principle of sustainable living as the foundation of a fair ecosocial transition implies the awareness that one must act in the face of the deepening crisis with new legal, political, and economic instruments. There is no possible horizon beyond biocivilization that is guided by this principle. The just ecological transition must be a collective process of “reorganizing life in common to ensure a dignified existence for all people and communities. This right must be fulfilled on a planet whose limits have already been exceeded, and which is shared with the rest of the living world and must be preserved for future generations” (Herrero, 2024, p. 9).
In this sense, Arturo Escobar (2017) suggests that the notion of the supplementary and independent subject, a product of modern Western thought, should be challenged by relational ontology. The importance of relationality, as well as the understanding that all beings are interconnected, is necessary, as overcoming the crisis requires more than individual awareness that leads to consumption restrictions.
Relationality implies dynamics of reciprocity and care, both among human beings, known as interdependence, and between humans and nature, referred to as ecodependence. This involves an ethics of care for an inter-existence based on biodignity. According to Escobar (2017), existence cannot be defined or guaranteed outside the relational framework. On the other hand, the relational conceptual framework redefines democracy based on the principles of the commons and ecology as multi-species solidarity.
In this regard, it is important to bring forth these principles, which, according to Escobar (2018, p. 48), can assume the following forms: a) re-communalization of social life, which emerges as an alternative to individualism, strengthening relationships of interdependence with all forms of life and prioritizing collective strategies of cooperation to dismantle a system based on exploitation and inequality; b) relocation of activities that meet fundamental human needs, encouraging ways of life in harmony with ecosystems; and c) consolidation of local autonomies through self-managed community networks, with horizontal political organization and respect for cultural diversity, confronting the imposition of a homogeneous state law that serves, above all, the interests of capital.
In this direction, the current economic model, based on the illusion of infinite growth on a planet with finite resources, is up against the Earth’s biophysical limits, making material and energy decline an inescapable necessity, not a mere option. It is urgent to rebuild the economy within ecological and social limits, prioritizing equity and the well-being of all by abandoning the linear logic of production and adopting closed cycles, where nothing becomes waste, drawing inspiration from the wisdom of nature. Putting life at the center means valuing the work that sustains it while dismantling an economy based on extraction and destruction. Ultimately, this transformation is not a single path but a collective construction that must emerge from diverse voices, struggles, and knowledge toward a new terrestrial culture (Ecologists in Action, 2023).
In short, humanity finds itself at a critical point in history, where the decisions and actions will determine the future of life on the planet. Faced with global ecological challenges—climate emergency, massive loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, widespread pollution, and growing inequality in access to vital resources—two divergent paths are emerging. The first, already underway, manifests itself in ecofascist forms of competition for remaining resources, reflecting an exclusionary and potentially catastrophic approach for most of the world’s population. In the ecofascist transition (Taibo, 2022), there is no place for all human beings.
The international economic elite seeks to naturalize the “imperial way of life” only for the “truly human,” excluding the Global South. This way of life, based on excessive consumption and unsustainable exploitation of resources, cannot be generalized globally. Consequently, there is a discursive offensive against human rights, as well as an opposition to ecological protection policies, combined with a veritable war of plunder in territories rich in natural resources, which are essential for the adaptation of the Global North to the climate emergency.
In this scenario, nationalist devices are revived, such as the concept of “national vital space,” which legitimizes the plundering of Latin America and other regions of the Global South. This ecofascist approach represents a threat not only to ecological social justice but also to the very survival of humanity (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2024). The second path proposes a democratic organization of the just ecosocial transition in opposition to the ecofascist narrative. The principle of sustainable living guides and structures just ecosocial transitions towards a new existential paradigm based on the ethics of care in terms of the right to life.
The current reality underscores the urgent need to rethink social and economic structures, where dynamics based on unbridled competition, exclusionary meritocracy, and class privileges have resulted in an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which demonstrates that a new vision, one that recognizes the inherent value of all forms of life, is imperative. This is not about individual autonomy as a fundamental element, but rather about the concept of relational and interconnected autonomy, which encompasses both humans and non-humans.
This perspective redefines the human right to life, expanding it to include the right to existence of all life forms on the planet. Unlike other conceptions of dignity, this vision integrates human beings into broader entities—the cosmic order or nature—recognizing that protecting these is fundamental to protecting humanity. Without this holistic understanding, any protection granted to humans becomes empty and unsustainable (Wolkmer & Wolkmer, 2021). Therefore, a just ecosocial transition oriented towards realizing the right to life and the future must organize life in common around the principles of sustainable living and the ethics of care. This is the challenge for Latin America!
Final Considerations
Anthropogenic climate emergency and other factors are affecting and destroying objective living conditions on a global scale. Humans are experiencing extreme situations that indicate an imminent collapse process, with the point of no return possibly close. In this chaotic context, the recovery of humanistic action requires guiding principles that nourish hope and the ability to influence reality, aiming at a fair ecosocial transition.
The principle-based proposals outlined above, such as democratically guided material contraction and the ethics of sufficiency, are fundamental and inspire intercultural dialogue. Different experiences are weaving together ways of life that recognize the interdependence between humans and nature, aligning with the concept of ecodependence. From the synthesis of these ideas, two fundamental principles emerge, namely the principle of sustainable living and the ethics of care. These principles can foster synergistic actions at different scales, establishing bridges between Latin America and the Global North, which shape a new conception of the human right to life, recognizing our interdependence and ecodependence.
The conclusion emphasizes the need for: a) a new anthropological principle beyond competition, that is, “I need others, others need me”; b) the relational construction of collective life; c) collective autonomy through instituting processes of plural normativity in a multi-species paradigm; d) nature restoration and regeneration processes in all spaces; e) the recognition and affirmation of subsistence for all peoples as an affirmation of the right to life; f) pluriverse and plurirights oriented by the principle of sustainable living and care; and g) the recognition and integration of the diversity of plural legal and regulatory systems that exist in different cultures, guided by the principles of sustainable living, the ethics of care, and the rights of nature.
To effectively realize the right to life and the future, these principles offer a way to harmonize human needs with the processes of nature and all beings that are part of the fabric of life. The pressing challenge facing Latin America is to institute a radical change in the way society is organized, building a new model of harmonious coexistence with nature where care, sustainability, and justice are the pillars of our society.
References
Boff, L. (2014). Saber cuidar: ética do humano, compaixão pela terra. Editora Vozes.
Boff, L. (2000, October 2). A dignidade da Terra e seus Direitos. Fórum Mudanças Climáticas e Justiça Socioambiental. https://fmclimaticas.org.br/artigo-de-leonardo-boff-a-dignidade-da-terra-e-seus-direitos/
Brand, U. & Wissen, M. (2021). Modo de vida imperial. Sobre a exploração de seres humanos e da natureza no capitalismo global. Edição Tadeu Breda.
Bringel, B. & Svampa, M. (2023). Del “Consenso de los Commodities” al “Consenso de la Descarbonización.” Nueva Sociedad, 306. https://nuso.org/articulo/306-del-consenso-de-los-commodities-al-consenso-de-la-descarbonizacion/
Comins-Mingol, I. (2015). La ética del cuidado en sociedades globalizadas: hacia una ciudadanía cosmopolita. Thémata, 52, 159–178. https//doi.com/10.12795/themata.2015.i52.09
Dardot, P. & Laval, C. (2021). Dominar: Estudio sobre la soberanía del Estado de Occidente. Gedisa
Declaración de Bogotá (2023). Hacia un Pacto con la Tierra. Geopolítica de las transiciones y re-existencias. https://pactoecosocialdelsur.com/declaracion-de-bogota/
DGEG (Direção Geral de Energia e Geologia) (2022). Avaliação Ambiental - Lítio - Declaração Ambiental. https://www.dgeg.gov.pt/pt/destaques/avaliacao-ambiental-litio-declaracao-ambiental/
Ecologistas en Acción (2023, December 18). ¿Transición verde o colonialismo verde? [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT439q0vfQs&t=974s
Escobar, A. (2017). Autonomía y diseño: La realización de lo comunal. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Escobar, A. (2018). Otro posible es posible: Caminando hacia las transiciones desde Abya Yala/Afro/Latino-América. Ediciones Desde Abajo.
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales UdeC (2022, April 29). Crisis ecológica, neoextractivismo y dilemas de la Transición desde el Sur [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqq5-JxlvRs&t=3615s
Fraser, N. (2024). Capitalismo Canibal: Como nosso sistema está devorando a nossa democracia, o cuidado e o planeta e o que podemos fazer a respeito disso. Autonomia Literária.
Germano, G. (2023, October 9). Os 9 Limites do Planeta. Mercy for Animals. https://mercyforanimals.org.br/blog/6-dos-9-limites-planetarios-ja-foram-ultrapassados-segundo-estudo-publicado-pelo-centro-de-resiliencia-de-estocolmo/
Gilligan, C. (2013). La ética del cuidado. Cuadernos de la Fundación Victor Grifols i Lucas.
Herrero, Y. (2017). Cooperar y cuidar de lo común para sobrevivir. In Rebeldías en común: sobre comunales, nuevos comunes y economías colaborativas (pp. 215–223). Madrid: Ecologistas en Acción. https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/libro-rebeldias-en-comun.pdf
Herrero, Y. (2023). Toma de tierra: apuntes para situar la vida en el centro. CaniCHE.
Herrero, Y. (2024). Transición Ecosocial Justa. Dossieres EsF, 52, 4–6. https://ecosfron.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Dossieres-EsF-52-Transicion-Ecosocial-Justa.pdf
Instituto Humanitas Unisinos (2023, September 21). “A humanidade abriu as portas do inferno”, alerta António Guterres, secretário-geral da ONU. https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/categorias/632542-a-humanidade-abriu-as-portas-do-inferno-alerta-antonio-guterres-secretario-geral-da-onu
Instituto Humanitas Unisinos (2020, September 1). Ecofeminismo. Artigo de Vandana Shiva. https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/categorias/602416-ecofeminismo-artigo-de-vandana-shiva
Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F. & Acosta, A. (Coords.). (2019). Pluriverso. Un diccionario del posdesarrollo (pp. 181–184). Icaria.
Lander, E. (2023). La transición energética corporativa-colonial. In G. I. García Parra & K. Batthyány (Eds.), Transiciones justas. Una agenda de cambios para América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 13–24). Oxfam & CLACSO. https://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/bitstream/CLACSO/248403/1/Transiciones-justas.pdf
Latour, B. (2020). Onde aterrar? Bazar do Tempo.
Marques, L. (2023a). O decênio decisivo: propostas para uma política de sobrevivência. Elefante.
Marques, L. (2023b). O Relatório da Organização Meteorológica Mundial. Um rápido comentário. Jornal Unicamp. https://www.jornal.unicamp.br/artigo/2024/03/26/o-relatorio-da-organizacao-meteorologica-mundial-um-rapido-comentario/#gsc.tab=0
Martí, J. (2004). Nuestra América. UNAM.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits of Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. A Potomac Associates Book.
Mendes, A. (2024, May 28). Os falsários da grande farsa do negacionismo. Brasil 247. https://www.brasil247.com/blog/os-falsarios-da-grande-farsa-do-negacionismo
Riechmann, J. (2012). Independientes y ecodependientes: Ensayos desde la ética ecológica (y hacia ella). Proteus Libros y Servicios Editoriales.
Rivas, P. (2024, March 2). Mickaël Correia: “La transición energética es un mito, lo que necesitamos es una ruptura civilizatoria.” El Salto. https://www.elsaltodiario.com/cambio-climatico/mickael-correia-criminales-transicion-energetica-mito-ruptura-civilizatoria
Stengers, I. (2015). No Tempo das Catástrofes. Cosac Naify.
Stockholm Resilience Centre (2024). Planetary boundaries. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
Svampa, M. (2024, May 31). Rio Grande do Sul: colapsos localizados, dívida ecológica e políticas públicas. Elefante. https://editoraelefante.com.br/rio-grande-do-sul-colapsos-localizados-divida-ecologica-e-politicas-publicas/
Taibo, C. (2022). Ecofascismo. Una introducción. 2nd ed. Catarata.
Traficantes de Sueños (2023, April 25). ¿Qué podemos hacer? Franco Berardi Bifo [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu70pa2gMfM
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (2024, May 14). Transiciones ecosociales y justicia global. Diálogo 1: Geopolítica de las Transiciones Ecosociales [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY7TIjgmcR4
Wolkmer, A. C. & Wolkmer, M. de F. S. (2021). Descolonizando processos de institucionalidade epistêmica e normativa: a busca por novo sentido plural de convivência no “comum.” Revista Culturas Jurídicas, 8(20), 317–344.
World Wildlife Fund (2020). Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/LPR20_Full_report.pdf
1 In the article “A dignidade da Terra e seus Direitos” (2000) and other texts, Boff defends the sacredness of life in a broad sense, articulating dignity to the life of the Earth, of animals, of plants, of water—dignity as the right to exist, flourish, and reproduce.
2 According to Cândido Grzybowski, the concept of biocivilization refers to the search for alternative horizons, based on biocultural diversity and overcoming the nature–culture dichotomy promoted by Western modernity (Kothari et al., 2019).
3 Arturo Escobar (2017) proposes a pluriversal perspective that recognizes and values the coexistence of multiple ways of being, knowing, and living, as opposed to the universal perspective that promotes the idea of a single homogeneous universe. The pluriversal seeks to overcome colonial hierarchies of knowledge and promote a horizontal dialogue between different worldviews and practices.
* This reflection was initially presented in the Workshop “The Legal ‘Open Veins’ of Latin America: Critical Theory as a Contemporary Philosophical Path,” during the XXXI IVR World Congress “The Rule of Law, Justice and the Future of Democracy,” held at Soongsil University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, July 7-12, 2024, as well as at the Annual Meeting of the Research Committee on the Sociology of Law (International Sociological Association), Bangor University (Wales), September 3-6, 2024.
** Antonio Carlos Wolkmer. PhD in Law. Professor of graduate programs in law at UNILASALLE-RS (MA and PhD in Law) and Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense (UNESC-SC), and Professor Emeritus at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC). Member of the Brazilian Lawyers Institute (RJ). A 1-A researcher at the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and an ad hoc consultant at CAPES. Member of the Argentine Society of Legal Sociology. Also, a member of the Working Group “Critical Legal Thinking and Sociopolitical Conflicts,” and the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO, Buenos Aires/Mexico). Member of the International Political Science Association (IPSA, Canada) and the Research Committee on Sociology of Law (RCSL). Visiting professor of graduate courses at several universities in Brazil and abroad (Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Spain, and Italy). acwolkmer@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1958-8433.
*** Maria de Fatima Schumacher Wolkmer. PhD in Law. Postdoctorate from UNILASALLE-RS, collaborating in a Project with the CNPq. Professor of undergraduate and graduate courses at UNESC-SC (2017-2021). Researcher in the Project “Water institutional praxis as common wellbeing and care ethics: building paths towards the realization of the human right to water.” Coordinator of the Red Commun of UNESC-SC (2017-2021). mfwolkmer@yahoo.com.br. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4887-5263.
**** Daniela Mesquita Leutchuk de Cademartori. Professor of undergraduate and graduate courses (MA and PhD) at UNILASALLE Canoas/RS. Coordinator of the research project “Historicity, new grammars of human rights, and citizenship in Brazil: A look from the Latin American and African perspective.” Coordinator of the Research Group on Legal Pluralism and Human Rights at UNILASALLE-RS (Brazil). daniela.cademartori@unilasalle.edu.br. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2718-4770