The Earth has no vote, no veto and no institution answerable for the integrity of the whole. This article argues that this is not a political failure but a constitutional one, and that it is produced by the design of the legal order rather than by any single government or ideology. Law works by dividing: territory into states, authority into jurisdictions, harm into attributable acts. The biosphere does not divide. Between 2024 and 2025 three judicial bodies moved in the same direction — the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, and the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 23 July 2025 — clarifying that states owe binding obligations of climate protection. The Court went further, holding the customary duty to prevent significant transboundary harm to be an obligation erga omnes. The article shows why this closes less of the gap than it appears to: recognising a legal interest in the whole is not the same as assigning responsibility for it. No standing body measures the cumulative condition of the Earth system, verifies what each state is doing and acts when the sum falls short. The article separates two claims that are usually merged — a structural diagnosis, which it holds to be robust, and a proposed constitutional architecture of four bodies, which it presents as a testable hypothesis and invites specialists to refute. Serious objections from readers working in international law, Earth-system governance, ecological economics or climate litigation are expressly invited.
Donald Jacob (Thu,) studied this question.