This article begins by questioning the capacity of the concept of sustainable development to stabilize social reproduction and foster global justice. Based on interdisciplinary perspectives on global governance, it discusses the way in which global law fails to cope with the resonance of advanced capitalism in the world society and ecological systems. Our analysis focuses on the regulatory and institutional features of three interwoven functional regulatory regimes (global finance, energy, and environmental protection), which demonstrate structural governance dysfunction at the expense of ecological integrity and justice in the global realm. The article further examines the capacity of global law to foster a ‘compositive’ and ‘compensatory’ contribution to global justice and the stability of the Earth system through global constitutionalism. In this context, it concludes that Neil Walker's global law approach provides a fertile analytical framework for describing the patterns of interaction between different species of global law but proves to be particularly ‘slippery’ in its normative propositions regarding the gap between global law and justice. Drawing from the Earth system approach, we argue in favour of a global material constitutionalism, recognizant of ecosystemic boundaries and socio-environmental impacts of the global socio-economic metabolism. We consider that the gap between global law and global justice is best addressed by devising more deliberative patterns of transnational governance, as well as ecosystem and human rights approaches, in order to accommodate the fair and equitable internalization of material limits across global regulatory regimes that act as functionally differentiated economic constitutions of advanced capitalism.

中文翻译：

---

全球治理、可持续性和地球系统：对全球法作用的批判性思考

本文首先质疑可持续发展概念在稳定社会再生产和促进全球正义方面的能力。基于全球治理的跨学科视角，探讨了全球法未能应对先进资本主义在世界社会和生态系统中的共振的方式。我们的分析侧重于三个相互交织的功能性监管制度（全球金融、能源和环境保护）的监管和制度特征，这表明结构性治理功能失灵，牺牲了全球领域的生态完整性和正义。本文进一步检验了全球法律通过全球宪政促进对全球正义和地球系统稳定性的“综合性”和“补偿性”贡献的能力。在这种情况下，它得出结论认为，尼尔·沃克的全球法方法为描述不同种类的全球法之间的相互作用模式提供了一个丰富的分析框架，但在其关于全球法与正义之间差距的规范性命题中被证明是特别“狡猾”的。借鉴地球系统方法，我们主张全球物质宪政主义，承认生态系统边界和全球社会经济新陈代谢的社会环境影响。我们认为，最好通过设计更具审议性的跨国治理模式以及生态系统和人权方法来解决全球法律与全球正义之间的差距，