Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as ‘access and allocation’, to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote ‘conservative’ or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

在过去的 20 年里，环境正义问题不断地在本期刊中得到报道。本文回顾了 INEA 学术中正义的理论和实证方法，以确定趋势并为 2030 年议程的解释和实施以及生活在环境限制内吸取教训。我们的评论追溯了正义考虑最初是如何在关于集体行动和社会实践的新制度主义学术研究中涵盖的，到将正义概念化为“获取和分配”，再到行星正义的新概念。我们将这些趋势与各种认识论和正义类型学（包括保守正义、纠正正义、分配正义和程序正义）的学术研究联系起来，并检验它们在气候经验领域内的运作，水和可持续发展。最后，我们提出了对 2030 年可持续发展议程的影响。我们认为，公正的方法对于生活在环境限制内至关重要，集体行动和社会实践方法之间需要更大的协同作用。虽然出于实际和政治原因可以将正义分解为获取和分配，但我们发现（程序性）获取考虑在实践中比关注分配（分配正义）在政治上更受欢迎，而分配（分配正义）仍然存在更多争议。因此，占主导地位的方法提倡“保守”或薄弱的基于市场的正义观念。我们最后指出，公正分配是公正访问的先决条件。毫无疑问，未能优先考虑和实现更具纠正性和分配性的正义形式将