This article examines the role of environmental human rights and the rights of nature in the era of the Anthropocene. The research question is whether the concept of the Anthropocene itself is a constructive remedy for the ecological destruction.
The United Nations General Assembly resolution acknowledging a universal human right to clean environment is a ground-breaking event in a long process of the creation of such a right. This article examines the status quo of this right at present, both generally and in regional human rights treaties, as well as in the relevant case law and literature. The rights of nature are also examined, as they have become a very topical issue in light of the recent decision of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which expressly grants such a right. The question which may be posed is whether the approach adopted by the Anthropocene – which treats all actors equally – reflects the reality. The Western (Global North) approaches to the destruction of the Earth are contested by the Global South. The fractured approaches (by both the Global South and the Global North) to the decline of the environment may render questionable the suitability of the Anthropocene paradigm.

Hans Frank, who had been the Governor General of the Eastern territories since 25 October 1939, relocated his office to Cracow in line with his intentions and with the consent of Hitler. Frank considered Warsaw “prey” at that time and a future “field of rubble”. The Führer approved the relocation of the Governor General’s office and thus cleared the way for the demolition of the city. Warsaw, which capitulated on 28 September 1939, became a city of secondary importance and one of the administrative centres of the four districts of the newly established General Government. This suggests the conclusion – which is the thesis developed in the present article – that at the beginning there was no official systematic urban development plan for Warsaw. The previous research initiated by Helena Syrkusowa (1973) was based on the assumption of controlled urban development planning; in terms of urban development, parallels with the Gau Wartheland-Poznań model were looked for. The newly discovered source materials do not confirm these assumptions.

Warsaw Mayor Oskar Dengel had a plan to commission urban planner Hubert Groß and to make the population dwindle to a minimum, to reduce the city radically through urban planning, to design a “New German City” and to erect new buildings for the party and government while preserving the old town. Such a plan was his private initiative, entirely confined to municipal administration and was not coordinated with Berlin or Cracow.

The idea of a “New German City”, developed by the Reich planners for German cities such as Würzburg, Poznań and others intended for redevelopment, and for the occupied and annexed cities such as Prague or Vienna, does not apply in this case. A programme for Warsaw comparable with the “New Redevelopment Programme” never existed.

The second planning stage is characterised by the plans of the Chief Development Officers Friedrich Papst and Friedrich Gollert in 1942/43 (Hans-Hubert Leufgen architecture firm). These plans were developed with the target to demolish buildings promoting the identity such as the Castle.

The “Warsaw Case” is a peculiarity of German urban and space planning in the East European territories occupied by the Nazis; both the plans were designed for different normative reasons and show no continuity. The procedure for Warsaw, conceived seemingly only as bureaucracy, also provides evidence of the highly problematic, charged and hitherto undocumented atmosphere in urban and space planning during National Socialism, and was constantly accompanied by shifts in competences.

The present study broadens the already existent discussion about the urban development planning for Warsaw at several levels, among others allowing for the aspects of the spatial planning research, such as urban planning, and considering the backdrop of the occupation practices of the National Socialists in the General Government.