[en] Sustainable development, defined by the BrundtIand Commission as 'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs', relates to a number of issues such as population, health, food, species and ecosystems, energy, industrial development, urbanization, societal issues and economy, and how these global challenges could be met within a long term strategy. It is not obvious how the principle may be applied to final disposal of radioactive waste, but the global scope of the principle suggests that no sector in society should be exempted from scrutinizing its practices in the light of the challenge presented by sustainable development. Waste management, as pointed out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, cannot be seen as a free standing practice in need of its own justification. The produced waste cannot be seen separately from the other components of nuclear production. However, the existence of very long-lived radioactive nuclei in the spent fuel warrants a careful examination of this subpractice. Health based post-closure criteria or standards for long-lived waste, usually make use of the concept of partitioning dose limit. ICRP recommends that individuals in the public do not receive a yearly dose in excess of 1 mSv as a result of releases in connection with activities involving the use of ionising radiation, and that any single facility does not generate a dose burden to individuals in excess of a fraction of this value. For an operating facility, this fraction is normally at least a factor of three. By definition, operational changes are not possible for a closed repository. It follows from this that the partitioning has another function. One interpretation is that it can allow for the simultaneous use and burdens of future generation's activities. Both the Swedish and the proposed US criteria and from EPA and NRC, as well as standards from Canada, UK and others make use of partitioning or have sufficient margins to incorporate the proposed aspect of sustainable development. International guidance is sufficiently protective to allow for sustainable development in the context presented here. Taking sustainable development into account does not necessarily imply that the partitioning value should be the same for all, or that differences in national legislative systems should not be recognized. Instead, it is an aspect to be taken into account as protective systems develop along with other parts of resource and risk management for the future