Taqwadin__Danil_Akbar_-_Green_theory.pdf

Lembaga Kajian Hukum Aceh/Aceh’s Aceh/Aceh’s Legal Studies, Indonesia

Green “International Relations” Theory Danil Akbar Taqwadin

1

Introduction The 1960s marked the beginning of widespread public concern over environmental degradation in the developed countries of the West. However, it took almost a decade of persistent political agitation over such matters as pesticides, nuclear power plants, toxic waste dumps, large scale industrial developments, and pollution before an “environmental crisis” was officially recognized as a matter of local, national and international concern. The first Earth day celebrations in 1970, the emergence of preventive mechanism of new environmental laws in Western countries in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the development of interdisciplinary environmental studies programs in higher education institutes, and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, were all represent significant landmarks of national and international recognition of environmental problems (Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach, 1992). Environmental problems have never been central preoccupation in the discipline of International Relations studies, which has traditionally focused on questions of ‘high politics’ such as security and interstate conflict. However, the escalation in trans-boundary environmental problems from 1970s onwards marked the emergenced of a sub-field of IR concerned with international environmental cooperation. The study focused primarily on the management of common resources such as major river systems, the oceans, and the atmosphere (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Moreover, this theory has growing widely since the increasing relations between global economic and ecological interdependence, and the emergence of uniquely global ecological problems; such as climate change, the thinning of ozone layer, and the erosion of the Earth’s biodiversity. The complex problem of global glob al warming gives an especially different illustration of diverse ways in which ‘real’ environmental problems are connect to one another through different theoretical lenses in the discipline of IR. Eckersleys (2006) argue that, in the main orthodox IR theory, realists typically dismiss the problem of environmental as peripheral of the main game of international politics (low politics), unless the consequences of the problem itself can be shown directly threatened the national security of the country. Neoliberals, in contrast, are more likely to offer advice on how to adjust incentive structures in solving the global environmental problems to stimulate inter-state cooperation (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006).

Background Growth in the number and magnitude of harms human attitude towards environment and in our awareness of those harms has produced many of theories on why international environmental 1

Member of LKHA ( Lembaga Kajian Kajian Hukum Hukum Aceh/Aceh’s Aceh/Aceh’s Institute Institute of Legal Studies) & Lecturer’s Assistant at FISIP Unsyiah (Faculty of Social Science & Politics, Syiah Kuala University, Aceh/Indonesia).

1 | International Environmental Studies

Lembaga Kajian Hukum Aceh/Aceh’s Legal Studies, Indonesia

problems are ubiquitous and increasing (Mitchell, 2002). Environmental degradation caused by human activity has a long and complex history. However, until the period of European global expansion and the industrial revolution, environmental degradation is generally remained uneven and relatively localized (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Utilization of the Earth’s natural resources can be looked back many centuries ago, but the crucial turning point was the industrial revolution, which led to fundamental changes in manufacturing activities and resulted in far greater stresses on the natural environment. Industrial expansion were caused rapid investment, technological innovation, unprecedented population growth and the large-scale movement of people from rural to urban areas and from towns to cities (Garner, 1996). The 1960s is taken to mark the birth of the ‘modern’ environment movement as a widespread and persistent social movement that has publicized and criticized the environmental ‘sideeffects’ of the long economic boom following the WWII. Rapid economic growth, the proliferation of new technologies, and rising population in this period generated increasing energy and resources consumption, new sources and rising level of pollution and waste production, and the rapid erosion of earth’s biodiversity (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). The United Nations Environment Assessment reported that in March 2005, found that approximately 60% of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth are being degraded or used unsustainably (UNEP, 2005). Unlike the military threats, which are deliberate, discrete, specific, and require an immediate response, environmental problems are typically unintended, diffuse, transboundary, operate over long time scales, implicate a wide range of actors, and require painstaking negotiation and cooperation among the of many stakeholders. Yet, environmental problems sometimes described as ‘wicked problems’ because their complexity, variability, irreducibility, intractability, and incidental character. Most of environmental risks have crept up, as it were, on rapidly modernizing world as the unforeseen side-effects of otherwise acceptable practices (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006).

Green Theories Philosophically, human duties in the natural world arise from both our ability to consider our place in relation to nature and also from the fact that we can exercise enourmous amount of power -whether for good or bad purpose- over it. First, we consume resources, we pollute the environment with waste products, and we create landscape or reclaim land from the sea. And also, it might be said that man ‘has certainly won the contest between animal species in that is only on his sufferance that any other species exist at all, amongst any species large enough to be seen at any rate’ (James Connelly & Graham Smith, 2003). Second, human beings not only cause environmental destruction, human also able to develop and implement solutions of destruction. The ability to manipulate the natural world in accordance with our own ends goes together with the ability to reason about our exercise of that power, but as it would appear that our ability to reason about our responsibilities still lack behind our ability to manipulate nature, and we are



currently facing with the challenge of generating an ethics suitable for our behavior (James Connelly & Graham Smith, 2003). The flourishing of environmental ethics in recent years had produced a wide range of moral extensionist theories. These are generally intermediate perspectives, which accept Greater Value Assumption that humans are only creature able to value, but that humans are not only bearers of value (Carter, 2007). As stated by Norton (1991), “ Introducing the idea that other species have intrinsic value, that humans should be ‘fair’ to all other species, provides no operationally recognizable constraints on human behavior that are not already implicit in the generalized, cross-temporal obligations to protect a healthy, complex, and autonomously functioning system for the benefit of future generations of human beings”. As result, this kind of concern and problems was widely shared by both policy makers and political theorist and made great development of green theories. Along with the growing tension that developed between the demand for environmental reform, on the one hand, and redistributive justice and economic security, on the other hand, has remained an enduring and vexed issue in eco-political discussion (Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach, 1992). It was in the late 1980s that a distinctly ‘green’ and political theory emerged to give voice to the interrelated concerns of the new social movements (environment, peace, anti-nuclear, women’s) that have shaped green politics. These movements were also spearheaded of the wave of new green parties in 1980s at the local, national and even regional level, such as European Union (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). These movements based on the four pillars of green politics: ecological responsibility, social justice, non-violence, and grass roots of democracy. The se pillars are common p latform of green parties around the world, including Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Indeed, green politics is the only new global political discourse and practice to emerge in opposition to neoliberal globalization (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). While the term “green” is often noted to refer environmental concerns, by the early 1990s green political theory had gained recognition as a new political tradition of inquiry that emerged as an ambitious challenger of two political traditions that have decisive influence on twentieth-century politics (liberalism and socialism) (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Like liberalism and socialism, green political theory has a normative branch (concerned with questions of justice, rights, democracy, citizenship, the state, and the environment) (Talshir, 2004), and a political economy branch (concerned with understanding the relationship between the state, the economy and the environment). The first wave of green political theory increase a critique both of western capitalism and communism, both of which were regarded as essentially two different versions of the same ideology of industrialism, despite their differences concerning the roles of the state and the market. Both liberalism and marxism were shown to have developed on the basic assumptions that the Earth’s natural resource base could support unbridled economic 3 | International Environmental Studies


growth and technological advancement were both highly desirable and inevitable (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Both of these political traditions were shown to the share of optimism about the benefits of science and technology, and either explicitly or implicitly accepted the idea that the human manipulation and domination above the nature through the further refinement of instrumental reason were necessary for human advancement. Green political theorist have taken issue opposed both of these political traditions and highlighted the ecological, social, and psychological costs of the modernization process. Green theorist criticized that human posture as arrogant, self-serving, and foolhardy. Many of green theorist have embraced a new ecology-centered or ‘ecocentric’ ideas that seeks to respect all lifeforms in terms of their own distinctive modes of being, for their own sake, and not merely for their instrumental value to humans. From ecocentric perspective, environmental governance should be about protecting not only the health and wellbeing of existing human communities and future generation but also the larger web of life (such as gene pools, populations, species and ecosystems). This perspective also draws attention to limit the knowledge of human of the natural world, arguing that the nature is not only more complex than we know, but possibly more complex than we shall ever know (Carter, 2007). Major technological interventions in nature are seen invariably producing major social and ecological costs. Green theorists therefore generally counsel in favor of a more cautious and critical approach to the assessment of new development proposals, new technologies, and practices of risk assessment in general.

1. Environmental Justice It must be mentioned that the expression of ‘otherness’ has already found in environmentalists circles through the environmental justice movement. Over the past decades, it has become increasingly clear that environmental degradation is shared unequally within and across countries. The rich, politically advantaged can enjoy high quality resources and live in relatively unpolluted areas, while the poor, politically disadvantaged tend to have less to natural resources and live in areas with high levels of pollution (Wapner P. , 2002). There seems to be something unjust, in other words, about the way of people experienced environmental harm. This injustice takes on additional moral weight insofar as environmentalists, especially within the industrialized world. The environmental justice movement is an attempt to expand the focus of environmentalism to concerns about social well-being. In fact, given the steady growth of the movement, it shows that environmentalism and social justice are quite compatible, especially its international component (Wapner, Environmental Ethics and Global Governance: Engaging the International Liberal Tradition, 1997). Many of green theorists argue that, environmental injustices arise when unaccountable social agents give the bad impact through the environmental costs of their decisions and practices to innocent third parties in circumstances when the affected parties have no knowledge of, or input in, the ecological risk-generating decisions and practices. Basically there are two quest of green theory: to reduce ecological risks across the board, and to prevent their unfair externalization and displacement, through space and time, onto innocent third parties. But at an even more basic level, the concept of justice in the concept of justice in the South can be understood as ensuring that basic needs for survival are satisfied. The needs that all people have access, for example, to



shelter, clean water, food, are, in fact universal human rights, reflected in the International Human Rights Covenants (Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern, 2008). However, environment justice demands: 1. Recognition of the expanded moral community that is affected by ecological risks, not just all citizens, but all peoples, future generations, and non-human species 2. Participation and critical deliberation by citizens and representatives of the larger community-at-risk in all environmental decision-making (policy-making, legislating and treaty-making, administration, monitoring, enforcement, and adjudication) 3. A precautionary approach to ensure the minimization of risks in relation to the larger community 4. A fair distribution of those risks that are reflectively acceptable via democratic processes that include the standpoint of all affected parties and public interest advocacy groups 5. Redress and compensation for those parties who suffer the effects of ecological problems.

2. Environmental Security Definitions of environmental security are as numerous as definitions of what constitute the ‘environment’ itself, and the issues involved are as diverse as biological and ecological security; the greening of military operations; climate change; desertification; biodiversity; human population and migration; fisheries; forests; energy; water; nutrition; shelter; and poverty (Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern, 2008). The most common variation regarding the environmental security is concerned with the impact on societies. In this manner, environmental security agendas are seek out the issues, if not addressed, may provide the basis for increasing human conflict, viewing the environmental stress as an additional threat to peace and stability; the securitization of the environment by nationstates. This is a negative understanding of environmental security. Within this framework, when people are seen as part of an ‘environmental security’ agenda, ambiguously they are not perceived as part of the environment, but are simply users or, in the case of poor, as degraders (Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern, 2008). A concept of environmental security which is more inclusive of the interests of the majority of people in the world, is one that moves away from viewing environmental stress as an additional threat within the traditional forms of threat, statist framework, to placing environmental change at the centre of cooperative models of global security. Yet, to do this, there must be increased understanding of the environment, not as an external enemy threat (Dyer, 1996), but as diverse nature which inclusive of people; which a nature has the potential to provide secure areas to individual citizens of all countries for basic nutrition; adequate access of healthy environments; appropriate shelter; and a security to practice a diverse range of livelihoods which are both culturally and ecologically determined (Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern, 2008).

3. Environmental Citizenship



Ecological citizenship involves a set of moral and political rights and responsibilities among humans, as well as between humans and nature. Ecological citizens should be able to pursue their own private interests but also keep in mind their obligations to the surrounding environment. For some scholars, developing an ecological citizenship is considered necessary for true sustainability, as it is by considering the environment as a fundamental ethical component of citizenry, without the reliance on market-based incentives which are promoted by government at present, that the environment will be fully integrated into the public sphere (Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern, 2008).

Green Theory and International Relations Green IR theory shares many characteristics of the new other IR theories, which emerge in the past few decades. Their scholars are generally critical, problem-oriented, interdisciplinary, an d above all unapologetic about their explicit normative orientation. Their mission to promote global environmental justice, they also seek to get the concerns of many voices traditionally at the margins of IR, ranging from environmental non-governmental organizations, green consumers, ecological scientists, ecological economists, green political parties, indigenous people, and broadly, all those seeking to transform patterns of global trade, aid, and debt to promote more sustainable patterns of development in the north and south (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Green IR theory may be usefully subdivided into an IPE wing, which offers an alternative analysis of the global ecological problems to that of regime theory (Williams, 1996), and a normative or ‘green cosmopolitan’ wing that articulates new norms of environmental justice and green democracy at all levels of governance (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006).

Case Study: Rationalist (Neo-Realism & Neo-Liberalism) and Green Theory The two main rationalists in IR (neorealism and neoliberalism) have tended to approach environmental problem as a “new issue area” to be absorbed within their pre-existing theoretical frameworks rather as something that presents a new analytical or normative challenge. Whereas neo or structural realists have been mostly dismissed the issue of “low politics” of the environment, neoliberalist have conducted extensive empirical work on framework dealing with transboundary and global environmental problem (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). However, in general, main rationalist approaches not explicitly engaged in normative theorizing, and even neoliberals have openly acknowledged their problem-solving and reformist, rather than critical, orientation. Generally, neorealism is an ontological account in essence, embodies a set of basic theoretical assumptions which it suggests give a reasonably accurate account of the way of the world is. First, the world is concluded primarily of sovereign states, which can be treated as unitary actors. Second, these states exist in a condition of anarchy, that is no exact power that tried to govern them. Third, as consequence of this anarchy, these states must be always on guard against neighbours or any states since they are always in potential danger of external threats. And fourth, 6 | International Environmental Studies


as consequence of this possibility, states behave in such way as to maximize their power relative to others or behavior based on the based on the motivation of ‘interest defined as power’. Thus, neorealism’s account of how outcomes in international politics are produced is simply that they are generated by the distribution of power capabilities in the system (Paterson, 1996). Although, the theory of neorealism have extended the approach from the traditional security questions to the international political economy domain, yet some scholars still pessimistic about the prospect for cooperation. They argue that international cooperation on world economic dilemmas might be possible if a single actor with superior power exists and is willing to use its power resources. This actor identified as a ‘Hegemon’, and the theory of “hegemonic stability theory” predicts that the degree of international cooperation will be directly proportional to the degree of international politics. Acting either benevolently or malevolently, the hegemonic power has the resources to transform international structures so that coordinated po licies can be produce (Detlef Sprinz & Urs Luterbacher, 1996). Applied to the environmental issues, an international relations realist or neorealist would look to the distribution of power among the world’s states in order to assess future prospects. Given the nature of the climate change issue, however, it is difficult to ascertain the most appropriate measure of power. Certainly, the possession of military strength could still be relevant, such as, one actor may be able to issue threats and persuade other states into changing its activities that contribute to environmental problems. Indeed, war has often been use as a means to achieve foreign policy goals related to natural resources issues. Similarly, “power,” defined in economic terms, for example, one major actor might threaten to use trade sanctions against a “climate violator,” and if it implemented, could deprive the target of country welfare (Detlef Sprinz & Urs Luterbacher, 1996). In contrary, according to Keohane (1989), he argued only one different assumption that necessary to turn neorealism into neoliberal institutionalism perspectives. That is the assumption about the state rationality and motivation. As noted above, neorealist’s assume that states act in order to maximize their relative gains (interest defined as ‘power’). Neoliberals, on other hand, assume that states act merely in order to maximize their absolute gains (they do not care about the gains of other states except in so far as these gains interact or interfere with their own). Although states remain the primary actors in international relations, and remain treated as unitary actors, it assumed that neoliberal tended to maximize the absolute gains rather than relative gains. Thus, the cooperation between states became a more endemic feature on international relations. This leads to what are called institutions, defined as “persistent set of rules (formal and informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations,” and regarded as a common and important feature of international political life, influencing and constraining, and even generating state behavior toward global environmental problems (Paterson, 1996). On the basic explanation about two main rationalists on world politics above, neoliberal institutionalism produces the more satisfactory explanatory account of the international politics of global environmental problems, rather than neorealism that rely so much of power capabilities that is simply inadequate. Neoliberal institutionalism’s focus on institutions allows more space to 7 | International Environmental Studies


conduct many developments which ultimately produce the framework convention (Paterson, 1996). But, although, realists (neo or structural) have been mostly underestimate and assume the ‘low politics’ of the environment, neoliberals have been conducted extensive work on dealing with transboundary and global environmental problems. The problem for neorealists, in particular, is that they allow no or little room for any diversity of state international response of climate change, since all the states are interdependence, neorealists cannot explain why 157 industrialized countries have agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and pursue extensive negotiations to strengthen emissions reduction targets, despite the USA defection and without extracting any binding commitments from developing countries. Neoliberals are able to offer a more plausible account of the outcome to date based on their analysis of relative state interests and capacities. However, in focusing their attention on the hard bargaining among states over the distribution of benefits and burdens of adjustment, neoliberals tend to sideline the larger ideational context that shapes and drives the negotiations (Kyoto Protocol and other environmental convention).

Summary The study of international relations and environment is conduct to improve global environmental management. Scholars have generated theories and cases demonstrating why global environmental problems are so common, such as, how they get raised to the international agenda, why states form regimes for some but not others, what factors facilitate regime effectiveness, and how evolution and learning occur (Mitchell, 2002). States actor and non-state actors appears by using different amounts of influences to resolve problems and of policy formulation and implementation more than agenda-setting. Meanwhile, some disagreement concerns the wisdom of conceptualizing ecological problems as security problems. Some scholars of ecological security maintain that environmental problems (such as, global warming) should be considered as a growing source of insecurity. Even, some scholars also argue that growing the natural resource scarcity due to environmental problems such as, particularly water, environmental degradation, and increasing numbers of ecological refugees are likely generate increasing conflict and violence both with and between states, and that states should include an ecological in their national security strategies (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2006). Therefore, according to Deudney (1990) more skeptical green IR theorists have argued that framing ecological problems as a security issue in order to raise their status to a matter of ‘high politics.’ Sceptics suggest that the new discourse of ecological security concerns and possibly facilitating militarized solutions to sustainability challenge. However, conceptualizing ecological problems as security problems also betrays the core green values of non-violence and antimilitarism and deflects attention away from the important task of promoting ecologically sustainable developments.



The internal debate over environmental security is indicates green IR theory’s strong antimilitarist posture. This may explain why green IR theory has yet to develop a considered or clear ethical position on a range of security-related debates, such as the appropriate relationship between order and justice in world politics or the appropriate use of force for humanitarian intervention or environmental protection. Meanwhile, other green IR theories have emphasized the potential for shared ecological problems to present peace-making opportunities by providing a basis for conducting collaborative research, stimulating dialogue, building trust, and transcending differences by working towards common environmental goals and strategies. Finally, green theory has got through significant development in the last decade to the point where it is recognized as significant new dimension of IR theory. The new green stresses of environmental justice, sustainable development, reflexive modernization, and ecological security, have not only influenced national boundaries but also international arena. It also tried to recast the roles of state, economic actors, and citizens as environmental keepers rather than territorial overlords, based on differing capacities and levels of environmental responsibility. This recasting has important implications for the evolution of state sovereignty, and probably they may be characterized as transnational states and citizens, rather than merely nation-states or national citizens. But, of course, the society of states is a long way to achieve this ideal. However, green theorists have brought this ideal into view and made it thinkable.

Bibliography Carter, N. (2007). The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism and Policy. Cambridge: Camcbridge University Press. Detlef Sprinz & Urs Luterbacher. (1996). International Relations & Global Climate Change. Postdam: Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Dyer, H. C. (1996). Environmental Security as a Universal Value. In J. V. Imber, The Environment and International Relations (pp. 22-40). New York: Routledge. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environemtalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach. London: UCL Press Limited. Eckersley, R. (2006). Green Theory. IRT Journals , 247-265. Garner, R. (1996). Environmental Politics. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall. James Connelly & Graham Smith. (2003). Politics and the Environment. London: Routledge. Mitchell, R. B. (2002). International Environment. Sage Publications , 500-516.



Paterson, M. (1996). IR Theory: Neorealism, Neoinstitutionalism, and the Climate Change Convention. In J. V. F.Imber, The Environment and International Relations (pp. 59-76). London: Routledge. Talshir, G. (2004). The role of Environmentalism: From the Silent Spring to the Silent Revolution. In M. W. Levy, Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism (pp. 10-31). London: Routledge. Timothy Doyle & Doug McEachern. (2008). Environment and Politics. New York: Routledge. Wapner, P. (1997). Environmental Ethics and Global Governance: Engaging the International Liberal Tradition. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations , 213-232. Wapner, P. (2002). The Sovereignty of Nature? Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age. International Studies Quarterly , 167-187. Williams, M. (1996). International Political Economy and Global Environmental Change. In J. V. Imber, The Environment and International Relations (pp. 41-58). London: Routledge.


Taqwadin__Danil_Akbar_-_Green_theory.pdf

Recommend Documents