Chapter 8: Green Theory in International Relations

Introduction

Environmental problems began to take an important place in global politics by the end of the 20th century. With the emergence of environmentalism, as a social and intellectual movement, green politics has also started to become a part of International Relations and has profoundly occupied the literature with the increase in environmental problems. The growing significance of Green Theory in International Relations is related to the damaging effect of global warming and carbon emission that are the concerns not only of a particular state but whole states altogether. The green theory has an ecocentric world view that does not precede the human and perceive it as just a part of the ecological system.

Green Political Thinking Through The Years

Green political thinking generally is seen as a new ideology emerging at the end of the twentieth century. The increasing impact of industrialization, globalization and technological developments have been beneficial for our lives but also have created many problems. Environmental problems are among those problems and they have become increasingly influential on the political agenda as more people have realized that the environment must be protected for the continuation of humanity. Green ideology criticizes the economic and technological developments that damage nature. Hence, green theorist, or ecologist, mainly argues that the development of technology is posing a threat to human existence and other species as well.

The first international treaty on plants was signed in 1889 in Bern, Switzerland to prevent the spread of plant disease affecting vineyards in Europe. The treaties followed the Bern Treaty in the 1920s and the 1950s which also aimed protection of the European agricultural lands from the disease. International awareness on pollution and environmental problems began to increase after the Second World War when economic boom during the postWar years provided problems as well as benefits. Therefore, the 1960s can be considered as the beginning of the “modern” environmental consciousness. Rapid growth in both economy and population brought serious energy and resource consumption and this affected biodiversity negatively more than ever. At such a time, 1973 oil crisis began and the idea was that the depletion of natural resources was inevitable, and so was the growth of technology and state. Following these developments, awareness of the nation-states on environmental issues increased. As a result of this “enlightenment” of the nation-states, the complexity of the degradation came into sight and it led states to act together against the environmental challenge. In 1972, representatives of the 114 countries gathered in Stockholm for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. The aim of the conference was to establish international cooperation for environmental problems. In many respects, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was considered successful. The results of the conference showed its effects very quickly in practice and main principles of the Stockholm Summit was placed in the center of the international environmental politics for 30 years.

During the 1980s, environmental politics, women and gender issues, peacemaking and nuclear non-proliferation played the main role in green politics, and first green political parties were established in Europe. Major issues of the green parties were ecological responsibilities, social justice, non-violence, and grassroots democracy. Until 1984, 12 green parties were established in Western European countries. In the following years, these parties gained seats in the parliaments of several European democracies and became part of politics in five countries. Not just political parties, also nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) became more and more involved in environmental problems and international conferences during these years.

End of the Cold War is an important turning point for international environmental politics. During the Cold War it was harder to cope with environmental problems because of two reasons; arms race and bipolar world order. Nuclear weapons and mass destruction weapons are among the most dangerous ones. Land and air pollution are some side effects of the proliferation. Political polarization between states also created another problem.

In the 1990s transnationalisation has gained importance in green political thought when global effects of environmental problems and need for a global solution were increasingly understood. Inter-state relations integrated Green Theory into International Relations. Another significant development of the 1990s was the Rio Earth Summit. Rio Earth Summit gathered in 1992 with a huge attendance from all over the World.

Main Assumptions of Green Politics as an International Relations Theory

There are several different terms describing green political theory in the literature, “ecologism” and “environmentalism” are among the most commonly used descriptions. The main differences between the Greens and Environmentalists is that Environmentalists accept the framework of the current political, social and economic structures of world politics as it is and believe that those problems can be solved within those structures while Greens’ approach to those structures as the main reason of the environmental problems and suggest that those structures must be challenged. Environmentalists suggest that ecological and environmental problems can be solved by the elites of the international system. They always want states to get involved in a solution of the prevailing environmental problems because states are the only actors in international relations able to handle such problems. According to greens, the involvement of states is not going to solve the ecological problems, moreover, states are already harming the ecological balance and are worsening the scenario. Two different approaches should also be understood to make the distinction between Environmentalists and Greens clear. These approaches are “Thinking Green” and “Green Thought”. “Green Thought” is a radically different way of thinking in International Relations problematizing relations between human and nature and construction of social practices. “Thinking green” is an idea, held by environmentalists, that has a concern about the environmental issues like acid rains, global warming and so on, but they argue that these problems can be solved through international cooperation. The view of “Green Thought” is, however, more naturecentered. Green Thought does not distinguish or prioritize the human being from the rest of the nature, instead assumes human beings as a part of the nature. This nonhierarchical approach called “ecocentrism” is the central feature of green thought. While Green Political Theorists have an ecocentric world view, Environmentalists stand closer to anthropocentric view. Anthropocentrism refers to a human-centered worldview which regards the nature within the human values. Ecocentrism is the term that Green Politics is mainly based on. The ecocentric political philosophy denies the human-centered view and denotes a nature-centered ethical view. According to ecocentrism, there is no supremacy over the creatures. So, ecocentrism denies the superiority of human against the other living species.

Green Political Theorists believe that the World has already reached to the limits of growth and any growth in population or economy would possibly harm the ecology and humanity. In the famous book, “The Limits of Growth”, Meadows et al. explain the damage that economic and technological growth has brought to the World. The main idea of the book and the Green thinkers’ assertion that “infinite growth is impossible in a finite system” is still valid today.

The other major subjects of the dispute between Environmentalists and Greens are “sustainable development” and “ecological modernization”. Sustainable development, which is a new phenomenon, is derived from the idea that both economic growth and economic protection can be maintained at the same time. The second alternative of greening capitalism is ecological modernization. It is also a new variation of sustainable development that leads countries to protecting the environment (Carter, 2007: 227). However, both concepts “sustainable development” and “ecological modernization” are controversial topics for the scholars’ works in the field. While “Shallow Environmentalist” scholars argue that sustainable development can be the solution for many environmental problems, Green Theorists object to this idea again.

From a Green Perspective, world order, as it is currently constituted, is based upon capitalism, industrialization and the consumer culture. These major forms of social and political organizations are built upon and perpetuate oppressive social relationships – class inequalities, patriarchy and the destruction of indigenous peoples and communities. Modern social practices and forms of organization across the globe are also giving harm to the globe

According to critical theorists, modernization, which causes the destruction of the environment and instrumentalizes nature cannot be defended, and critical theorists criticize the understanding of science and economics that accept human dominance over nature as a measure of the progress of humanity. Green theory shares this opposition which is one of the main discourses of critical theory that explains why some scholars accept green theory inside the critical theory.

In addition to being critical, Green theory is considered as a post-positivist theory. Positivism assumes that man is separate from the rest of nature and must dominate nature, reducing nature to an object level by describing it as a tool for the development of humanity. Positivism as the dominant paradigm paves the way for the undue use of resources and the destruction of nature. From this point of view, it would not be wrong to say that the green political theory in international relations has a post-positivist nature. Green Theory is also positioned as a sub-branch of International Political Economy due to shared assumptions and aims. Green theory can also be considered among normative theories because of the importance it attaches to concepts such as environmental justice.

Despite the increasing interest in environmental problems, environments ongoing degradation shows the failure of the studies on this subject. Preventive measures are also insufficient. Although states have been working together for many years to find solutions to these problems, there is an absence of effective solutions. the Greens offer the idea of decentralization -which has hampered the state as a central actor- at the center of green politics. However, not all the greens favor decentralization over central-state.

Re-Thinking IR Concepts With Green Theory

Green theory of international relations is clearly different than traditional international relations theories in many ways but many concepts of traditional international relations theories are also examined by green theory, but through green theories’ own evaluation. Security, state and economy are among the most discussed and controversial concepts of international relations and those three concepts are also important topics of green international relations theory, but with different meanings and values.

Green Security

In the realist literature, classical realists assume that states as the main actors must provide security for themselves in an anarchic world, while neo-realists assume that states are perpetually insecure, and this is why they continuously have to acquire capabilities. Liberal thinking is more normative compared with realists who mostly analyze the world as it is, rather than as it should be. Other than state’s security, liberals are also concerned with the security of individuals and institutions. Even if liberal and realist evaluation of security is quite different from each other, they have one common aspect; they always interpret the world from anthropocentric perception. However, green international relations theory has an ecocentric world view and do not prioritize human or human based structures to the nonhuman world. As we shall see, green perspective to security, encompasses the security of the whole nature therefore, Greens prefer the term “globe” instead of earth. Green International Relations theorists have challenged realism due to its restrictive understanding of national security and belief that security must be provided by and for a state as the main principal actor.

Green State

The transforming role of the state in international relations and the capability and extent to which it could respond to emerging environmental problems began to be a matter of discussion, considering that states failed to respond to global warming and other environmental problems that began in the 1960s. Moreover, green theorists argue that the greed of states is the main source of environmental problems. As states act according to the relative gains perspective, they are more eager to solve environmental problems that concern their country most, but are reluctant about the solution of problems concerning common goods. In addition, the states that acted to protect their short-term economic interests were willing to damage nature at the expense of using their natural resources. This hypocrisy led the Greens to question of a state-centric World Politics. The pressures of the states system and the global economy make it necessary to adopt the best use of natural resources; thus, states such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brazil protect their sovereign rights to chop their trees and claim that it is not an environmental concern but their sovereign right. Realists might claim that despite the challenges for the state and the previous ineffective state policies, they remain the only body with sufficient legitimacy, resources, and regional control to enforce the rules of the environment.

While Green thinkers are generally suspicious about the intentions and necessity for states, some Green thinkers regard the state as a necessary evil.

Green Economy

According to green international political economic view, although global consciousness is very important, actions should be taken at the domestic level. These actions that should be taken involves disintegration of economic, social and political pillars of the existing global economy. In short, “think globally, act locally” should be the main principle for solving global problems. Today, almost all nations accept the importance of sustainable development for nature, and sustainable development has begun to affect the national and international environmental laws. While shallow environmentalists think that sustainable development is the key strategy to save the globe, deep environmentalists see development itself as problematic. Shallow environmentalism is a term which is used for describing the environmentalists who assume that environmental issues can be solved within the existing system. Deep environmentalism, or deep ecology or green perspective suggests that it is impossible to solve the environmental problems within the current system. Radical changes are needed to save the globe. What shallow environmentalists mentioned as development is the development of the domination of north nations over south nations and ecology. More nation-states developed, more injustice is raised in the world. In conclusion, Greens think that extensive trade is the main cause of the crumble of both the independence of nations and economic security.

Criticism and Conclusion

It is obvious that environmental issues are impossible to solve with the traditional paradigm of international relations, so, new visions and approaches are needed.

Green international theory sees the need for radical change in the political structure of the world and makes its own stance to challenge the world order, in order to protect the globe against human-damage. Humans are responsible to protect the world because of two reasons. The first is that humans are responsible for the environmental problems that the globe faces today and have to fix the problems as they created them. Secondly, human is the most developed creature of this universe and they have also ethical responsibility for protecting the rest of the universe and life forms.

Some arguments of the Green Theory also seem outdated by the opponents. To be more scientific, claims of the Greens should be supported by the modern numbers and scientific knowledge. Green Theory has similarities with many of the International Relations theories. But the main difference of the Green Theory comes from its distinctive perspective and the focus on the relations between human and non-human worlds. Decentralization, ecocentrism, attention on limits to growth are all unique for Green Politics.