Which Theories Are Most Effective in Explaining the Global Politics of the Environment - Essay Example

Which theories are most effective in explaining the global politics of the environment? Collage: Lecturer: The discipline of the global environment politics explains and analyses the role of the global institutions, states, global power, norms and ideology and the global political economy as well as the various theories of the international relations. The main literature on global governance and states is embedded in the international relations theories of the global politics of the environment. In addition, the global politics of the environment emphasis the ecological impact of the global political economy in the politics of corporations, trade, growth, financing and consumption. The field of global politics of environment demonstrates the literature on the environmental security, civil societies, ethics and global governance (Kutting 2011, p.126). The above broad definition of the global politics of the environment suffers various challenges since it requires a lot of time and intellectual flexibility of the analyst. For a period of 150 years, global politics of environment have been part of the world’s agenda. Various nations debated on the effective use of national lands and therefore, the impacts of environmental and industrialization has increased. In addition, the field of environmental politics has expanded its range and it covers a wide range of political action, which ranges from the decisions on the local level land use to the global controls over the emissions of carbon dioxide. As a result, the study of global politics of environment is comprised of various issues across all political arenas. There are various tools used to explain the topic of global politics on environment and some of the intellectual tools range from the legal studies to the geospatial analysis. This essay seeks to explain the effective theoretical approaches, which are used to explain global politics of the environment and the various key research topics in environmental politics. Notably, there is no specific definition of environmentalism. Reasonably, environmentalism is defined by various informal frames, which are in different policy fields. Therefore, environmental politics is exercised in varying communities and each of the community focus on specific aspects of the global politics of the environment. The broad literature on the global politics of the environment has been on increase throughout in the 1990s and most of the contributors are from authors consisting of the International Relations and the other scholars comprises of the biologists, environmental philosophers and activists (Simth 1992, p.50). The above mentioned groups have theories explaining the global politics of the environment and they mainly focus on similar environmental problems of the climate change such as pollution, tropical deforestation and thinning of the ozone layer. In addition, they perceive solutions to the challenges of the global politics on the environment from top-down to the systematic rank in the intergovernmental arrangement. In analysing the global politics of the environment, most of the theories have emphasized on the states as the main actors of international relations (IR). The theories also focused on the international organizations as the key constraints that introduces challenges and limits on the state action (Kutting 2011, p.130). Notably, various scholars have gone far beyond the traditional emphasis of the interstate relations and they have investigated the role of non-state and public-private partnerships in explaining the global politics of the environment. Nevertheless, various intergovernmental organizations have stayed outside the main debate in the IR discourse on global politics of the environment. The understanding of the effectiveness of international organizations in the IR theory explains the state of the global environmental governance and the role of international and intergovernmental in global politics of the environment. The political realism and the neo-realism distinctly define the intergovernmental organizations as structures that constrain the state behaviour. On the other hand, the institutionalism approaches are very perceptive to the role that international organizations play in intergovernmental environmental co-operation. In quest to explain how and when the above mentioned institutions matter, the neo-institutionalisms are still preoccupied with the international environmental regimes, non-state actors and the private-public policy networks (Lipschutz 2004, p.140). According to the international relations theory, international environmental organizations are defined as agencies that are established by the national government with some degree of permanence and they are controlled by various multilateral mechanisms through the collective of the governments. International organizations in the IR theory play a major role in the environmental protection policy. The liberal theories of the international relations best explain the effect of global politics on environment. Just like the other theories namely realism, non-rational and institutional approaches, it is particular name given to a group of associated theories of international theories in explaining the global politics of the environment. The liberal approach in theorizing the global politics of the environment explains the role of various social values and interests of states and their significance for the global politics. According to the liberal theory, the common condition of the world politics is globalization. The states across the global market have been included in a transnational and domestic society and this develops various incentives for social, economic and cultural interaction across varying borders (Lipschutz 2004, p. 150). Some of the above mentioned domestic groups benefit from the global policies and they put pressure to the government in regard to the policies that help them realize their goals. Without the social interest that incorporate the state borders, the states do not have any rational motivation to engage in world politics at any point. Nevertheless, in order to motivate the cooperation and the conflict of any foreign policy, all the states must have adequate state interests. Therefore, the globalization-induced variation in the global social demands demonstrates how state preferences results to state behaviour in the world politics. This is the key emphasis of the liberal approach in theorizing the global politics of the environment. The liberal theory illustrates the variation in the socially-determined state values and this differentiates it from other traditional theories such as realism, institutionalism and non-rational approaches. For instance, in explaining the global politics of environment, the liberal theory does not consider the impact of the inter-state imbalances of power and non-rational traditions of leaders, organizations or societies (O’Neill 2009, p.285). Rather, the liberal theory evaluates the conflicting state valued that are derived from strange political ideologies, fights over adequate economic resources and the exploitation of political constituencies. For the liberals, the important condition of the global politics of the environment is that various social challenges cause various states to the extreme points, which other states are not able to submit. There are various variants of liberal theory in explaining the global politics of the environment and they are defined by various preferences and variations. For instance, the ideational theories relate the state behaviour to different concepts of desirable forms of political, cultural and socioeconomic order (O’Neill 2009, p.310). On the other hand, the commercial liberal theories put more emphasis on economic interdependence, which includes various alternatives of endogenous policy theory. Notably, the republican liberal theories illustrate the impacts of domestic representative institutions and other legislative relations. The above mentioned theories explain the global politics of the environment. There are various assumptions underlying the liberal theory in explaining the global politics of the environment. For instance, according to the liberal theory the social coalitions of the state preferences in the world politics define the significant social roles of the foreign policy. In addition, the political institutions a transmission gap where the interests of individuals and groups in the civil society are engaged in the political realm. The variations that are evidenced in the nature of representative institutions define the types of groups that impact the national interests. This is because some of the states demonstrates the preferences of the ideal-typically individuals. The above mentioned preferences of the social groups together with their domestic power can be used to shape the goals of the states in global politics of the environment (Smith 1992, p.120). However, some of the non-governmental organizations (NGO) form the transnational support in order to assist the social forces. The other assumption of the liberal theory in explaining the global politics of the environment is that the level of interdependence among the state interests affects behaviour of the states. The liberal theory explains the differences in the state behaviour and how it affects the global politics of environment. One of the theories that are used to explain the global politics of the environment is the regime theory of the international relations (Smith 1992, p.125). The above mentioned theory illustrates the analysis of the international environmental regimes, transnational networks and institutions. The regime theory of the international relations relates the global politics on environment to international institutions, foreign policies, international environmental security and economics. The regime theory of the international environmental politics assumes post- realist consensus. The post-realist consensus explains that the international institutions do not matter; therefore, the world politics are more significant than the intergovernmental politics. According to the regime theory of the international relations in explaining the global politics on environment, the world politics is based on all non-material ideas, interests, ideas and discourses (Clapp & Helleiner 2012, p.485). The stages of the regime development begin from the agenda setting to the formation and the implementation of the knowledge-based transnational networks. The three critically analysed issues in the global politics on environment in the regime theory are the various developments resulting to the ozone regime, long-range trans- boundary in the United Kingdom and the regime of the global climate change. Other theories that best explain the global politics of the environment include the international anarchy, knowledge processes, and the plurality of the political actors, structural inequalities in the global system, capital accumulation and sustainability. The anarchic structure of the international system in international relations infuses various traditions such as liberal institutionalism and realism. The main concern of the above mentioned theory is the impact and the power of the sovereign states (Clapp & Helleiner 2012, p.490). The knowledge processes theory demonstrates the importance of knowledge and science in the evolution and the formation of the international policy, which is used to explain the global politics of the environment. The third research of plurality of political actors explains the international shift from the state focus and it also focuses on the role played by the multilateral corporations, institutions and non- governmental organizations in the global environmental politics. Moreover, the above mentioned theory illustrates the assumptions of the various roles played by the states in the process of global ecological change. The structural inequalities in the global system approach focuses on the various structural inequalities in the global system. The structural inequalities may be in terms of class, gender, ethnicity, and racism, consumption among the poor and the rich and the human’s position in nature. The capital accumulation approach of the global politics of environment focuses on the capital on the various ecological impacts of the process of extraction, production and the final process of accumulation. Finally, the sustainability approach of the global politics of the environment illustrates a critique analysis of the politics, which is very important for the global sustainability of the green politics (Elliot 2004, p.248). The realists approach in explaining the global politics of the environment explains the influence of the anarchic global system of the international institutions, sovereign states and the relationship between the state security and the environmental change. The realists argue that in practice of self-interest in the global structure of the sovereign states will underutilize the open access resources except radical constrains are implemented on the state authority. The realist theory assumes that the global regimes, norms and institutions cannot change the features of the state impacts in a global ecology relationship. However, there are other types of research that explains how the world of the ecological management is different from the policies and governance structures. The discipline of the international environmental law has a strong impact to the global politics of the international environmental agreements and negotiations. In addition, the realists’ theory explains history and the impact of the environmental politics and diplomacy. The regime theorists assume that the states are in a rational position to participate in the global environmental affairs. This is because preserving the global environment is a long-term interest of the state (Elliot 2004, p.251). Unlike the arguments of the classical realists, the regime theorists assume that the institutions do matter and that the global politics is more than just state’s interests and power. The classical realists argue that the global politics on environment involves various identities, knowledge, perceptions and meanings. For instance, several researches have been carried out to get more details on the regimes in order to control and manage the earth’s climate and the ozone layer. There is more research on other types of regimes such as shipping at the sea, intentional pollution, desertification and intentional pollution. The literature on the civil societies, ethics and knowledge is pulling the field of the global environment politics away from the role of the states and other types of formal institutions in the global political economy. Nevertheless, the interest of the role of the civil societies in international relations in explaining the global politics on the environment has steadily grown over the past decade. This reflects the emergence of various nongovernmental groups in the global environmental management. This approach explains the extent to which the nongovernmental organizations (NGO) impact the global environmental negotiations and the actions of the civil society groups in altering the global culture. The capitalism theory illustrates the political economy of the global politics on environment and the economy of the global environment change. The above mentioned theory put emphasis on the rate of industrialization and the role of economic growth and the changing nature of production (Newel 2010, p. 188). The capitalism theory also draws more attention to the ecological influence of global consumerist culture and consumerism. Scholars have introduced the concept of ecological footprints, which is used to explain the total global area in hectares required to maintain an individual’s consumption of water, clothes, transportation, shelter and consumer services and goods. The above mentioned situation best explains the high rate of inequality in the global consumption. Other types of research focus on the role played by various institutions in global environmental laws and affairs. Some of the above mentioned research examines the role of the global institutions and the assistance offered to the developing countries in order to enhance capacity. There are other impacts of specific institutions such as the UN Environment Programme, the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank. The theory of environmental ethics is also increasing the field of global politics on environment. The above mentioned theory is based on the environmental racism, justice and feminism (Newel 2012, p.204). Most of the theories explaining the global politics on environment originate from the discipline of philosophy, political theory and activist community. New theories of global politics on environment will emerge together with new processes, problems and actors. The field of global politics on environment will continue to grow; however, it is possible to discern some of the emerging forms in the modern research and the ones that give us a guide on the future directions. Theoretically, the researchers will continue to investigate the significant role of the regimes, states, sovereignty and international institutions in global politics on environment, thus the theories are highly improved (Falkner 2012, p.509). The scholars of the global politics on environment still develop new ground in regime theory even as it moves to the formal legal processes, non-state forces of change and norms. The theories explaining the global politics of the environment have been very significant this is because they improve the understanding of the global cooperation and the development of the global regulations. In addition, the theories are also pushing forward the global governance literature as international relations scholars develop the analysis of the global environment management. The field of global environment politics is increasing its reach as more of the scholars deal with the issues of exploitive nature and of good capitalism. The politics of the intransigent global environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change, fresh water, desertification and deforestation will continue to develop empirical research (Falkner 2012, p.514). On the other hand, the research on transnational factors such as societal corporations, forces, ethics and capitalism continue to expand its reach. References Clapp, J & Helleiner, E 2012, ‘International Political Economy and the Environment: Back to the Basics?’, International Affairs. Elliot, L 2004, The Global Politics of The Environment, Basingstoke: Macmillan Falkner, R 2012, ‘Global Environmentalism and the Greening of International Society’, International Affairs. Kutting, G 2011, The Environmental Politics: Concepts, Theories and Case Studies, London: Routledge. Lipschultz, R 2004, Global Environment Politics, Washington: CQ Press. Newell, P 2012, Globalization & the Environment: Capitalism, Ecology and Power, Cambridge: Polity O’Neill, K 2009, The Environment and International Relations, Cambridge: CUP. Smith, S 1992, ‘The Environment on the Periphery of International Relations: An Explanation’, Environmental Politics. Read More