Internation Relation - Essay Example

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Introduction Debora mantle in her doctoral dissertation observed that the study of international relations has taken an array of theoretical approaches. Most of them emanate from the discipline itself while others have been borrowed from other fields like Philosophy, Economics, and Sociology. Only a few social scientific assumptions thou have not been applied to the study of the interaction among nations (Mantle, 1999, p.101). Many theories of International relations are contested. International relations scholars have witnessed heated debates on one hand and philosophers, biologists and environmental activists on the contrary. In spite of this multiplicity of divergent views, several major schools of thought have emerged. The principal difference is the variables they put emphasis to, for instance, military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs (Mantle, 1999, p.132). The essay paper will delve into the contributions of several International relations Theories to global environmental politics. Through the theories, the status of modern-day international political theory in light of environmental trepidation will be assessed. The essay paper argues that global political theory must try to find a more exhaustive commitment to environmental concerns. The paper further maintains that a profound rethinking of the notions that underlie contemporary international political theory forms a significant part of this engagement. The methods, to be discussed in this paper, are the green theory, liberal cosmopolitan, the critical-theoretical, and the anti-foundationalist respectively. The question of how moral and political inclusion in global politics, to respond to environmental issues is also addressed in the course of this discussion. A Contribution of International Political Theory This theory presents an international political approach as a vital resource in the desire to think through the implications of global environmental change and degradation for modern-day society and politics. Considerations should be given to moral and political inclusion, according scholars of international political theory. Decisions have to be made, for instance, on who, or what, has the right to use natural resources. Secondly, who, or what, must bear the responsibility for environmental destruction and lastly, how such rights and responsibilities should be arrived at. Considerations should also be made on how the resources should be distributed amongst the nations (Eckersley, 1992, p.35). There are three key assumptions that underlie liberal cosmopolitanism. These are the fundamental equality of individuals; the impartiality of political institutions and processes; and the universal applicability of the rules and norms necessary for the functioning of a society. Dunne, Kurki & Smith (2013, pp.16) further argue that Environmental problems should have no whatsoever respect for boundaries. We are indeed time and again reminded that climate change is a global phenomenon. Scientists, environmental activists, and politicians allude that pollution has spillover consequences across political boundaries. We are all affected, in a way or another, by environmental change and degradation. To counter the pressing challenges posed by the environment, environmental issues must go global. What exactly does global politics insinuate? It is evident to everyone that climate change has presented planetary effects. This is a viable example of an environmental problem that calls for a collective international solution. Two universal agreements have attempted to fully resolve this global predicament. These are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convened in1992 and 1997 Kyoto Protocol (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2013, pp.25). Many of such responses signed by the international community usually remain bounded and are subject to national decision-making in case of crisis. This does not mean that state sovereignty, national interests, values and way of life are eroded. Dunne, Kurki & Smith (2013, pp.31), maintain that even in the face of universal threats such as the environment change the above must be safeguarded. The 2007/2008 United Nations Human Development Report agonizingly puts it that, it is the rich nations account for the tremendous volume of the greenhouse gases locked in the Earth‘s atmosphere. On the contrary, it is the world‘s poor countries who suffer the most damaging impact (UNDP, 2008, pp.9). Calls for a global approach to environmental issues, however, are not easy. The UNDP report of 2008, furthermore, notes that the complication in climate matters is that climate change and global warming do not affect every corner of the globe in equal measure. Their effects are neither uniformly distributed across different countries, regions or populations nor evenly produced. Some nations are deeply drawn in the production of global environmental change than others. The report further reveals that approximately to 125 million people around the globe are predisposed to toxic pollution. These are statistics taken across 49 countries ranked as either low or middle-income. Besides, the report estimates the total overall burden of disease attributed to noxious industrial effluence to these countries. Liberal Cosmopolitan Theory An analysis of the contributions of the liberal cosmopolitan image of international politics to global environmental politics needs further exploration. There are three crucial assumptions that underlie the liberal cosmopolitan theory. One is equality of individuals. The impartiality of political institutions and processes is the second while the universal applicability of the rules and norms essential for the functioning of a society is third. Let us examine the ways in which liberal cosmopolitan assumptions might aid in addressing the moral and political problems posed by global environmental degradation. Much focus has been shed on the liberal cosmopolitan theory because this approach is regularly appealed to in modern-day international political theory in support of arguments for global justice (Vogler & Imber, 1996, pp.13). Green Theories Our ability to consider our place in nature is attributes of human duties in the natural world arise from according to green philosophers. Man consumes earths resources, pollutes the environment with by- products struggles to reclaim land he is responsible for degrading. Vogler & Imber (1996, pp.15) argue that man has indeed won the competition between himself and animal species. Ironically, the green theories note with a lot of concern that human beings besides causing environmental destruction also develop and implement solutions of destruction (Vogler & Imber, 1996, pp.36). Mans ability to manipulate the natural world to meet his ends should not- withstanding go together with the capacity to reason about his use of that power. Surprisingly though is that our ability to reason about our moral duties still lag behind our ability to manipulate nature. The elephant in the room is, generating a pragmatic ethical framework suitable for our behavior (Vogler & Imber, 1996, pp.57). Eckersley (2006, pp.15) introduced a fundamental idea with assumptions that other species have intrinsic value, and that man should be ‘fair to all other species. As a living organism, endowed with the faculty of reason, man needs to exhibit operationally recognizable constraints on his behavior. The behavior should already be inherent in the generalized, cross-temporal compulsion to protect a nourishing, complex, and separately- functioning system for the benefit of future generations. This kind of concern has been widely shared by policy makers and political theorist alike. Moreover, as a result, considerable development of green theories has been made. According to Eckersley in, Environmentalism and Political Theory (1992, pp23), it was in the late 20th century that a discrete and concise ‘green and political theory emerged. This approach gave the much-needed impetus to the inter-related trepidations of the new social movements such as peace, the environment, anti-nuclear and women among others. Eckersley (1992, pp.35) further writes in the Green Theory that Green politics has been shaped by these global movements. In the United States, for instance, these movements were spearheaded by the wave of new green parties both at the local and national arena. In Europe, on the other hand, the European Union (EU) worked at the regional level (Eckersley, 2006, pp.67). Green International Relations theory shares many features of the new other International Relations theories that surfaced in the past few decades. The scholars of these approaches are critical and resolve to the problem-oriented and interdisciplinary method their debates. The researchers seek to get the concerns of many voices that were traditionally deemed to be marginalized in discussions of International Relations. Their target audience ranges from native people, Environmental Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), green political parties, and green consumers. Others are ecological scientists, environmental economists, and all those seeking to change trends of global trade and enhance sustainable patterns of development (Eckersley, 2006, p.103). The Critical-Theoretical approach of International Political Theory and Global Environmental Politics This theory discusses the contribution of the critical-theoretical image of international political theory to global environmental politics. Representatives of critical-theoretical thinking in the field of International relations, suggest a dialog theoretical method to world politics. This is whereby the authenticity of our ethical and political principles is dependent upon their being endorsed by all those that stand affected by them. The contribution of this school of thought to global environmental politics needs to be further investigated. Attention should be drawn to the connection between critical international theory and the recent development of green International Relation Theory. Beyond the high international politics and treaty-making, civil society groups and environmental activists, have sought to bring to light the predicament of those whose opinions have not appropriately (or effectively) been heard at international negotiations. Dunne, Kurki, Smith (2013, pp.53), Adds that, they have used divergent strategies such as staging their alternative talks and devising alternative principles and pronouncements. These they argue, are meant for a more socially just and humane environmentally sustainable international politics. The recent World People‘s Conference on Climate Change, and the Rights of the Mother are some of the instances (Dunne, Kurki, Smith, 2013, pp. 209). Indeed the supremacy of petroleum products in the world economy creates the conditions for emitting large volumes of toxins into the global atmospheres and ecosystems. According to India‘s earlier Secretary in charge of the Environment, and consultant to India‘s Prime Minister on climate change Prodipto Ghosh, India continues to abide by the Kyoto Agreement. Part of the reason for compliance is that ‘…the goals of addressing climate change cannot supersede our objectives of maintaining the current GDP growth rates and poverty alleviation programs… (UNDP, 2008) Every nation agreed this in Kyoto. Global warming is a challenge for the Western European countries. These countries have been at a fantastic party since the advent of Industrial Revolution. Now the party is over and they have to get serious about this predicament (Kutting, 2000, pp. 19). In April 2010, in Bolivia, a convention brought together a wide range of civil society players and organizations representing a variety of groups from across the globe. Among them were women, native people, people living with disability and the poor who are time and again marginalized in official climate change negotiations. Mantles New Normative Approaches has become a conventional point of reference for those interested in the cosmopolitan-communitarian divide. Nevertheless, it is well-known for drawing attention to another critical gap in the study of international political theory. The new divide is that between ‘foundationalist and ‘anti-foundationalist intellectuals. Kutting (2000, pp.45) addresses the issue in his debate of New Normative Approach. He explicitly explains that what is at stake in the latter discussion is the uncertainty of whether it is probable to find firm justification or basis for human knowledge. The fundamental distinction between the two schools of thought is straight forward. Foundationalist intellectuals disagree that this, indeed, is unlikely on one hand. Anti-foundationalists seemingly deny the possibility of grounding facts in any set distinct foundations (Kutting, 2000, pp. 61). . Conclusion While many green theories of international relations are fiercely contested, it is usually not appropriate to see them as rivals over some universal truth about world politics. Each rests on certain assumptions and epistemologies. Moreover, each is constrained by certain specified conditions and pursues its analytic goal. While various theories may lead to more or less compelling conclusions about international relations, none is definitively ‘right or ‘wrong. Rather, each possesses some tools that can be of use to students of international politics in examining and analyzing rich, multi-causal phenomena. For International Relations to remain relevant in the face of global environmental change and degradation, it should progress, in a ̳critical and not analytic style. It should, in other words, pay more attention to the very framework for action and ultimately, with the aim of transforming this structure (Kutting, 2000, pp. 129). References MANTLE, D. J. (1999). Critical green political theory and international relations theory: compatibility or conflict? Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Keele, 1999. DUNNE, T., KURKI, M., & SMITH, S. (2013). International relations theories. Oxford, Oxford University Press. VOGLER, J., & IMBER, M. (1996). The environment and international relations. London, Routledge. KÜTTING, G. (2000). Environment, society and international relations towards more efficient international environmental agreements. London, Routledge. http GOLDSTEIN, J. S. (1996). International relations. New York, NY, HarperCollins College Publishers.://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=165642. ECKERSLEY, R. (1992). Environmentalism and Political Theory: toward an ecocentric approach. Albany, NY, State Univ. of New York Press. UNDP. (2000). Human development report. 2000. 2000. New York, Oxford University Press for UNDP. Read More