Anarchy and the Climate change - systemic concerns

By Anonymous -


 

In mainstream theories of international relations, ‘anarchy problématique’ has been a key theoretical concern. They view anarchy to be the fundamental feature of the international system & have been primarily attempting to deal with the issues that arise due to it. A state of anarchy is the absence of sovereign authority at the international level. 

Anarchy has been differently understood by different conventional theories. Realists have a very pessimistic view of anarchy and feel anarchy pushes the state towards self-help & self-survival. They believe anarchy induces ‘tragedy of power politics’ in the international system where states face prisoners & security dilemmas. Rationally, each state pursues self-interest & tries to accumulate more & more power.

Security issues where the referent object isn’t sovereignty or territorial integrity are side-lined. That’s why climate change isn’t a security concern for realists. Though climate change is a systemic issue & requires global effort, coordination & cooperation to tackle the challenges posed by it. The realist would say that presence of anarchy makes it difficult to mitigate & adapt to climate change since in absence of a supervening authority states avoid cooperation & pursue self-interest. 

 

Liberal scholars agree that anarchy is the major feature of the international system, however, they believe anarchy can be ameliorated through interdependence created by international trade & international institutions/regimes that check the actions of states, help nation-states forge cooperation & solve collective action problems. Its unit of analysis is a free-standing individual who is rational & tries to maximize their gains. Transposing it to the level of the state they feel the state cooperates with other states & international institutions to seek mutual benefit. They view climate change as collective action problem which can be tackled via various institutions, treaties & other NSAs like- Non-governmental organizations, activists & so on. 

Domestic liberalism theory views the state as a ‘transmission belt’ which mediates between the interests of domestic society & international society. It helps understand the crucial role of non-governmental & civil society organizations of a state who interact with international organizations to deal with the issues of climate change. It views them as key actors of global governance who shape state’s preference in the I. Os by persuading & pressurizing them. The state is the primary actor but isn’t the only actor in liberalism. Liberalism doesn’t view anarchy as always causing conflict. It feels through scientific reasoning & actions we can have a good life. A healthy planet will be constitutive of the good life to liberal scholars. For them, weak institutional response to climate change is not only because of anarchy but lobbying by the big industrial house in the West who gain from the use & sale of coal.

 Realists will counter the above claims citing institutions don’t check the actions of states rather they reflect the power of great powers. Also, given the state of anarchy states may or may not sign the treaty and they can move out of it anytime as treaties aren’t binding. For realist’s climate change issue becomes relevant only when the developed world supports it (‘power prevails’). For them, I. Os are part of global governance but are not the global government.

West exercises its power in institutions to set agenda suiting its interests. Climate change will be an issue only when it also has an impact on the west. Realists claim that even though climate change poses threat to our planet as a whole but it doesn’t concern the West enough because the West is relatively less threatened than the poor small island nation-states (relativity of security) and it also relatively has higher power, resources, technology & capability to deal with it. Even though it’s a systemic issue realist will see it in terms of the relativity of security. For realists due to anarchy, there’s a fragmented response to tackling climate change. However, too much focus on sovereignty & self-interest (because of anarchy) by realists creates hurdles in dealing with climate change. In realism sovereignty only has an external dimension (autonomy in decision making regarding foreign affairs). It has no view on internal sovereignty, which is legitimacy & support from the domestic population. It doesn’t concern itself with individuals & communities.

 Climate change is referred to as a free-rider issue by realists as it’s tough to distribute cost & benefit. Even in mutual benefit, if gains for one party are higher than the other it discourages the other from cooperating. Even if one state tries to take the pain & resolves to cut down on emissions it's unsure if other states will do the same. Therefore, it alone doesn’t want to take the pain for the well-being of all. Essentially, all the states are after self-interest and there is no scope for coordination & cooperation. No world government operates on the international level and can mandate all the states to behave in a certain way. Their cooperation is based on the will & unwillingness to cooperate doesn’t invite any coercive measure to ensure compliance. According to realism, the West will see the developing world’s vision to tackle climate change as a challenge to the status quo. West would want to maintain the historical hierarchy (which is the basis of peace, given the turning of hierarchy will bring back the anarchy). Realists believe in accumulating capacity & technology to deal with the brunt of climate change at the state level (owing to their relativity of security standpoint though they are aware climate change impacts all).

 Constructivists' view of anarchy is that anarchy isn’t a given but it is ‘what meaning’ different states give to it as per their interaction. So, it’s not objectively out there but is constituted by the nature of the interaction between states (intersubjective meaning-making). It is, therefore, contextual/specific to states. This view on anarchy allows more scope to cooperate on the systemic issue of climate change than the pessimistic view of realists. It can largely help us understand the conflictual/differing views of two alliance blocs relevant in the climate change negotiations namely the ‘developed world’ & the ‘developing world’ through the binary of the self & other. Developed world/West views itself with collective identity of liberal democracy as clean & non-polluter while it views developing world / Global south- as ‘the other’ largely to be non-democratic, lacks clean technology & major emitter & polluter. 

Constructivists would focus on this conflictual aspect of two identities between the developed & developing world to define anarchy. For them, in absence of a sovereign authority at the international level, the developed & developing world because of different identities have tense relationships which can be seen in their interaction in the multilateral organization & also in the negotiation of the climate deals. The idea of common but differentiated responsibility draws on the notion of conflictual historical interaction between the two entities build over a long time.

 

Unlike positivist approaches, critical approaches move away from the problem of anarchy and rather focus on the power relations & hierarchies that exist in the international system. SAE approach, Feminist and post-colonial approaches are major critical approaches that look at global hierarchies instead of anarchy. Their referent object is embedded individuals within various hierarchies in the international system. They will analyse the issue of climate change concerning these hierarchies to focus on the most vulnerable section of the society which is at the receiving end of it.

 

Citations-

 Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51 (4): 513–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447.

COZETTE, MURIELLE. 2008. ‘Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship’. Review of International Studies 34 (1): 5–27.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2018. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 94 (1): 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241.

Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.

Hopf, Ted. 1998. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’. International Security 23 (1): 171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267

United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature

IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press

 

Comments

  1. Mohana SarkarMay 9, 2022 at 8:51 AM

    Hi Kavita! I really enjoyed reading your article that coherently uses the Anarchy problematique theorized by Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism to explain the existential threat that looms large over the systemic order i.e. climate change.
    The structure of the blog was particularly interesting to me as you had interwoven the realists’ and liberalists' argument on climate change that made it easier for the reader to analyze and then substantiated on the Constructivists'. I especially liked your mention of the post positivist approaches that also exist in academia in the end that made the essay a comprehensive one having more of a birds eye view of the issue rather than restricting itself to the mainstream approaches. I had a few question for you though.
    While climate change is a reality in our biosphere, it has restricted a lot of Western countries in passing arbitrary legislation, due to either backlash from the people themselves; indigenous people along with advocates or by the international community. While the Global South is still held at gunpoint by the West when it comes to climate action, there is a significant change in policies and effects by lobby groups for environment friendly legislation in the West that is essentially limiting the West's ability to autonomously take decisions on the environment. Not to mention the international pressure put on countries by bodies like the IPCC and NSA themselves. Thus I would like to know how realists grapple with this reality of the “western” or “developed” state sovereignty being essentially eroded and challenged by the climate crisis , when they don’t recognize it to begin with, and only do when "developed" countries are involved.
    Secondly, the constructivists’ analysis of the climate crisis is one that is quite intriguing because of how interwoven climate change, class, caste and identities are. However, I would love it if you could substantiate an example, one that is most meaningful or impactful to you, preferably from the Global South for the same for me to help analyze the climate debate better.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Protecting Self In A War With Russia

By Anonymous -
Image
The world is now focused on what Russian President Putin’s next move can be, with tens of thousands of Russian troops changing their status from being stationed on the borders of Ukraine to having invaded Ukraine. In what is being called a ‘Military Operation’ by the Russian side, it is very evident to the people elsewhere around the world that it is a full-fledged war to claim Ukraine. Russia has been very clear in their ambitions with the states that were earlier part of the USSR, like Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and many more. Putin has been very clear in the case of Ukraine that the nation was and is a part of the Russian state and has wavered off with influence from the west. The Ukrainian population and culture are also actually very similar to that of Russia’s. Many Russians actually believe they are the same people divided by a border. However, Ukraine has its own identity, language, flag and many more factors that make it distinct from that of Russia. A majo...
Read more

Analyzing the Security Implications of the Russian-Ukraine Crisis

By Anonymous -
Image
  Title:  Analyzing the Security Implications of the Russian-Ukraine Crisis Headline: The Russian- Ukraine crisis - A percussor to a new normal   Type of security- Geographical Security and Territorial Integrity. Understanding the basic idea of security: Many times, we do look at security in a positive sense, essentially implying that it is the absence of any type of threat, or rather, it is the space where an individual is secure, thereby being able to flourish and progress within that environment. Many people also tend to look at security in relation to the basic binary of understanding war and peace. Another way the common man understands security is by associating the term with phrases like "comfort," "stability," and "absence of fear". But as academic scholars, we also learn that there has been an evolution in how we define security through various theories and schools of thought. From Idealism to Neoliberalism, we have seen a shift. Yet, most...
Read more

Dehumanization of women’s bodies: During a crisis

By Anonymous -
 The dehumanizing of women’s bodies: During a crisis                  Operating in this society as a woman exposes me to countless insecurities which revolve around my physiological being. There will always be a looming threat and the fear of an existential threat for me as a woman, in this society due to the patriarchally manufactured hierarchy that exists. When I was growing up, I constantly had to think about the limitations and restrictions that were placed on me. For instance, something as simple as deciding what to wear became almost a household decision. From censoring what I wanted to say, from being told to sit in a certain way, from being a “good girl” I somewhere felt the hardships that lay ahead of me.  Being an IR student, I was introduced to various theories and its theorist giving their perspectives on feminism and security issues, etc. Furthermore, we were also introduced to Ken Booth in the class. In his book Securi...
Read more