Anarchy and the Climate change - systemic concerns

 

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