Climate Change in light of different theories

             "we need to put a price on carbon in the markets and a price on denial in politics"

                                                                                                           - Al Gore

Anarchy in simple terms means “absence of world government”. There is no overarching authority at the international level to enforce rules and regulations. The existence of anarchy at the international level has been a key theoretical concern for conventional or mainstream theories as they take anarchy as given (their key assumption) and try to deal with it by acting in a particular way. Anarchy as a perpetual condition in the international arena has been understood differently by different mainstream theories. In light of the above quote, states take a refuge of anarchy to justify their ignorance of climate change as a security issue. States are ignorant of climate change as it does not seem a direct threat to states' sovereignty. 

For the realist, the key referent object is the state and its survival. So, they have a very pessimistic view of anarchy. Realists think that the existence of anarchy in the international system makes it suspicious and insecure for states. These forces state to protect themselves and push them towards self-help. As the international realm is uncertain and insecure, states constantly seek to accumulate power and usually refrain from cooperation as they are unsure about the intentions and interests of the other countries. In this sense, anarchy creates the situation of “tragedy of great power politics”, where states are constantly faced with security dilemmas and prisoner’s dilemmas. The “tragedy” of great power politics is that because of the existence of anarchy even the security-seeking great powers will be forced to indulge in conflict and competition with each other as they aim to create a secure environment for state survival.

As for realists, the key referent object is the state. So, they refrain from or do not pay much attention to the security issue, where state survival and sovereignty are not the key referent object. They do not look at and sideline the scope of security issues that go beyond state survival (widening of security). Climate Change is a collective action problem that threatens the world as a whole because long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns as a result of human activities can have dangerous repercussions for the globe. The realist does not see it as a security concern because here key referent object isn’t a state. They point out that states' cooperation on climate change is difficult as there is no international government or overarching authority to dictate the rules and regulations of such cooperation.

Realists also have a pessimistic view of an international institutions as they argue that these IOs are part of world governance and they are not world governments. These rules are not binding on the states and states can refrain from following these rules and norms as according to realists states are the only rational actors in the international realm. On the issue of climate change, IOs can’t force a state to cooperate and follow certain rules if it is not in the interest of the state. These IOs only reflect the power of the great powers, so climate change will become significant only when it concerns the dominant power of the west. Climate change does not mainly concern the west as they have enough resources and wealth to protect themselves and dump their waste in the developing countries of the ‘global south’ like Canada dumping its waste in Malaysia. If national interests are better served by a climate treaty with required restrictions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a realist understanding might favor it as they are obsessed with self-interest.

Liberalists also take anarchy as a given and fundamental condition of the international system but they argue that the situation of anarchy can be tackled by creating interdependence between states and through international institutions which provide a platform for states to negotiate and cooperate on various issues. Liberalist argues that climate change is a collective action problem that is transboundary and states will cooperate on it as states are constituted by individual who look for mutual gains, so states will also seek mutual gains and benefit by cooperating and taking actions to protect the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. IOs, NGOs, and other security actors will enable such cooperation by allowing the state to create interdependence and cooperation through negotiations and trade. Their key referent object is the free-standing individual and state authority is legitimate until it takes the individual into account. The climate change issue seeks to threaten the lives of individuals, so the state as one of the actors is forced to protect its citizens by cooperating and taking actions to minimize the damage caused by climate change.

Domestic liberalism argues for the primacy of domestic social actors which determines state behavior and actions at the international level. It sees the state as “not being a black box entity” as it represents ideas and interests of social entities within it in the international realm. So, in this sense, the state work as a “transmission belt” between the two. This allows civil societies, NGOs, and other entities to have a say in climate change and pressurizes states to take actions regarding climate change, which is mutually beneficial for all. This also justifies the interference of technocrats like Elon Mask in climate change cooperation and actions. These technocrats, as a result of their capital power, pressurizes states to work in a particular way that is in their interest and not in the interest of all. So, the failure of the attempt to cooperate on climate change can be attributed to these big industrialists, who exercise considerable influence on the government and pressurize it to work in their interest.

Liberalists suggest that nations gain from collaboration in a peaceful and harmonious environment. Some claim that without adaptation support, many vulnerable developing countries may cease to be viable trading and investment partners. So This might also be the case with assistance in adaptation to developing countries.

Constructivism differs from these dominant mainstream theorists in its understanding of anarchy. Constructivists believe that anarchy is not something that is given or fundamentally exists in the international realm but it is inter-subjectively created by states' interaction with each other in the international system. It can exist in different forms in different groups of states given how they perceive it through their interaction. This view allows for more cooperation on climate change as it depends on how states interacting with each other see climate change. If they perceive climate change as mutually benefiting to them, they will definitely cooperate as unlike realists, they will not be only apprehensive of cooperation and alliance as the cooperation and negotiations will not be based on interest but based on overtime identity that is formed. It will be contextual and interpreted on the shared identity of interacting states.

Constructivism is an explanatory theory and it will help us know why a certain group of states behaves in a certain way, which is in opposition to the other group of states in climate change talks. Developed countries see themselves in binary opposition to developing countries. They see themselves as technologically developed and non-polluters in opposition to the developing world which is the major polluter and leads in greenhouse gas emissions. This leads to conflicting views and sometimes also leads to the failure of climate change talks.

In opposition to all these theories, critical theory takes fiercer ground. They seek to overturn the existing power structure and hierarchy. They argue that the present power structure is skewed and only favors certain countries and groups who have the first block advantages and do not pay much attention to the deprived and vulnerable. Critical theories like postcolonial theory will argue for more role of the west in cutting greenhouse gas emissions as they have more resources and technologies and countries of the global south were colonized (deprived of opportunities by the west) and are still developing and they do not have much resources and technologies and cutting on greenhouse gas emission may infringe their industrial development. They will also argue for more representation of the global south in IOs like the UN.

 

References:

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

2. 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.

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

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

5. Mearsheimer, John J. 2019. “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order.” International Security 43 (4): 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342

6. 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

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

8. Khan, R. Mizan. “Climate Change, Adaptation, and International Relations Theory”. E- International Relations. April 29, 2016. https://www.e-ir.info/2016/04/29/climate-change-adaptation-and-international-relations-theory/