Environment and International Relations: Modern Concepts and Approaches

The natural disasters that affect the environment, whether purely natural or as an indirect result of human intervention, have asserted themselves in international relations, encompassing both conflict and cooperation, as well as divergence and integration. International relations, in its simplest definitions, involves processes that occur across borders, including political, economic, social, military, and technological aspects. Each type of disaster, whether natural or human-induced, has political implications, potentially leading to tensions or understandings between two or more states, and may escalate into armed conflict. Environmental issues intersect with military dimensions, while the environment has an economic “cost” due to its direct relation to manufacturing, fishing, agriculture, land reclamation, and sustainable development.

This situation has led to three main issues:

A. The significant challenges that the environment poses for international relations theory, particularly at a time when environmental issues have taken a prominent place on the international agenda for a generation of political leaders, officials, decision-makers, industrialists, engineers, scientists across various disciplines, and citizens concerned about human health and the richness of nature.

B. The distribution of scientific debate about the environment across various theories of international relations. Scholars studying this issue come from different schools and approaches, each leveraging the complexity of the subject to draw the issue into their theoretical territory, using numerous pieces of evidence to support their views, whether they are realists, neo-realists, pluralists, liberal institutionalists, structuralists, neo-Marxists, or advocates of gender equality.

C. The connections between human and natural disasters; indeed, the relationship between the two can reach a causal level in some phenomena. For example, some scientists argue that Hurricane Katrina, which hit the United States, resulted from global warming and the failure of urban planning in New Orleans, which did not adequately consider environmental protection by draining most of the wetlands surrounding the city that could have absorbed a significant amount of floodwaters. This is a case of human misuse of nature, disrupting ecological balance, prompting a 2004 UN conference in Geneva to link global climate change to rapid urbanization in many countries and natural disasters. By 1990, the world had experienced 261 natural disasters, affecting about 90 million people; and between 1990 and 2003 alone, 76 disasters impacted 164 million people. Generally, the intersection of environmental issues with international relations theory raises some important questions, including:

Humanization of International Relations: This seems utopian in the context of international relations that tend more towards competition and conflict than towards cooperation and integration. The world has been pushed towards a state of lawlessness, with this view reflected in international humanitarian law, which not only regulates relations between states in peacetime but extends to war settings, aiming to protect the victims of armed conflicts.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions embody this principle; the former protects certain groups of people and property, while the latter regulates the methods and means of warfare. Scholars have proposed more advanced concepts, such as anti-war law, arguing that the prohibition of war should be the norm. Environmental issues and natural disasters follow this pattern as well, as efforts for a clean and safe environment are fundamentally about human relations, with people collaborating for their shared interests and treating other living beings with kindness and compassion.

Major multilateral environmental agreements demonstrate this clearly, such as the International Whaling Convention (1946), which succeeded in suspending whaling for commercial purposes after its enactment 39 years later, establishing natural reserves. The MARPOL treaty (1973) set rules for the discharge of oil and other harmful materials from ships to protect seas from pollution.

The same year, an agreement was signed to prevent international trade in endangered species. Six years later, an agreement was reached to limit air pollution, and in 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was signed, followed by the Montreal Protocol (1987) on ozone-depleting substances. Five years later, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was established, leading to the Kyoto Protocol five years after that, affirming the responsibility of developed countries for climate change resulting from human actions. In 1992, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were signed. Although these agreements have not been fully implemented and are often breached, especially by major powers, struggles continue for their implementation for the benefit of all humanity, enhancing the humanitarian aspect of relations between states and pushing major countries to allocate parts of their vast budgets to environmental issues, disaster prevention, and crisis management resulting from nature’s wrath, helping people overcome threats like serious diseases, from SARS in Asia to mad cow disease in Europe and HIV/AIDS to avian influenza worldwide.

Politicization of Nature: There is no doubt that our lives have become politicized to some extent. Politics has intertwined with many of our daily behaviors and customs, encircling everything we previously thought to be far removed from it. The politicization of social phenomena has distinguished political science in the 20th century from previous centuries. In the past, there was a clear distinction between political and moral issues; for example, abortion was a moral issue in the 19th century, and matters concerning family, health, and education were considered outside the realm of politics, in the name of respecting private life. In the 20th century, political fields expanded to include all previously mentioned issues, and the political discourse network reached all human activities, even extending to natural phenomena. A lack of rain or occurrences of earthquakes, at first glance, seems unrelated to politics, but re-evaluating this matter leads to the conclusion that politics is at the heart of such natural phenomena. Some people believe that these disasters arise from divine wrath due to the oppression and corruption of rulers.

In any case, they resort to the authorities to save them from the losses they suffer, and the authorities must respond in these critical times to maintain their legitimacy and ensure political stability. In the context of public space politicization, natural disasters insert themselves into the political process, both locally and internationally. By the end of the 20th century, these issues had risen to the forefront of global political interests, as they invoke political responses, even from a technical standpoint. The political reaction to environmental issues has taken the form of creating systems and institutions for environmental governance, establishing international agreements on them, and generating various forms of international interactions regarding them.

Emergence of New International Actors: Traditional theories of international relations viewed the state as the primary actor in the international system. However, modern history has witnessed the emergence of new international “actors,” and environmental issues have played a role in this arena. During the 1970s and 1980s, “Green” movements and many non-governmental environmental organizations have been born and developed, playing a global role in preserving the environment alongside states.

These organizations have successfully opposed whaling and expanded their activities to combat both radiation and oil pollution. Some, such as the World Wildlife Fund and the International Institute for Environment and Development, regularly advise governments and have obtained observer status in UN environmental conferences. In some cases, these organizations attend as part of national delegations at these conferences, thus establishing themselves alongside similar organizations that care about other issues and contributing to the discourse on “global civil society.”

Heightened Debate over “Sovereignty” and “Globalization”: What globalization has imposed, whether forcibly or consensually, has significantly affected the traditional concept of state sovereignty. States can no longer claim the existence of borders that can prevent the flow of goods and information, nor can they reject the demands of global civil society organizations, especially those concerning human rights and the advocacy of democratic values. No government can isolate the country it leads from the world or criminalize citizens who connect with international bodies or foreign media to complain about injustices they face or seek assistance.

This understanding is further solidified by some international relations scholars’ views on differentiating between civil rights and citizenship rights, where individuals are citizens in their sovereign national communities while being civil in the global community. Thus, they possess two types of rights: one as local citizens and another as global individuals. If their national government infringes upon their global rights, the international community has the right to intervene on their behalf, especially since the sovereignty of any state, according to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, consists of the collective sovereignty of the individuals that constitute that state, not merely the sovereignty of authorities as claimed by many systems in the Global South that violate the rights of their citizens in the name of maintaining national sovereignty.

Environmental disaster issues have added a new momentum to the ongoing debate regarding the limits of state sovereignty in the face of the dominance of globalization. Environmental problems that transcend borders impose challenges to prevailing notions of state sovereignty, particularly as these issues rarely arise from deliberate national policies but are primarily the unintended byproducts of broader socio-economic processes. Nevertheless, environmental considerations tend to weigh less heavily on state sovereignty than human rights and citizenship issues. Responses to humanity’s obligations towards a clean and natural environment have, at times, led to an expansion of state power and increased its engagement with the entire international community. The state always plays a legal role in any international treaties regarding the environment, often driven by its perception of what falls within its sovereignty and the concessions it must make concerning globalization.

Defining the Limits of Power

Natural disasters, particularly large-scale ones, have become significant tests for examining the limits of power, as they often result in devastation that no single state can confront alone, regardless of its capabilities or status. All countries, whether rich or poor, find themselves equally vulnerable in the face of such disasters.

For example, the United States appeared markedly vulnerable in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, evoking sympathy from both allies and adversaries alike, as demonstrated by the public offerings of aid. Remarkably, Afghanistan offered to donate $100,000 to help the hurricane victims, while Bahrain raised donations from $5 million to $100 million, Qatar contributed $100 million, and Kuwait provided $500 million. Nigeria pledged $1 million, and India offered $5 million. Even staunch U.S. adversaries, such as Cuba and Iran, extended support, with Cuba proposing to send 1,000 doctors and 26 tons of medicine, and Iran expressing readiness to dispatch humanitarian aid to the affected areas.

These natural disasters reinforce arguments made by many international relations scholars who caution against unrestrained arrogance in U.S. foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union. During that period, the United States often acted under the assumption that it could unilaterally further its interests, including waging wars and toppling regimes deemed unfavorable. Researchers and thinkers, including Americans, warned against the consequences of such “arrogance,” emphasizing that power has limits and that any state, regardless of its stature, ultimately needs the help of others—whether for advice or collaboration—in visible and far-reaching ways.

Today, environmental advocates echo this perspective, stressing that the world must unite to confront the challenges posed by natural disasters. The collective effort underscores the fundamental lesson that no nation, however powerful, can single-handedly overcome the most severe global crises.

Knowledge as a Cornerstone of Power: Scholars and philosophers frequently assert that knowledge is power. Traditional realism in international relations offered a broad understanding of the pillars of state power but did not afford “knowledge” the attention it deserves. Environmental issues have presented practical evidence of the power of knowledge, providing an international dimension through what is termed “epistemic communities,” which are groups of experts whose interests and activities transcend national borders, committed to knowledge and enhancing its role without regard for a specific state or community. They share a common understanding of an issue or problem, or preferred political responses. The authority of this group is amplified by the fact that some aspects of environmental issues are technical and scientifically complex, on one hand, and that natural disasters have become a global problem, not confined to a particular country or region, on the other hand.

Focus on Sustainable Development: This concept, often overused in economic literature, emerged from discussions surrounding the environment and economy, specifically highlighted in the 1987 report by the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development—known as the Brundtland Commission—which aimed to ensure that economic plans consider environmental protection and the needs of future generations while creating a balance between economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. Excessive use of natural resources to meet immediate demands often undermines future needs, especially as resource exploitation leads to environmental pollution and destruction of certain natural wealth, opening pathways to natural disasters or increasing damage from any hurricane, flood, earthquake, or volcanic activity.

Though this concept remains contentious regarding its application, it represents a hallmark of contemporary international society, particularly following the establishment of the Sustainable Development Commission, which collaborates with the Global Environment Facility under the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Development Program.

This commission consists of representatives from 53 countries elected for three-year terms in ways that ensure balanced and equitable geographical representation. Ultimately, this reflects a growing global interest in the rights of future generations to a clean environment and reasonably available natural resources, alongside an enhanced capability to avert disasters or effectively manage crises arising from natural disasters, which sometimes paralyze the operational capacity of any state, leading it to feel hesitant or delay rescue operations.

The Global Summit on Climate Change The Global Summit on Climate Change, held from November 28 to December 10, 2005, in Montreal, Canada, concluded successfully, despite the United States’ refusal to join any binding agreement. This summit was the first of its kind since the Kyoto Protocol took effect on February 6, 2005, which was drafted in 1997 as a global response to scientific evidence linking the increase in greenhouse gas emissions to global climate change. Approximately 200 countries participated, with 2,500 delegates, 4,500 NGOs, and 120 environment ministers in attendance.

Richard Kinley, acting head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, described the summit as one of the most fruitful climate change conferences conducted by the UN to date, stating: “This plan renews the path for future action regarding climate change.”

The summit’s success fostered an atmosphere of optimism regarding the future of combating global warming, with participants managing to agree on extending the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 to continue the fight against global warming. Consequently, rich countries were urged to make new commitments as soon as possible, with 40 industrialized nations called to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% during the period from 2008 to 2012.

The summit resolutions exempted developing countries from any obligations after 2012, as estimates from the UN Secretariat indicated that these countries contribute to 35% of greenhouse gas emissions, but their per capita share is extremely low compared to developed nations. This decision was made out of concern that such commitments would adversely affect the economic development of developing countries.

The parties to the Kyoto Protocol committed to assist developing nations in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, and perhaps the most important decisions related to combating global warming concerned establishing a system to ensure state compliance with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. A committee was elected for this purpose, along with branches to facilitate the treaty’s application. Canadian Environment Minister Stéphane Dion characterized the summit results as “a historic achievement that enhances the international community’s ability to address the catastrophic risks of global warming.”

Notably, the United States, the largest greenhouse gas emitter, has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Although the Clinton administration signed the protocol in 1998—thereby committing the U.S. to a 7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012—the former president failed to persuade the Senate to ratify the treaty.

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature and maintained this decision at the global summit this year, where the Americans initially rejected the Kyoto Protocol and any discussion concerning the future of negotiations through the UN on climate change, as well as opposing any agreement that would require the U.S. to make any material or moral commitments regarding its climate policies. U.S. Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, articulated the American perspective in this regard when he stated: “My conviction is increasing that global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people and the world,” and emphasized that these agreements contradict prosperity and freedom. It is within this context that the importance of the former President Bill Clinton’s presence became significant, as he openly criticized American policy on the matter and urged it to join the agreement.

In response to intense criticism of U.S. policies in this regard, the American stance shifted somewhat, with the U.S. agreeing to enter non-binding negotiations on the issue. Ultimately, this summit’s success underscored growing concerns over natural disasters and highlighted the importance of global collaborative efforts to combat the sources of these disasters, with climate change and the increase in global warming being paramount, as most natural disasters occur due to extreme weather patterns. The UN Secretary-General has expressed fear regarding the increasing occurrences of extreme weather conditions over the past few years and reiterated his growing concern that this phenomenon will continue.

Thus, this summit is regarded as a significant step towards international commitment to combating global warming, thereby working to protect humanity from one of the primary sources of natural disasters.

• References
• Global Environmental Politics: Concepts, Theories and Case Studies” by Gabriela Kütting.
• The Environment and International Relations” by Kate O’Neill.
• Green Theory in International Relations” edited by Robyn Eckersley and Matthew Paterson.
• Environmental Change and Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice” by Paul G. Harris.
• International Relations and Global Climate Change” edited by Urs Luterbacher and Detlef F. Sprinz.
• Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies” by James Gustave Speth and Peter M. Haas.
• The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses” by John S. Dryzek.
• The Anthropocene and Global Environmental Politics: Reimagining Humanity’s Place in the World” edited by David Chandler, Franziska Müller, and Delf Rothe.
• Governing the Climate: New Approaches to Rationality, Power and Politics” by Johannes Stripple and Harriet Bulkeley.
• Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered” edited by Frank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg.