Choose language:
  • Home page
  • Articles
  • Global Environmental Issues and IR Theories: A Pluralist Theoretical Approach
Main topic

spt1/2013

Global Environmental Issues and IR Theories: A Pluralist Theoretical Approach

Milovan Vuković
Dragoljub B. Đorđević

Abstract

This article considers the English School as an underutilized reaserch resource in the field of international relations (IR). Its defining attributes are its methodologial pluralism, its historicism, and its interlinking of three main concepts: international system, international society and world society. Parallels are also drawn among the three IR traditions – international system, international society and world society – as the English School differentiates them. This paper points out that the current globalization process reinforces the transnational paradigm that focuses on non-state actors, with a new configuration emerging in which politics loses the hierarchical position implied by realism. Finally, a pluralist theoretical approach is proposed as the most appropriate for research in the area of international environmental politics.

keywords :

References

    1. Axelrod, R. and Keohane, R. O. (1984) “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions”,  World Politics,  38(1):  226-254.
    2. Ashley, R.K. (1986) “The Poverty of Neo-Realism”. In: Keohane, R. (ed.) Neo-Realism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    3. Badie, B. (2001) “Realism under Praise, or a Requiem? The Paradigmatic Debate in International Relations”, International Political Science Review, 22(3): 253-260.
    4. Barrett, S. (1998) “On the Theory and Diplomacy of Environmental Treaty-Making”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 11: 317-333.
    5. Barnett, J. (2000) “Destabilizing the Environment-Conflict Thesis”, Review of International Relations,  26(2):  271-288.
    6. Barnett, J. (2001) The Meaning of Environmental Security:  Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era. London and New York:  Zed Books.
    7. Blatter, J., Ingram, H. and Doughman, P. M. (2001) “Emerging Approaches to Comprehending Changing Global Contexts”. In: Blatter, J., Ingram, H. (eds.) Reflections on Water. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press. pp. 1-29.
    8. Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. London: McMillan.
    9. Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds.). (1984) The Expansion of the International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    10. Buzan, B. (1983) People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Chapel Hill, NC:  University of North Carolina Press.
    11. Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear. 2nd Hemel-Hempstead, U.K.:  Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    12. Buzan, B. (2001) “The English School: An Underexploited Resource IR”, Review of International Studies, 27(3): 471-488.
    13. Chatterjee, P. and Finger, M. (1994) The earth brokers: power, politics and world development. London: Routledge.
    14. Cox, R. (1981) “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2): 126-155.
    15. Czaputowicz, J. (2003) “The English School of International Relations and Its Approach to European Integration”, Studies & Analyses, 2(2): 3-55.
    16. Checkel, J. T. (1998)  “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory”,  World Politics,  50(2):  324-348.
    17. Cutler, C. (1991) ‘’The Grotian Tradition in International Relations’’, Review of International Studies, 17(1991): 41-65.
    18. Dalby, S. (1992) “Ecological Discourse:  Environmental Security and Political Geography”,  Progress in Human Geography,  16(4):  503-522.
    19. Dalby, S. (2000) “Geopolitics and Ecology:  Rethinking the Contexts of Environmental Security”. In: Lowi M. R. and Shaw B. R. (eds.) Environment and Security. London:  MacMillan Press Ltd; New York:  Martins’s Press, Inc. pp. 84-100.
    20. Dalby, S. (2002) Environmental Security. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
    21. Diamond, L. (1995) Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives (A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict). New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
    22. Diblin, J. (1988) Day of two suns: US nuclear testing and the Pacific London: Virago.
    23. Dobson, A. (2006) “Globalisation and Environment: From Local Language to Global Grammar”, TEME, 30(3): 387-404.
    24. Doyle, M. (1983) “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12: 205-235.
    25. Dyer, H. (1993) “Eco Cultures:  Global Culture in the Age of Ecology”,  Millennium:  Journal of International Studies,  22(1):  483-504.
    26. Dyer, H. (2001) “Environmental Security”, Review of International Relations, 27:  441-450.
    27. Đorđević, J. (2002) “New Environmental Ethics and Environmental Protection”, TEME, 26(2): 235-244.
    28. Gandy, M. (1996)  “Crumbling Land:  The Postmodernity Debate and the Analysis of Environmental Problems”, Progress in Human Geography,  20(1):  23-40.
    29. Green, D. and Shapiro, I. (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    30. Grundmann, R. (2001) Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone. London and New York:
    31. Haas, Peter M. (1992) “Introduction: Epistemic Communities in International Policy Coordination”, International Organization, 46: 1-36.
    32. Hempel, L. (1996) Environmental governance: the global challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press.
    33. Hurrell, A. (2001) “Keeping history, law and political philosophy firmly within the English School”, Review of International Studies, 27: 489-494.
    34. Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    35. Jørgensen, K. E. (2000) “Blind Dating: The English School Meets European Integration’’. BISA Conference, 18-20 December. University of Bradford, Bradford.
    36. Katzenstein, P.J. (ed.). (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    37. Keohane, R. (1984) After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    38. Keohane, R. (1986) “The Theory of World Politics: structural realism and beyond”. In: Keohane, R. (ed.) Neo-Realism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    39. Linklater, A. (2001) “Citizenship, Humanity, and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions”, International Political Science Review, 22(3): 261-277.
    40. Linklater, A. (2002) “The problem of harm in world politics: implications for the sociology of states-systems”, International Affairs 78(2): 319-338.
    41. Linklater, A. (2005) “The English School”. In: Burchill, S., Linklater  (eds.) Theories of International Relations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    42. Linklater, A. (2007) “Distant Suffering and Cosmopolitan Obligations”, International Politics, 44(1): 19-36.
    43. Lipschutz, R. D. (1997) “From place to planet: local knowledge and global environmental governance”, Global Governance, 3(1): 83-102.
    44. Malešević, K. (2002) “The Sociological Meaning of Eco-Risks”, TEME, 26(2): 267-287.
    45. Marković, Ž. D. (2002) “Globalism and Danger of Global Ecological Crisis”, TEME, 26(2): 219-234.
    46. Matthew, R. A. (2000) “Integrating Environmental Factors into Conventional Security”. In: Lowi M. R., Shaw B. R. (eds.) Environment and Security. London: MacMillan Press Ltd. pp. 33-48.
    47. McElroy, R. (1992) Morality and American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ethics in International Affairs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    48. Meyer, J. W., David J. F., Hironaka, A., Schofer, E., Tuma, N. B. (1997) “The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870-1990”, International Organization, 54(1): 623-651.
    49. Miltojević, V. (2006) “Sustainable Development and Quality of Life”, TEME, 30(3): 427-440.
    50. Moravcsik, A. (1997) “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organizations, 51(4): 513-553.
    51. Morgenthau, H. J. (1978) Politics Among Nations, 5th rev. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
    52. Myers, R. J. (1988) “The Virtue of Moral Restraint”, International Journal, 43(2): 320.
    53. Neufeld, M. (1995) Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    54. Neumann, I. (2001) “The English School and the practice of world society”, Review of International Studies, 27: 503-507.
    55. Newman, E. (2001) “Human Security and Constructivism”, International Studies Perspectives, 2: 239-251.
    56. Oye, K. A. (1985) “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy:  Hypotheses and Strategies”,  World Politics,  38(1): 1-24.
    57. Rasmussen, J. L. (1997) Peace Making in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press.
    58. Rosenau, J. N. (1990) Turbulence in world politics: a theory of change and continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    59. Paterson, M. (1999) “Overview: Interpreting trends in global environmental governance”, International Affairs, 74(4): 793-802.
    60. Putnam, R. D. (1988)  “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games”,  International Organization,  42(3):  427-460.
    61. Rasmussen, J. L. (1997) Peace Making in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press.
    62. Rennger, N. J. (2000) International Relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond International Relations theory. London, New York: Routledge.
    63. Rosenau, J. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, N.J.:  Princeton University Press.
    64. Ruggie, J. (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. New York: Routledge.
    65. Ruggie, J. (1998) “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge”, International Organization, 52(4): 855-885.
    66. Russet, B. (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    67. Snyder, J. (2002) “Anarchy and Culture”, International Organization, 56(1): 7-45.
    68. Shiva, V. (2002) Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
    69. Shue, H. (1981) “Exporting Hazards”. In: Brown, P. G., Shue, H. (eds.) Boundaries: National Autonomy and Its Limits. Totowa, N.J. : Rowman & Littlefield.
    70. Shue, H. (1999) “Global Environment and International Inequality”, International Affairs, 75(3):  531-545.
    71. Simon, H. (1985) “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science”, American Political Science Review, 79(2): 293–304.
    72. Snyder, J. (2002) “Anarchy and Culture: Insights from the Anthropology of War”, International Studies Quarterly, 46(1): 11-43.
    73. Sooros, M. S. (1994) “Global Change, Environmental Security, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma”,  Journal of Peace Research,  31(3):  317-332.
    74. Sullivan, M. P. (2001) Theories of International Relations: Transition vs. Persistence. New York:
    75. Thompson, M. (1997) “Security and Solidarity: An Anti-Reductionist Framework for Thinking About the Relationship Between Us and the Rest of Nature”, The Geographical Journal,  163(2):  141-149.
    76. Tocqueville, A. de. (1990) (1840) Democracy in America. New York: Vintage Books.
    77. Walt, S. M. (1999) “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies”, International Security, 23(4): 5-48.
    78. Walt, S. M. (1999). “Rigor or Rigor Mortis?  Rational Choice and Security Studies”, International Security, 23(4):  5-48.
    79. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    80. Walzer, M. (2000) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustration. New York: Basic Books.
    81. Wapner, P.  (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany:  State University of New York Press.
    82. Watson, A. (1992) The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis. London: Routledge.
    83. Wendt, A. (1992) “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: the social construction of power politics”, International Organization, 46:  391-425.
    84. Wendt, A. (1998) “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 24: 101–117.
    85. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    86. Wendt, A. and Friedheim, D. (1995) “Hierarchy under anarchy, informal empire and the East German State”, International Organization, 49(4): 689-721.
    87. Wight, M. (1991) International Relations: The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press/Royal Institute of International Affairs.
    88. Wildawsky, A. (1987) “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation”,American Political Science Review, 81(1): 1-21.
    89. Yee, A. S. (1996) “The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies”, International Organization, 50(1): 69-108.
    90. Young, O. R. (ed.) (1997) Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    91. Zürn, M.  (1998)  “The Rise of International Environmental Politics:  A Review of Current Research”, World Politics,  50(4):  617-649

     

PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 1/2013eng 1/2013 UDC 316.334.5+502.131.1(100):327 59-79
https://doi.org/10.22182/spt.712013.4
Back to Issue Serbian Political Thought - 1/2013