23 October 2020, NIICE Commentary 6365
Vyas Muni
Climate change is an inherently political issue. Issue of climate change revolves around the themes of power, morality and interests. Even though technology offers a technical solution to the climate change problem, a big question remains: who bears the financial costs associated with significant action on climate change? Climate change is a global phenomenon, so various international relations theories try to unwrap some of the difficulties associated with it. This article tries to unlock some of the aspects shaping global climate politics which are not explored by conventional IR theories.
Realism is based on the view that states are supreme in international relations. A realist defines power in terms of the military that defines the shape of international relations. For example, Hans Morgenthau defines that ‘the desire to dominate is a constitutive element of all human associations’. So, if necessary, more powerful states can act in coercive manners to realize their interests, while weaker states have to accept their inferiority. Realist theory highlights that states look for relative gains compared with other states. Neorealism is the extension of the realist theory of international relations which focuses on the structural imperatives by the international system.
According to Waltz, it is the systemic structure which defines the nature of international politics as there is anarchy in the international system which governs it. There is no political hierarchy between states so there is no controlling authority who could maintain the peace among states. This means that even when cooperation would lead to absolute gains for all participants involved, its occurrence might be impeded by the uneven distribution of such gains. According to Purdon realism’s concern with relative gains is, thus, one of the central explanatory features within a Realist approach to climate change. Thus, realism provides a theoretical framework for why climate change negotiations often fail.
According to neorealism, the international system is the primary unit of analysis. Concerning climate change, it is therefore important how the international system is configured at any given time. In the post-Cold War world, the international system has been dominated by the United States. According to the hegemonic stability theory advocated by Kindleberger, stability is provided through the presence of a dominant power assuming responsibility for the maintenance of institutional structures through the mechanisms of coordination and
disciplinary measures. Both versions of the realist framework subscribe to rather simple notions of power, with military and economic power representing the dominant manifestations of a given state’s power. In essence, realism and neorealism focus on the coercive and material nature of power. According to Mearsheimer ‘power is the currency of great-power politics, and states compete for it among themselves’. So, it is difficult to apply such a conception of power within the context of climate change politics.
The Neoliberal Institutionalist Perspective
Neoliberal institutionalism discusses climate change because it gives importance to the role played by institutions within the interstate domain. Institutions play a significant role in the politics of climate change. To some extent, the interstate exchange became possible because climate change politics is based on institutions like the United Nations framework convention on climate change.
According to neoliberalism, international organizations and non-governmental organizations can play a crucial role in framing the climate change discussion and putting pressure on state actors. Thus, neoliberal institutionalism provides the transnational element of climate change politics while realism does not.
According to institutionalist conception, International Relations builds on an analysis of the conditions under which cooperation takes place. Institutions like the United Nations and the intergovernmental panel on climate change are important actors within global climate change negotiations. Neoliberal perspective is useful to explain how cooperation is facilitated, theoretically. Although at some level they believe cooperation among the states on climate change politics, it also has some problems. According to Cutler, it fails to capture the historical dimensions of climate change, and, therefore, cannot account for certain actors’ idiosyncratic behaviour.
The Constructivist Perspective
As an IR theory, constructivism acknowledges the importance of both materials as well as normative features of the international system. According to Colin Hay, constructivism argues that ‘the material and ideational are complexly interwoven and interdependent’. This indicates a major difference between constructivism and more positivist theories of International Relations, which give primacy to material factors. Another distinction between constructivism and other IR theories is that it does not treat structure in the same way as other IR theories do. In comparison to other IR theories, like neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, which analyze International Relations through the structural parameters set by the international system, constructivists allow for a more dynamic notion of structure.
That’s why many studies highlight the interrelationship between structure and agency. According to Wendt, states do not necessarily react to a predetermined structure as suggested by neorealists and neoliberals, but rather identify the nature of that structure based on socially defined and intersubjective meanings.
Moreover, Adler also points out that human agency creates a social context in which the meaning of structure is continuously defined and redefined. Lastly, Finnemore also underlines the interplay between structure and agency, stating that Constructivism ‘emphasizes the construction of social structures by agents as well as how those structures, in turn, influence and reconstruct agents’. So, constructivist analysis inherently includes some departure from conventional IR theories: a recognition of both material and ideational factors, and an understanding of structure and agency as being mutually constituted.
Now questions might be asked how does constructivism enhance the study of global climate change politics? Constructivist scholars understand climate change as a social process. According to Pittenger constructivism can ‘lead us to understand how certain meanings have emerged and been framed, while others have been obscured’. For instance, concepts like sustainable development or historical responsibility may be understood differently by different actors. Similarly, important contested concepts such as sustainable development manifests itself within negotiations over climate change policy. Constructivism also provides the scope to analyze the influence of non-state actors which is also known as ‘climate policy entrepreneurs’. The term climate policy entrepreneurs given by Fogel which have become increasingly crucial within the formulation of climate change policy, particularly at the domestic level.
Furthermore, constructivism can investigate why states have come to regard climate policy as a national interest in the first place. Why is it that ‘governments have added the inspirational norm of ecological integrity to the traditional goals of wealth and power’? Due to constructivism’s acknowledgement of both ideational and material factors, it provides the foundation necessary to question some of the assumptions underlying state behaviour in climate negotiations. For example, Bernstein has highlighted the role of a normative consensus on carbon markets and its effect on the structure of the global climate governance architecture as a crucial element shaping climate politics. It captures the very political nature of climate change as an issue and can put it in the respective historical and social context. So, there is enough space for climate change politics in constructivism. They see the gross domestic product as a social fact in climate politics.
