A Reflection on the Green International Theory
Introduction
This research aims to explore a very important question with regards to environmental stewardship. Do state and state system cause environmental problems? In assessing this issue, we take a good look at the different environmental laws. As it is, environmental issues and environmental stewardships have been universal or global. This is why it has been a major part of the study of international relations (UNEP, 2004).
At the fundamental theoretical basis, many scholars posit that state and state systems to address environmental problems and concerns are weak (Wapner, 1995, p. 46). Hence, they suggest distinct government structures to replace these state systems. According to Braun (2011, p. 1), environmental problems and issues are naturally global concerns because of the inter-linkages of the planet’s environmental systems and communities. Ecosystems go beyond the boundaries of the state and the environmental problems and issues like the climate change, pollution, extinction of species, sea levels’ rise, desertification, etc. impact people no matter where they are (2011, p. 1). The global environmental changes, which affect people, are in different forms and ways. The costs of ecological degradation are also dissimilar. They are also not equally leashed in one region or continent.
As natural resources are tossed regardless of countries and states, it also makes environmentalism much politicized (Sroufe, 2003, p. 1). For instance, national climate policies put the national governments, states, global institutions, local and global communities, and businesses in the limelight. Hence, they are being pressured and blamed for the various ecological problems like carbon emission. They are also challenged to act on environmental sustainability since the environment has recently evolved as a significant part of the business value chain just like the global climate change (2003, p. 2).
With these, this study aims to explore the various contentions and argument answering both the responsibilities and accountabilities of the state and the state systems and also their contributions and answers to the heed for environmental stewardship and sustainability. This paper shall various illustrations of how state and state systems protect and defend the environmental as it also cite some instances where state and state policies crush the very core of environmentalism. A distinct conclusion is provided after the serious considerations of both cases.
The traditional views in the context of the old international relations perspective hold the state as a primary and centrifugal actor in the preservation (or demise) of its state territories. The growing environmental problems has put the limelight into the role and authority of the state in curbing these problems and in the general promotions of environmentalism. These push the issue towards asserting national governments’ efforts and policies in solving environmental problems, with the greater involvement of the society as well (Daddow, 2013, p. 23). It also marks the increased criticisms and pressures on the national governments and states to act in behalf of their ecological preservation and to take matters in their hand as it has a more global consequence and impact.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development promulgates the role of the state as a main agency for environmental stewardship (UNEP, 2003, p. 1). As based on the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles of international law, “the state (and its systems) has the sovereign right to utilize (and even exploit) their country or state’s resources according to their own environmental and developmental policies” (2003, p. 1). The state also has the sole responsibility to make sure that their internal economic activities do not negatively impact their environment, the other states’ environment or of areas beyond the borders of their state jurisdiction (2003, p. 1).
There are examples of country and state laws and policies as well as actual scenarios which show how state and state systems pursue these mandates. For instance, we can cite the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a model agency of the state which effectively protect the environment and uphold environmental laws. This state body writes and enforces regulations based on the legislated laws. Likewise, government regulatory bodies and consumer pressure groups have fiercely fight commercial establishments and business interest group to adopt ecological stewardship (Braun, 2011, p. 1).
Another example is where the state or national law perpetrates the environmental problem. For example, the environmental licensing in Brazil is a major issue for the country’s offshore oil drilling (an environmental problem) (Schutte, 2012, p. 1). Brazil’s government environmental regulator called Ibama is the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (2012, p. 1). With the state’s rigid and effective environmental laws and slow legal process, environmental problems persist and left unsolved. Hence, in cases wherein there are no set rules, a state like Brazil subscribes to the international standards (2012, p. 1). Hence, it is not often clear, however, if the environmental licensing responsibility is a state issue or an international policy.
Suffice to say, the state systems are also weakened and sometimes even intimidated by the presence of other ruling bodies and laws. State systems and laws, even when they take priority of the protection of the environment, have also some other vital agenda and considerations in their administrative functions. In a more international perspective, national environmental issues and policies have a major impact on how states cooperate with other states on the global stage. If a state policy tolerates other issues such as human right violations in relation to its environmental policies, then, more problems ensue. In hindsight, all these reflect the need for a more comprehensive approach between state or national government and international agencies to combat environmental problems.
Outside state governance on environmental matters, commercial agencies also play a major part in instigating other environmentally related problems. The state owned Petrobas of Brazil is usually in conflict with other international oil companies and this is heavily reflected in the type of regulations and policies which Brazil releases. The overlapping maritime boundaries also add to the problems. Hence, since the state also has commercial interests, these interests sometimes become points of conflict for their own state policies. National or state interests have serious effects on cooperation in International Relations.
On the other hand, state laws and policies or the lack of it also directly lead to environmental problems. Take the case of India where the poor water and sanitation, air and pollution policies result to the inefficiency of the state in addressing environmental issues and concerns (Tockner & Stanford, 2002, p. 1). It is important to stress, at this point, that a nation’s environmental problems also reflect their economic status and their stage of development, green policies, among others (2002, p. 1). While some environmental problems may be linked to the lack of economic development (such as India’s lack of clean drinking water and sanitation), others are intensified by the country’s economic activities (i.e. air and water pollution) (2002, p. 1). Poverty and its related problems also coincide with the problems of the environment and these are all confronted by the states and its systems.
Mostly, commercial activities and business operations’ outsourcing, logistics and manufacturing intensify environmental problems, specifically climate change (Braun, 2011, p. 1). State systems and actions impact the distribution of environmental costs and usually perpetuate instead of improving environmental injustices. The present state and state systems, including international systems, are insufficient mechanisms for ensuring environmental stewardship (2011, p. 1). To cite, state systems like the above mentioned EPA has the same environmental justice procedures for all communities who intend to pursue a complaint about an environmental problem. While the state’s procedural equity is clearly stated on formal aspects, the penalties and sanctions for environmental crimes are not equally distributed (2011, p. 1). State systems carry inequities as indicated by the perpetrators’ race, class, caste, cultural practices, and distribution, like the imbalance of power and resources in environmental explorations. Also, there is a burden in pursuing environmental crimes and violations and this affects the way procedural equity for the environment is realized (2011, p. 2). While state agency impress on procedural equity as a primary agenda, the assessment of policies and how environmental crimes and violations are addressed reflect a poor performance of the state and its structures (2011, p. 1). The weak position of the state vis a vis environmental problems make it a weak agency in curbing and solving the ecological issues.
For example, the Chinese’s government’s strong control of its booming auto industry negatively impact the promotions of carbon reduction in the said country. Through joint ventures, the country allows foreign car manufacturers to disobey certain environmental policies. In papers, the Chinese government has ample environmental regulations and policies which formally uphold auto manufcaturing’s environmental standards. While it is commercially attractive to car makers, both local and foreign alike, it is also a tricky situation for environmentalism. This is because there are some unregulated local car makers which can circumvent the laws. They can go to outside areas and Chinese provinces to evade the said environmental laws.
Agbonifo (2002, p. 1) argued that the network of state and transnational oil corporations have very negative effects on the local communities, which are invariably considered as limitations to the national development efforts. The states do not readily acknowledge the numerous environmental and social problems the misuse of natural resources. The author also argued that the states carry on with their exploitation of the natural resources since they do not directly bear the “externalities” of environmental problems such as oil exploitation. He also posited that the states do not have high respect for the human conditions. On some occasions, they show a political will to reevaluate the environmental standards against the contexts of the social pressures but then they they are not consistent with their stands or policies with regards to ceasing exploitative operations. They readily consider the economic outcomes of the operations regardless if these operations harm the local community.
A perfect example is the links between the Nigerian state and the transnational oil company – Shell. The latter has no right to pollute the Niger Delta but its close partnership with the Nigerian colonial government enabled it to have free access to the said river and hereby gaining profit at the expense of the Nigerian environment (2002, p. 2). Even after the Nigerian state gained its independence, the same relationship was maintained and Shell was able to continuously “rape” the Niger Delta (2002, p. 2). Furthermore, the state government allowed other transational oil companies to utilize the said resources even at the expense of its people. Since the Nigerian state nor Shell has a direct accountability to the environmental damages, the problems continued. The state sacrificed the environment in the name of profits. This story is perpetuated in other post colonial states, wherein the state is compromising its natural resources in exchange for some economic growth and in the name of national development.
States should be primarily responsible in defending the ilegal and exploitative use of the natural resources. They can do this through state instruments like environmental legislation. However, there are conflicting agenda and interests, particualrly for gas and oil dependent economies liek Brazil and Nigeria. Meanwhile, this is also responsible for many of the major environmental accidents. Environmental legislation must counter the environmental accidents and impacts of such activities yet the states nor its its instruments do not measure up to the limitation of the exploration and control processes for the aftermath of the oil exploration (such as the collection, storage, transportation and waste disposal). Furthermore, the states also lack the administrative powers to implement financial sanctions for non-conforming entities. They cannot administer serious penalties for oil spills at sea and air pollutants emissions (2002, p. 2).
Conclusion
In the light of the perspective under the Green International Theory, this paper concludes that state and state systems play a primary function in environmental protection and in the solutions of the growing environmental problems and concerns. There is only one way to solve the universal problem of the environment and this involves the crucial role of the state and state systems along with the greater roles of international agencies and non government institutions. A better cooperation and involvement can lead to more effective mitigation of the environmental crisis on a global scale.
While it is true that many environmental problems are caused by the significant economic developments and the rapid growth of the human population. Hence, it must be stressed that big organizations outside the states must reinforce the different environmental policies and laws of protecting the environment. Primarily, the state and state organizations should be responsible for the change in the large population’s consumption patterns. They should also reorganize societies into more manageable, more ecologically- friendly communities.
It must also be emphasized that the state’s disregard of the peoples and local communities are impinging the rights of the people. The present state system of accommodating market and national interests must be changed. Sustainability must be highly prioritized in all state policies and actions. An expanded involvement of the local communities in state dealings (with regards to environmental resources and its utilization) must be required. Also, the state must make conscious efforts to promote grassroots’ participation to promote environmentalism. Development should be viewed as a universal matter and the environment is an issue which involves all sectors of national and international entities. It is very sad to note that states and its systems prioritize commercial pursuits in the blanket of national development efforts and decision making. However, in the entirety of environmental impacts, the state is not directly responsible nor held accountable for environmental ills. Various examples have illustrated this.
Bibliography:
Agbonifo, John, 2002. The Colonial Origin and Perpetuation of Environmental Pollution in the Postcolonial Nigerian State. [Online]. Available at: < http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/fall2002docs/jagbonifo.pdf>.
Aldy, Joseph. E. & Stavins, Robert N, 2002. The Promise and Problems of Pricing Carbon: Theory and Experience. Journal of Environment and Development, 21(2). p. 152-180.
Braun, Amy. 2011. Governance Challenges in Promoting Environmental Justice. [Online]. Available at: <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/environmental-justice-challenges>.
Daddow, Oliver, 2013. International Relations Theory: The Essentials. New York: Sage Publications.
Forero, Juan, 2011. In Brazil, Oil Boom Brings Environmental Worries. 2011. [Online]. Available at: <http://www.npr.org/2011/12/13/143649188/in-brazil-oil-boom-brings-environmental-worries>.
Schutte, Giorgio R., Jul/Dec. 2012. Neo-developmentalism and the Search of a New International Insertion. Australia.
Sroufe, R., 2003. Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management practices and operations. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), p. 416-431.
UNEP. 2003. The Use of Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Opportunities and Challenges. [Online]. Available at: <http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/EconInst/econInstruOppChnaFin.pdf>.
Tockner, Klement & Stanford, Jack A., 2002. "Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends." Environmental Conservation 29 (3): 308–330.doi:10.1017/S037689290200022X.
Wapner, Paul. 1995. The state and environmental challenges: A critical exploration of alternatives to the state‐system. Environmental Politics, 4 (1), p. 44-69. [Online]. Available at: DOI: 10.1080/09644019508414182.
