Transcript Slide 1

Introduce & critique 2nd standard framework:
international regimes and agreements.
2. Suggest 3rd alternative framework: “cultural change”
in individual & corporate behaviour.
1.
Second standard IR approach to examine global environmental
issues.
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Neoliberal Approach
David Victor on climate change: How to
overcome “law of the least ambitious
program”?



International agreements will only create
state commitments at commitment level of
the least interested party. (Underdal)
In climate change issue, only willing to
prevent catastrophic global warming effects.
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Neoliberal Approach

Victor’s proposed strategies to improve
policy action through treaties:
1.
Limit number of states involved in
negotiations to those that really matter,
avoid those opposing.
2. Non-binding agreements may perform
better than binding ones (paradoxically).
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Liberal Constructivist Approach

Examining how environmental NGOs
and epistemic communities (ECs) have
influenced creation and shape of
international agreements.
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Liberal Constructivist Approach
TAN approach:


E.g. Keck & Sikkink, Activists Beyond
Borders (1998) chapter on NGO influence
on international agreements and IO policies
re: tropical deforestation.
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Liberal Constructivist Approach
Epistemic communities approach:



Pioneered by Peter Haas.
EC definition: “broad coalition of actors
including scientists, bureaucrats, and
politicians, who share a common
interpretation of the science behind a
problem and the broad policy and political
requirements in response” (condensed Haas
1992).
Environmental Regimes and
Agreements:
 Liberal Constructivist Approach
Epistemic communities approach:




Networks of experts have considerable
power in agenda-setting and defining range
of policy solutions.
Many environmental issues involve highly
technical science and thus scientists
influential in shaping agreements.
E.g. ozone crisis, climate change.
But are environmental agreements all
that effective?
 International law riddled with shallow
agreements that only commit states to what
they would already do (Victor; Downs et al).
 Why? In environmental issues, strong
domestic eco movements & voter sentiment
 incentives for symbolic but painless
gestures by governments.
Third, alternative IR approach to examine global environmental
issues.
“Cultural change” in nonstate actors
(Wapner)
 Constructivist argument about cultural
change in everyday behaviour.
 Important changes in how we treat
environment through shifts in individuals’
and corporations’ behaviour.
 “Governance” vs. “Government”: Changes
in norms entirely outside of government
policies.
“Cultural change” in nonstate actors
(Wapner)
 Routes to NGOs changing global
environmental governance:
1. Consciousness-raising campaigns to
change individuals’ views.

E.g. “Reduce, reuse, recycle”
“Cultural change” in nonstate actors
(Wapner)
 Routes to NGOs changing global
environmental governance:
2. Pressuring corporations into changing
practices.


Confrontational – e.g. boycotts.
Cooperative – e.g. product certification.


Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Organic/ fair trade certifications.
“Cultural change” in nonstate actors
(Wapner)
 Criticism: Possibly mainly
“greenwashing” occurs?


Unsubstantiated industry claims of
environmentally friendly products.
Superficial green changes to products
while we consume more and more to
erase benefit.
 Thus, does cultural change make a real
difference in environmental outcomes?