Environmental Regulations: Redefining the Nature of the

 International System 

Elia O’Hara 

Professor Courtney 

PSC 201 Introduction to International Relations 

December 13, 2022

 Exploring the issue of environmental regulations within the international system illuminates how making the lasting changes needed when facing the severity of climate change requires a shift in those traditional mainstream markers of international relations. These could include views on power, the structure of our international organizations, as well as taking note of warnings presented by previous scholars. We as a global community have witnessed the accelerating effects of climate change in recent years – which only continue to worsen. This should become an opportunity for deep reflection and a shift of our rhetorics surrounding concepts of competition, security dilemmas, and overreliance on nationalistic priorities to instead a shared commitment where we recognize that cooperation is the only way to address these issues. As former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel made clear, “Climate change knows no borders… and the whole of the international community here has to shoulder a responsibility to bring about sustainable development.”(Safi 2014). Recognizing that barriers to environmental regulations are, of course, plentiful is a hurdle to overcome, yet not one that leads us further into irreparable damages by avoiding the solutions. 

The severity and urgency of environmental implications appear substantially lacking in regulations and application within international relations. Significant to my reasoning on why these shortcomings arise and how they can be remedied lies within our definitions and theories on power. Most prominent scholars who set the status quo on how we define power in an international context have become outdated and disjointed from the realities facing our world today. For instance, Hans Morganthau, an influential and highly regarded realist, characterized in his work “The Six Principles of Political Realism” how “Power may comprise of anything that established and maintains the control of man over man” (Art and Jervis 2017, pp. 23-4). While this reasoning aligns perfectly with his overarching description of the international system structurally intrinsic to competition, self-interest, and greed, it does not extend to our modern system, where efforts to mitigate conflict and self-interest try to be ardently avoided through the hopes of international organizations, new technology, and diplomatic strategies. Furthermore, the nature of environmental regulation needed to face the climate crisis, these views on power prove unhelped when meeting those pressing issues. The domination of man over man-ideologies has driven unfettered competition and self-interest at the expense of environmental policies and certainly cannot be the mainstream perspective when applying regulatory actions. 

Looking at the work of J. Ann Ticker, a feminist international relations theorist, titled “A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism” within our textbook, greatly highlights my argument by her review of the previously stated concepts of Morgenthau and realism with a feminist perspective. While Tickner’s views span many concepts within realism, the most vital concerning environmental regulations is her discussion on how we view power. Discussed in her article were fellow feminist theorists, including Hannah Arendt, whom Tickner describes “defines power as the human ability to act in concert, or to take action with others who share similar concerns”(Art and Jervis 2017, pp. 33). If this became the premier focus of power on an international scale, perhaps more international relations scholars and nation-states would recognize that the urgency and known devastation of climate change must be met with shared cooperation. 

Another direction that can be employed to address environmental regulations is within international trade, specifically as possible solutions to the barrier of enforcement and coordination between individual states in our current market. Dani Rodrik’s article “A Sane Globalization” speaks to my idea of a shift in priorities and focus through his discussion on what is required to maintain an open market through a reorientation of policies and regulations. For instance, Rodrik uses the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an avenue for improvement as he argued, “An expansion of safeguards to cover environmental, labor, and consumer safety standards or development priorities at home…would increase the legitimacy and resilience of the world trading system and render it more development-friendly”(Art and Jervis 2017, pp. 359). Suppose that line of thinking was embraced in our international community. In that case, I feel it would, with the legitimacy of major international organizations like the WTO, allow for a sense of continuity within nation-states, thus creating conditions where environmental regulations could be implemented. Additionally, it would push back against the well-known barrier of an anarchic structure of the international world, enforceability. Those safeguards can ensure environmental regulations are being met and that nation-states which we usually depend on through voluntary measures, would have accountability. 

Highlighting the infamous work of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” the unique ability of this article is that at the time of publication in 1968, its primary concern was population growth, yet it remains relevant within the purview of international relations as it has come to resemble the issue of the climate crisis and the atmospheric commons. Especially important to note when considering barriers to environmental regulations is the very problem outlined by Hardin when he alleged, “Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interests in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons”(Art and Jervis 2017, pp. 481). Bearing this in mind, extending to environmental stressors that stem from our overall free market and capitalistic structure, the only rational option states have been left with is to continue participating in practices that lead to worsening environmental damage. Taking Hardin’s suggestions and the severity of his claim surrounding a population crisis, such as “Freedom is the recognition of necessity – and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed” (Art and Jervis 2017, pp. 485). This rhetoric can set the stage for environmental regulations by addressing the need for a new definition of freedom and rights when unprecedented events call for alternative ways of thinking to alleviate climate stressors with environmental regulations.

When reviewing what environmental regulations can achieve through international relations in our current structure, the realities of traditional perspectives that have been maintained must be reconsidered. The overarching theme is the need for innovation to meet the unprecedented severity of climate change. Examining examples of outdated views on power and cooperation, our international organizations and their enforcement, as well as prominent thinkers on global issues, provides that context. Only when our international system becomes committed to the necessity of change can environmental regulations prove efficacious. 

Works Cited 

Art, R. J., & Jervis, R. (2017). International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. Pearson.

Safi, M. (2014). Angela Merkel pressures Australia to reveal its greenhouse gas targets. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/17/angela-merkel-pressures-australia-to-reveal-its-greenhouse-gas-targets