Introducing Green Theory in International Relations https://www.e-ir.

info/2018/01/07/green-theory-in-international-relations/

Introducing Green Theory in International Relations

Hugh Dyer

This is an excerpt from International Relations Theory – an E-IR Foundations

beginner’s textbook. Download your free copy here.

In the 1960s there was public recognition of the global environmental crisis arising from the ‘tragedy
of the commons’, which is the idea that as self- interested individuals, humans will overuse shared
resources such as land, fresh water and fish. In the 1970s the first United Nations conference on the
subject was held and by the 1980s green political parties and public policies had emerged. This
coincided with a demand for a green theory to help explain and understand these political issues. By
the 1990s, International Relations had come to recognise the natural environment as an increasingly
significant source of questions for the discipline, requiring theoretical as well as practical attention –
especially in the wake of mounting evidence that human actions were significantly changing our
global climate and presenting security problems as well as ecological ones.

The basics of green theory

Ecological thought addresses the interests of nature itself rather than only the interests of humanity
in nature. Green theory captures this orientation in political terms of value and agency (Goodin
1992) – what is to be valued, by whom and how to get it. Green theory belongs to the critical theory
tradition, in the sense that environmental issues evoke questions about relations between and
among ourselves and others in the context of community and collective decision-making. In turn this
has always raised the question of where the boundaries of political community are. For
environmental problems, which transcend boundaries, these questions take the form of asking at
what level of political community we should seek a solution. For green theorists, the answers are
found in alternative ideas about political association based on our ecological relationships.

The introduction of environmental issues into IR has had some influence, but their theoretical
significance and practical policy implications may be viewed either as compatible or as irreconcilable
with traditional assumptions and current practices. If viewed traditionally, then environmental
issues can simply be added to the list of issues dealt with by existing means, for existing ends. If
viewed alternatively, then these issues may lead to theoretical and practical transformation. Because
theory and practice are linked, when environmental issues challenge existing practice they also raise
new questions that IR theory must contend with. The obvious practical challenges of environmental
change have not yet transformed IR theory – or even practice very much. The continued prevalence
of competitive state relations is not conducive to environmental cooperation or encouraging to green
thought. However, there has been theoretical development and some practical progress and a wide-
ranging literature has emerged viewing a variety of environmental issues from different theoretical
perspectives. If this doesn’t amount to a single clear vision, it certainly represents a longer-term view
about humankind’s common future.

Typically, environmental issues are buried in IR texts under other headings and with little
acknowledgement of their unique theoretical significance. Environmentalism-themed scholarship is
generally accepting of the existing framework of political, social and economic structures of world
politics. While there are of course established forms of critical thought, these address relations
within and between human communities, rather than human relations with the non-human
environment. For example, liberalism emphasises individual rights of choice and consumption but is
not fundamentally concerned with the environmental consequences of that consumption.
Consequently, most forms of environmentalism seek to establish theoretical positions and practical
solutions through existing structures, or in line with existing critiques of such structures. If less
critical in orientation, then these views are likely to be compatible with a liberal position in IR
(viewing international cooperation as being of general benefit to states). If more critical in
orientation, then environmentalism may align itself to a critique of the capitalist world system

1 of 4 5/31/2025, 11:08 AM
Introducing Green Theory in International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/07/green-theory-in-international-relations/

(maldistribution of benefits to people), if not challenging its commitment to production and

consumption per se. An environmentalist perspective, while identifying environmental change as an
issue, attempts to find room for the environment among our existing categories of other concerns,
rather than considering it to be definitional or transformational.

Those frustrated by the lack of recognition of the environmental challenge in international relations
turned to the interdisciplinary science of ecology. Political ecology has allowed both an ecological
perspective to inform political thought and a political understanding of our environmental
circumstances. In particular, our circumstances have long been determined by a particular
developmental path that depends on the over-consumption of natural resources. Specifically, our
political-economic practices of production, distribution and consumption are intended to meet our
immediate human needs and desires. However, these practices are reflected in a growth- dependent
global market economy that is not designed to achieve environmental sustainability or recognise
ecological limits. This economy has provided material development of a kind, but with such uneven
benefits and widespread collateral damage – including to the environment – that it has not provided
human development in an ecological context. From an ecological perspective, there has been a
general criticism of development and even apparently progressive sustainable development
practices. The well-known model of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin 1968), in which our short-
term, individual, rational choices destroy our environmental resources, has thus been applied to the
planet as a whole. It is tragic because we can see it coming but seem unable or unwilling to do
anything about it. That inability is more than a practical problem; it is a profound theoretical
challenge. Hardin pointed out that such issues cannot be solved by technical means, but require a
change in human values.

Moving beyond environmentalism and political ecology, green theory more radically challenges
existing political, social and economic structures. In particular, it challenges mainstream liberal
political and economic assumptions, including those extending beyond the boundaries of existing
political communities (for conventional IR, this means states). Goodin (1992) suggests that a
distinguishing feature of green theory is its reference to a coherent moral vision – a ‘green theory of
value’ – which operates independently of a theory of practices or political agency. For example, a
green morality might suggest that human material development should be curtailed in the interest
of preserving non-human nature. This would limit our freedom to consume however much we can
acquire. The need to put some limits on traditional liberties suggests an approach that puts nature
before people. Green theory, in this sense, is ecocentric.

Ecocentrism (ecology-centred thought) stands against anthropocentrism (human-centred thought).

This is not because ecocentrism ignores human needs and desires, but rather because it includes
those within a wider ecological perspective. Ecocentrism prioritises healthy ecosystems because they
are a prerequisite to human health and wellbeing. In contrast, anthropocentrism sees only the short-
term instrumental value of nature to humans. This ecocentric/anthropocentric distinction is at the
heart of green theory. The holistic ecocentric perspective implies a rejection of the split between
domestic and international politics, given that arbitrary boundaries between nations do not coincide
with ecosystems. For example, air and water pollution can cross a border and climate change cuts
across all borders and populations. Simply, human populations are ecologically interconnected. This
impacts on how we understand and deal with transboundary and global environmental issues
collectively, setting aside national self-interest.

The traditional IR concern with the state, in an international system of states, is a challenge to
thinking about environmental issues. As a central feature of the historical Westphalian model of
sovereign (self-determining) nation-states, the concept of sovereignty (ultimate authority) has been
particularly troubling. Sovereignty neither describes the modern reality of political control nor
offers a reliable basis for human identity or wellbeing. Global environmental problems require
global solutions. This requires that we develop our under- standing of the ‘global’ as an alternative
organising principle and perhaps look to green social movements rather than states for theoretical
insights. This gives rise to the question of whether we need to give up on the idea of countries with
borders as still being relevant to people’s lives, or recast them in some more ecologically
appropriate way with reference to how people live in relation to their environment. This will likely
entail a more global than local kind of ethics. In part this hinges on our view of the need for political
structures (big government, small government or no government) and the level or extent of their

2 of 4 5/31/2025, 11:08 AM
Introducing Green Theory in International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/07/green-theory-in-international-relations/

development. For example, we could promote centralised global political structures, such as an
institution for governing environmental issues (Biermann 2001), or allow a variety of decentralised,
even anarchical, interconnected local structures to emerge as circumstances require (Dyer 2014).

Decentralisation, or the transfer of authority and decision-making from central to local bodies, has
certain attractive features, such as self-determination and democratic accountability. Ecologically
there seem to be advantages as well, since small communities may depend more on immediate local
resources and so be more likely to care for their environment. Local communities are more likely to
conceive of the natural environment and their relationship to it in less instrumental terms, viewing it
more as their home, thus addressing one of the key reasons for the environmental crisis.

For example, the concept of ‘bioregionalism’, where human society is organised within ecological
rather than political boundaries, raises intriguing issues of knowledge, science, history, culture,
space and place in an ecological context (McGinnis 1999). For instance, our sense of identity might
derive more from familiar environmental surroundings than from the idea of nationality, such that
we have greater inherited knowledge and understanding of our local environment than of our
political location. However, there are also a number of objections to decentralisation, or greater
localisation of decision- making. These include the concern that it would not promote cross-
community cooperation as it is too parochial (too exclusively local; the problem of nationalism), and
this would mean little chance of developing effective mechanisms to deal with global problems. In
effect, it might just reproduce a troublesome sovereign-state model of politics on a smaller scale.

To date IR theory has shown concern with transformations in our political communities but
somewhat less concern with transformations in our ecological communities. Perhaps this is because
we are not yet sure how a cosmopolitan global sense of community colours our local relationships.

Green theory and climate change

Climate change is the dominant environmental issue of our age, caused by our dangerous reliance
on fossil fuels. Green theory helps us to understand this in terms of long-term ecological values
rather than short-term human interests. These interests are generally pursued by states through
investments in technology, but there is no easy technical solution to human-induced climate change.
From the perspective of green theory, this technical impasse requires a change in human values and
behaviour and therefore presents an opportunity for political innovation or even a transformative
shift in global politics. IR theory can explain why climate change is a difficult problem for states to
solve because of economic competition and disincentives to cooperation. However, it cannot provide
an alternative framework to explain how this might be addressed. IR remains overly focused on
states and their national interests rather than other actors that may be more cooperative, such as
cities and communities or non-governmental organisations and green social movements.

A green theory perspective on climate change understands it as a direct consequence of human

collective choices. Specifically, these choices have led to historically anthropocentric economic
practices of historically arbitrary political groups (states), who have exploited nature in their own
short-term interests. Climate change presents a clear case of injustice to both present and future
humans who are not responsible for causing it and to the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, a solution
requires an ecocentric theory of value and a more ethical than instrumental attitude to human
relations in our common future. Green theory helps us to redefine issues such as climate change in
terms of long-term ecological values rather than short-term political interests.

At the international level efforts have been underway since before the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, which gave rise to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other environmental agreements. As with many
issues caught up in the direct tension between environmental goals and developmental goals, any
bargains struck are inadequate compromises.

For green theory there is no such tension in an ecological path to development, even if that path
seems more costly in the short term. This is not least because some countries have developing still to
do and hold already developed countries historically responsible for climate change – and no
national actor is willing to bear global costs. After faltering efforts to address climate change through

3 of 4 5/31/2025, 11:08 AM
Introducing Green Theory in International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/07/green-theory-in-international-relations/

the terms of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol, an outline agreement was eventually achieved in the
Paris Accords of December 2015. Whether or not this effort will actually address the sources and
consequences of climate change remains to be seen, but green theory suggests that a focus on
human values and choices in communities is better than a focus on bargaining between states.

In a world of states with primary responsibilities to their own citizens, finding acceptable trade-offs
between immediate economic wellbeing and longer- term ecological wellbeing is difficult. There is
some prospect of powerful states (like China) or groups of states (like the European Union) leading
the way and altering the structural parameters. However, the common ground available from an IR
perspective of competing states is unlikely to be anywhere near the common ground envisioned by
green theory. More fundamentally, it is unlikely to meet the challenge of climate change. Even with
some political agreement, there remain significant differences about responsibility for historic
climate change and the costs of adapting to an already changing climate that is affecting the least
developed populations hardest. While it is possible for states to cooperate in order to make helpful
environmental commitments, this is not directly related to action or change.

In any case, while international agreements are formally implemented by governments and other
constitutional bodies, the key agents of change are a much wider range of non-state actors, smaller
groups and individuals, which may suggest a kind of anarchy rather than hierarchy. In sum, a green
solution to climate change could involve global governance institutions and communities working
together – largely bypassing the state – in order to reduce damaging emissions, protect the climate
and preserve the planetary ecology on which humans depend.

Green theory equips us with a new vantage point for analysing these developments. It also allows a
broader ecological perspective on our common human interests and emphasises choices made
within the ecological boundaries of climate change, rather than the political boundaries of economic
advantage.

Conclusion

For IR, the contribution of green theory helps us re-examine the relationship between the state, the
economy and the environment. IR normally sets this in the context of globalisation viewed from the
limited perspective of states and markets – but globalisation also involves opportunities for
developing shared global ecological values. Green theory has the potential to radically challenge the
idea of sovereign nation states operating in competition and is thus part of the post-Westphalian
trend in IR thought. Of course, the greater contribution of green theory, or its capacity for critical
engagement with IR, lies in its very different origins – taking planetary ecology as a starting point
and looking beyond our current political-economic structures. Green theory is thus able to offer not
just an alternative description of our world but also a different logic for understanding it – and how
we might act to change it. IR theory is likely to be disrupted and re-oriented by green theory, not so
much because greens will win the arguments but because IR theorists will inevitably have to provide
a coherent account of how we all live sustainably on our planet. This means that at some point we
may have to stop theorising about the state-centric ‘inter-national’ and find another political point of
reference in human relationships, such as policy networks or social movements.

Find out more about this, and many other, International Relations theories with a
range of multimedia resources compiled by E-IR.

Full references for citations can be found in the PDF version, linked at the top of this
page.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

4 of 4 5/31/2025, 11:08 AM