States are increasingly struggling to fulfil their core functions in large part because of their increased economic interdependence with other countries, a process commonly referred to as economic globalisation. Although international (or inter-polity) trade is nothing new and has taken place for thousands of years, the extent to which countries have become dependent on imports and exports, and international investments and money flows, has reached levels that have led many analysts to argue that the ability of states to fulfil their functions and to meet the needs of their citizens, has eroded to the extent that they have become outdated political institutions, and must be replaced by other governance institutions. The need to address the environmental challenge at the global level is often seen as an additional and crucial reason to advocate for the supersession of states. Significant efforts have been made to strengthen international and global policies and institutions in addressing the environmental challenge. Similarly, the calls for strong(er) international and global regulation and institutions to tackle (financial-) economic instability and risks, fight international crime and terrorism, pandemics, and contain the risks of major international conflict, and war, all add to the case for strengthening global governance and for reining in what is increasingly perceived as the irrational, irresponsible and damaging behaviour and actions of states that continue to pursue misguided notions of their national interest.
At face value, this interpretation of the existing international (dis-) order seems plausible. Surely, humanity has reached a point where it needs to collectively face up to these global challenges if it is to have a decent future, if at all. Yet, international efforts have been, and still are, tentative, weak, and mostly ineffective. Many factors hinder the creation of effective international and global governance regimes. Here, I draw on four perspectives from the fields of International Relations and Globalisation to identify some of these. Although there are significant differences in interpretation between these schools of thought, some of which are conflicting or incompatible, there is considerable merit in each, mainly because the international and global reality is too complex and messy for it to be captured by a single school of thought.
The Table below offers a schematic overview of four schools of thought in the fields of International Relations (IR) and globalisation that I elaborate upon on other pages. The first two, Realism and Institutionalism, have been mainstream but competing perspectives within the field of international relations. The third, International Political Economy (IPE), has also been around for a long time but has developed largely outside the field of IR, mainly due to its Marxist roots and critical stance. The fourth, Cosmopolitanism, has also long historical roots but has been marginalised because of its perceived idealism. Although within each of these schools of thought, there is a variety of streams that come under a raft of different labels (sometimes with a “neo” prefix), the discussion on these pages focuses on what I perceive to be the core or shared characteristics. The reasons for this are both economy of space and the aim to identify some of the main factors that can be held responsible for the low status of environmental protection at the global level. As noted above, all four schools of thought offer valuable insights into what is happening in the world and why, based on differences in emphasis on aspects of global reality, especially those linked to the different forms of power. They also, therefore, offer largely complementary views on the obstacles to environmental integration at the global level.
International relations and globalisation: four main perspectives
| Realism | Institutionalism | International Political Economy | Cosmopolitanism | |
| Main actors/ agency | States as self-interested sovereign & unitary actors | Analysis of capital and capital flows, TNCs, the role of governments, international institutions, and critical theory | Billiard balls, geopolitical analysis, game theory | Global citizens, global (civil) society, social & environmental movements, INGOs |
| Nature of relations | Adversarial, conflicting national interests, bargaining, ad hoc coalitions | Inter-dependence, mutual interests, co-operation, but also conflict | Hierarchical & exploitative, imperialism, centre-periphery, resistance | Co-operative, based on recognition of common humanity and one Earth |
| Focus of study/main concerns | Security, conflict management, relative capability, geopolitics, hegemony, civilisational conflict | Governance systems, institutions and international organisations, regimes, problem-solving | Dynamics of capitalism, economic globalisation and concentration of capital, inequality, and social injustice | Moral principles, human rights and duties, social justice, global interdependence, international and global institutions |
| Metaphors & methodology | Analysis of negotiations, treaties, regime effectiveness, and the role of epistemic communities | Analysis of capital and capital flows, TNCs, role of governments, international institutions, and critical theory | States, international organisations, NGOs, and epistemic communities | One (“Blue”) Earth, constructivist, normative designs for a new world order; green critical theory |
| Environmental integration solutions | Environmental security based on state interests | Strengthening of environmental regimes and institutions | Structural political-economic change | Creating global institutions, enhancing democracy |
Although within each of these schools of thought, there is a variety of streams that come under a raft of different labels (sometimes with a “neo” prefix), the discussion on these pages focuses on what I perceive to be the core or shared characteristics. The reasons for this are both economy of space and the aim to identify some of the main factors that can be held responsible for the low status of environmental protection at the global level. As noted above, all four schools of thought offer valuable insights into what is happening in the world and why, based on differences in emphasis on aspects of global reality, especially those linked to the different forms of power. They also, therefore, offer largely complementary views on the obstacles to environmental integration at the global level.