SIKKIM UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

TOPIC: GREEN THEORY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

PAPER: INT-C-551

NAME: Moumita Singha

ROLL NUMBER: 23MAIR12

ENROLLMENT NUMBER: CUSPGCT0001085

PROGRAMME: Master of Arts (M.A)

PAPER: Contemporary Theories of International Relations

 ABSTRACT
Green theory is a critical theory tradition mainly deals with the global environmental concerns, emerging between
various nations of the world. This paper delves into the basis of intersection of environmental concerns and
International Relations theory. It begins with an overview of the ecological crisis and the emergence of green
theorizing across various disciplines, emphasizing its increasingly international focus. Further, this paper examines
how environmental issues and green thinking have influenced the landscape of IR theory.

Traditional IR theories like neorealism and neoliberalism tend to treat environmental problems merely as a ‘new
issue area’ that can be analyzed using existing theoretical frameworks. However, these approaches are critiqued for
their state-centric perspective, rationalist analysis, and neglect of ecological considerations. Moreover, Green IR
theory challenges these orthodox approaches by questioning the dominance of the state-centric framework and
highlighting the ecological blindness of traditional IR theories. Green IR theory offers alternative interpretations of
international justice, development, modernization, and security, incorporating ecological perspectives into its
analysis. This paper encompasses the main principles of Green Theory- Ecocentrism, Limits to Growth and
Decentralization.

The paper explores the re-emergence of International Relations through Green Theory lenses by focusing mainly on
the Green Security, Green State and Green Economy. By examining how different theories address global
environmental change, the chapter underscores the significance of green IR theory in providing novel insights and
approaches to understanding and addressing environmental challenges on a global scale.
 CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION
The basis of Green Theory

2 THE EMERGENCE OF GREEN THEORY

From environmental issues to Green Theory
The transnational turn in the Green Theory

3 CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREEN THEORY

4 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF GREEN THEORY

Ecocentrism
Limits to Growth
Decentralization

5 RE-ENVISIONING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THROUGH

GREEN THEORY
Green Security
Green State
Green Economy

6 CRITICISM AND CONCLUSION

7 REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION:

The green theory is an emerging school of thought that emphasises the interdependence of the natural environment
and human society. It draws attention to the impact of human actions on the environment and recognises the need
for sustainable development practices. The green theory challenges traditional mainstream international relations
theories, such as realism and liberalism, which focused mainly on the distribution of power and the pursuit of
national interests. Instead, the green theory argues that environmental issues are not merely technical problems but
also political, economic, and social ones that require global solutions. Green theorists believe that the degradation of
the natural environment can lead to conflicts over resources, migration, and social unrest. Climate change,
deforestation, and pollution have severe consequences for human well-being and the stability of the international
system. Thus, Green theory advocates for integrating environmental concerns into international relations, policies,
and institutions. This theory also known as ecological international relations or environmental international
relations, traces its roots to the broader environmental movement of the late 20th century. The growing awareness of
humanity's impact on the natural world, coupled with mounting ecological crises, emphasized a shift in perspective
within the field of international relations. Scholars began to recognize the interconnectedness of environmental
issues with traditional security, economic, and political concerns, prompting the development of a distinct
theoretical framework.

One of the main principles of green theory is the concept of sustainability, which refers to the ability of the Earth's
systems to support life in the long term. Green theorists argue that sustainability should be at the core of
international relations, as it has economic growth, social equity, and implications of environmental protection. This
necessitates a shift towards renewable energy, conservation, and responsible sustainable consumption. Another
principle of the green theory is the recognition of the intrinsic value of nature. Green theorists reject the instrumental
view of nature, which views environment as a resource to be exploited for human benefit. Instead, they emphasize
on the moral and ethical considerations of protecting the natural world. This perspective acknowledges that nature
has inherent value and should be preserved for its own sake. The green theory also highlights the importance of
international cooperation in addressing global environmental challenges. Furthermore, Green theorists argue that it
would not be possible for individual countries to solve ecological problems alone rather require collective action and
collaboration. International institutions, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are critical in coordinating global efforts to address environmental
issues.

Green theory has made significant contributions to the field of international relations by challenging traditional
paradigms and expanding the scope of analysis to include environmental considerations. By highlighting the
interconnectedness of environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and conflict, green theory has expanded the
traditional security agenda to encompass non-traditional security threats. Also, this theory advocated for a holistic
approach to development that balances economic, social, and environmental objectives. By emphasizing the
importance of sustainability, green theorists have influenced international development policies and practices,
promoting initiatives that prioritize environmental conservation and social equity. By recognizing many
environmental challenges that transcend national boundaries, green theory emphasizes the importance of
transnational cooperation and multilateral governance mechanisms. From climate change agreements to biodiversity
conservation efforts, green theorists advocate for collaborative approaches to address shared environmental
concerns.

The Basis of Green Theory

Ecological thought prioritizes the interests of nature itself over solely human interests within it. Green theory
translates this perspective into political terms, addressing questions of value and agency: what is to be valued, by
whom, and how it is to be achieved. Rooted in the critical theory tradition, green theory examines environmental
issues through the lens of community and collective decision-making, questioning the boundaries of political
community. The environmental problems often surpass borders, green theorists advocate for alternative political
associations based on ecological relationships to address these challenges effectively. Thus, this theory seeks to
redefine political communities in alignment with human interconnectedness with the environment.

The advent of environmental concerns in International Relations has led to the emergence of debates about
compatibility with traditional assumptions and practices. However, despite practical challenges, environmental
change has not fundamentally altered IR theory or practice. Competitive state relations remain dominant, hindering
environmental cooperation and green thought. Nevertheless, there has been theoretical development and some
practical progress, leading to a diverse examination of literature on environmental issues from various perspectives.
Environmental issues are often marginalized in IR texts, lacking acknowledgment of their unique theoretical
significance. Environmentalism typically fits within existing political, social, and economic structures, seeking
theoretical positions and solutions within these frameworks. For example, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights
but does not inherently address environmental consequences. Environmentalism can align with liberal views on
international cooperation or take a more critical stance, challenging capitalist systems' commitment to production
and consumption.Some scholars being frustrated by the lack of recognition, turned to political ecology, integrating
ecological perspectives into political thought and understanding environmental challenges politically. This approach
critiques the overconsumption of natural resources driven by political-economic practices aimed at meeting
immediate human needs, often neglecting environmental sustainability. The "tragedy of the commons" model is
applied to global environmental issues, highlighting the need for a shift in human values rather than just technical
solutions.

Green theory transcends the realms of environmentalism and political ecology by challenging entrenched political,
social, and economic structures. The core of green theory is a coherent moral vision—a 'green theory of value'—that
operates independently of theories or political agency (Goodin, 1992). This moral vision often entails curtailing
human material development to preserve non-human nature, suggesting limits on traditional liberties and placing
nature before people. Therefore, Green theory embodies an ecocentric perspective, prioritizing healthy ecosystems
as essential for human health and well-being.
THE EMERGENCE OF GREEN THEORY

The period of European global expansion and the industrial revolution marked a significant turning point in
environmental degradation, leading to a more widespread and severe issues. Before this time, while human activities
certainly impacted local environments, the scale and scope of these impacts were generally limited to specific
regions. However, with the advent of industrialization and increased global connectivity, environmental degradation
became more widespread and severe, leading to the 'modern ecological crisis.' This crisis emphasizes a range of
environmental issues, including pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, and climate change. The 1960s marked
a significant turning point in the environmental movement, as this era witnessed a growing awareness of the
environmental side-effects of the Post-Second World War economic boom. Rapid economic growth, technological
advancements, and increase in pollution led to heightened energy and resource consumption, increased pollution and
waste production, and the loss of biodiversity. While some improvements in environmental indicators were observed
in certain countries towards the end of the twentieth century, the overall global environmental outlook remained
aloof. The United Nations Environment Program's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005, revealed
that approximately 60% of the ecosystem services vital for supporting life on Earth were being degraded or used
unsustainably. This assessment underscored the urgent need for concerted global action to address environmental
degradation and promote sustainability.

The term "ecological predicament" addresses the complexity and unique challenges faced by the policymakers in
addressing environmental issues. Environmental problems are often unintended, diffuse, and transboundary in
nature. They unfold over long timescales and involve a wide range of actors, necessitating extensive negotiation and
cooperation among stakeholders. Also, referred to as ‘wicked problem’ due to their multifaceted nature, variability,
and intractability. They defy simple solutions and often arise as unintended consequences in a rapidly modernizing
world. Moreover, they are "piggyback products" that accompany normal consumption, being inhaled or ingested
alongside other goods and services (Ulrich Beck, 1992). This highlights the challenge of addressing environmental
issues effectively, as they require comprehensive and holistic approaches that account for their interconnectedness
and systemic nature and deepens the importance of proactive and collaborative efforts to mitigate and adapt
environmental challenges in order to foster sustainability in the global environment.

The emergence of radical voices within the environmental movement, along with critical perspectives from the
social sciences and humanities, led to questioning not only the side-effects of economic growth but also the concept
of growth itself and the broader processes of modernization. This debate gained momentum in the early 1970s,
particularly with the "limits-to-growth" discourse. Influential publications such as the Club of Rome's "The Limits to
Growth" report (Meadows et al., 1972) and The Ecologist magazine's "Blueprint for Survival" (Ecologist, 1972)
presented alarming forecasts of impending ecological catastrophe unless the prevailing model of exponential
economic growth was replaced with a more sustainable "steady-state" economic development approach. These
debates coincided with significant events like the first United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment in 1972, which marked the formal recognition of environmental issues as a "global issue." This
conference played a pivotal role in shaping international environmental policy and fostering global cooperation on
environmental matters. (Robyn Eckersley, 249)

From Environmental issues to Green Theories

The emergence of green political theory in the late 1980s represented a significant shift in social and political
thought, providing a framework to address the interconnected concerns of various social movements, including
environmental peace, anti-nuclear, and women's movements. These movements together shaped the ideology of
green politics, leading to the formation of new green parties at local, national, and regional levels, particularly in
Europe. Green politics is characterized by its four pillars: ecological responsibility, social justice, nonviolence, and
grassroots democracy. These principles served as the foundation for green party platforms worldwide, extending
beyond Europe to regions like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Thus, Green politics stood as a unique global
political discourse opposing neoliberal globalization. The term "green" is often associated with environmental
issues, by the early 1990s, green political theory had evolved into a distinct political tradition challenging the
dominance of liberalism and socialism. Similar to these traditions, green political theory comprises both normative
and political economy branches. The normative branch addresses questions of justice, rights, democracy,
citizenship, the state, and the environment, while the political economy branch focuses on understanding the
relationship between the state, the economy, and the environment. Although the domestic dimensions of green
political theory are well-defined, while, its international normative and political economy dimensions are still
evolving. This new green tradition represents a significant departure from traditional political ideologies and
continues to develop as a formidable force in global politics.

The First wave of green political theory offered a comprehensive limitation for both Western capitalism and Soviet
communism, due to their manifestations over the ideology of industrialism, despite their differences in the role of
the market and the state. Green theorists challenged the Enlightenment ideals of progress and modernization
embraced by liberalism and orthodox Marxism, which assumed that uncontrolled economic growth and
technological advancement were not only desirable but also inevitable. Also, Green theorists emphasized the limits
of human knowledge about the natural world and cautioned against major technological interventions in nature due
to their potential social and ecological costs. The critique was central to the Frankfurt School's critical theorists, who
explored the relationship between human domination and the domination of nature. While Marx had adopted a
Promethean stance towards nature, later Frankfurt School thinkers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer
highlighted the negative consequences of instrumental reason on human society and nature. Jurgen Habermas,
another prominent figure of the Frankfurt School, emphasized the need to protect the ‘life world’ from the
encroachment of instrumental rationality, advocated for critical deliberation and communicative rationality. His
ideas influenced the development of green democratic theory and critical examinations of the relationship between
risk, science, technology, and society. In contrast to orthodox Marxist theory, which focused on relations of
production, green theory expanded its critique to include the forces of production (technology and management
systems) and ‘the relations of definition’(Ulrich Beck,1992) that shape and manage the risks of modernization. This
broader critique underscores the interdisciplinary nature of green political theory and its relevance in addressing the
challenges of the contemporary world.

The Transnational turn in Green Theory

The second wave of green political theory has shifted towards a more transnational and cosmopolitan orientation,
focusing on rethinking core political concepts and institutions in light of environmental challenges. While the first
wave of green theory critiqued core social institutions like the market and the state, the second wave is more
concerned with transnationalizing political concepts and institutions. This shift has led to the development of new
transnational conceptualizations of environmental justice, rights, democracy, activism, citizenship, and green states.
Green theorists have engaged with normative IR theory, particularly discussions on human rights, cosmopolitan
democracy, and transnational civil society. According to green theory, environmental injustices occur when social
agents externalize environmental costs onto innocent third parties without their knowledge or input. Moreover,
advocates for recognition of an expanded moral community affected by ecological risks, participation and
deliberation in environmental decision-making, precautionary approaches, fair distribution of risks, and redress for
affected parties.

Green political economists have also adopted a more globally focused perspective, challenging neoclassical
economics and advocating for ecological economics. While ecological modernization discourse suggests that
economic growth can be decoupled from environmental degradation through technological innovation, green critics
argue that this approach overestimates the conjunction between capitalist development and environmental
protection. They advocate for reflexive modernization, which entails critical reflection on the means and ends of
modernization, and a distinction between weak and strong versions of ecological modernization. Internal divisions
within green circles persist regarding the capacity of capitalist economies, states, or the state system to become
ecologically reflexive. Economic globalization and neoliberal discourses have made the pursuit of green agendas
more challenging. Additionally, the anarchic structure of the state system presents obstacles to resolving
transnational and global ecological problems like climate change.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREEN THEORY

Climate change stands as the major environmental challenge of the present era and fundamentally rooted in
extensive reliance on fossil fuels. Green theory offers a crucial lens through emphasizing long-term ecological
values over short-term human interests. It contends that while states often pursue their interests through
technological advancements, there's no rush to technically fix the human-induced climate crisis. Instead, addressing
this challenge, this demands a shift in human values and behaviors, presenting an opportunity for innovative
political solutions or even a transformative shift in global politics. From a green theory perspective, climate change
emerges as a direct consequence of collective human decisions, particularly the historically anthropocentric
economic practices of political groups (states) that exploit nature for short-term gain. This view reflects climate
change as a profound injustice to both present and future humans who are not responsible for its causes, as well as to
the ecosystem as a whole. Thus, solving this crisis requires an ecocentric theory of value and a more ethical, less
instrumental approach to human relations in our shared future. Efforts to address climate change at the international
level began before the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, which led to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other environmental agreements such as-

 Montreal Protocol(1987)
 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD,1994)
 Kyoto Protocol (1997)
 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000)
 Stockholm Convention (2001)
 Nagoya Protocol (2010)
 Minamata Convention (2013)
 COP21(2016)
 COP24(2018)
 COP25(2019)
 COP26 (2021)
 COP27(2022)
 COP28(2023)

Despite these efforts, compromises between environmental and developmental goals have often been inadequate.
Therefore, green theory offers a fresh perspective on climate change, emphasizing ecological values over immediate
political gains. It encourages a deeper examination of our collective choices and advocates for global governance
institutions and communities to work together, potentially bypassing states, to tackle this urgent crisis.

MAIN PRINCIPLES OF GREEN THEORY

The scholars began exploring the fundamental ideas and beliefs of Green Theory within the field of International
Relations during the 1990s. The study of Green political theory and the global ecology were significant in shaping
the core principles of Green Theory concerning global policy. On one hand, Green political theory offers a
foundational framework by providing structured approach to international relations concepts and principles. On the
other hand, global ecology offers the empirical and descriptive foundation that allows Green Theory to explain real-
world situations and phenomena. The literature on Green Theory in International Relations, shaped by contributions
of Wolfgang Sachs, Pratap Chatterjee, Matthias Finder, Vandana Shiva, among others, is centered on addressing
environmental crises and advocating for environmental protection. The World Summit of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 is regarded as a pivotal moment in this discourse.
This summit played a crucial role in elevating environmental issues to the forefront of public opinion and political
agendas. However, it's also viewed as a significant disappointment, marking the end of elite-led collaborations for
environmental causes. The main assumptions of Green Theory have been categorized as-

Ecocentrism
This places the environment at the center of concern, emphasizing the intrinsic value of nature and advocating for its
protection. However, this perspective arose as a critique of anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests and
values. Ecocentrism challenges the human-centric view and advocates for a more holistic understanding of the
environment's worth and serves as the foundation for various non-anthropocentric theories and systems,
encompassing a wide range of environmentalist perspectives that emphasize the intrinsic value of nature. Thus, the
ecocentric approach aligns well with modern sciences, as it integrates scientific findings into its framework.
Furthermore, Ecocentric thinkers do not reject science; instead, they use scientific knowledge to support their views,
particularly in critiquing anthropocentric perspectives and also recognize the importance of ethical and philosophical
considerations in shaping relationship with the environment. However, this perspective is characterized by four main
ethical features: protection of resources, human prosperity ecology, preservationism, and emancipation of animals.

Limits to Growth
The second main assumption of Green Theory, known as limits to growth, asserts that there are finite boundaries to
the expansion of human communities. This concept gained prominence with the publication of the book "Limits to
Growth" in 1972. The book was the result of collaboration among scientists from ten different countries who
convened in Rome in 1968 to form the Club of Rome. Their aim was to draw attention to the interconnectedness of
economic, political, natural, and social phenomena within the global system and to advocate for new policy
directions. Central to their mission was the goal of assessing the human condition and addressing the complex
challenges facing humanity, such as poverty amidst abundance, loss of trust in institutions, environmental
destruction (ecocide), uncontrolled urbanization, unemployment, and more. Moreover, this encompasses three
dimensions. Firstly, technology, as insufficient for ensuring sustainability across economic, political, and social
domains. Despite technological advancements, Green Theory argues that these alone cannot create a truly
sustainable society. Secondly, rapidly industrializing societies often overlook or dismiss threats to the environment,
leading to severe consequences over time. Thirdly, Green Theory emphasizes the interconnected nature of problems
stemming from growth. Addressing one issue does not guarantee resolution of associated problems, resulting in a
complex web of interconnected challenges. According to Green Theory “sustainability" is central and implies a
reduction in energy consumption, economic production, and judicial resource use in industrialized nations.

Decentralization
The third assumption of Green Theory is the belief in decentralized structures of authority. Decentralization involves
transferring decision-making power from central authorities to local governments or communities. This approach
offers several advantages, including increased autonomy and democratic accountability. Additionally,
decentralization is viewed favorably in environmental terms because they empower local communities in decision
making process that are in line with their specific environmental needs and concerns. By granting them greater
control over their environment, decentralized systems encourage a sense of ownership and responsibility among
community members. Moreover, by emphasizing local decision-making and prioritizing the needs of communities,
decentralized approaches can help address the root causes of environmental crises. Moreover, the concept of
"bioregionalism" becomes significant, as it advocates for organizing human societies based on ecological regions,
recognizing the interconnectedness between communities and their environments. By embracing bioregionalism and
decentralized governance, Green Theory aims to foster sustainable environmental management and mitigate
environmental crises.

The Green Theory aims to create a more environmentally friendly world, but achieving this goal requires
cooperation with structures that it has challenged in the past. To garner broad support, the theory must strategically
form coalitions, which may include stakeholders such as trade unions and representatives from the private sector,
despite previous opposition. Green Theory encompasses diverse perspectives, drawing from post-structuralism,
critical theory, social constructivism, and feminism. It is characterized as a post-positivist theory, focusing on
reconstructing the relationship between humans and nature. Concepts like ‘ecological self’ aims to foster a deeper
connection with nature. Eco-radicals advocate for radical changes to establish a green state, viewing the state as
complicit in environmental crises. There is debate among eco-radicals regarding how to replace the state structure,
with discussions ranging from measures and reforms to more fundamental transformations. Future studies in Green
Theory are expected to focus on empirical evidence and the visible effects of environmental challenges, such as
climate change and resource depletion. There is growing attention to transitioning to a post-carbon society, with
ecological realists emphasizing the unsustainability of current lifestyles. The Green Theory literature reflects
urgency in addressing environmental disasters, with terms like "climate chaos" and "carbon-constrained world"
becoming prominent. Despite global awareness, actions often fall short of addressing the root causes of
environmental degradation. Projects like the "Dark Mountain" initiative and works by authors like James Lovelock
highlight the urgency of ecological realities and the need for transformative action.

1. RE-ENVISIONING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THROUGH

GREEN THEORY
The Green Theory of international relations presents a distinctive perspective from traditional dominant theories, yet
it also reevaluates many concepts found in traditional international relations. Key concepts such as security, state,
and economy are central to both traditional and green theories, but they are understood and valued differently within
the green framework. These ares-

Green Security
Security has been a paramount issue with various theories offering different perspectives on its dynamics.
Traditional theories, such as realism, have primarily focused on state security, emphasizing the anarchic nature of
the international system and the need for states to ensure their security through acquiring capabilities. In contrast,
liberalism, while also concerned with security, takes a more normative approach, considering the security of
individuals and institutions in addition to states. However, both realist and liberal perspectives share an
anthropocentric view, prioritizing human interests and structures over the non-human world. In contrast, Green
International Relations theory adopts an ecocentric worldview, viewing security in terms of the well-being of the
entire natural world, preferring the term "globe" over "earth." Greens criticize realism for its narrow focus on
national security and state-centric approach, advocating instead for a broader framework that considers human well-
being and ecosystem integrity as central to security. They argue that an anthropocentric viewpoint limits the
understanding of security by ignoring the interdependence of state and human security on ecological well-being.

Green State
The state has long been regarded as the most important actor in international relations, particularly from a realist
perspective. However, this perception began to change after the Cold War, with the rise of liberal and normative
perspectives. Globalization further contributed to this transformation, as nations became more interdependent, and
international relations became more complex with the involvement of additional actors such as NGOs, individuals,
and companies alongside states. As this transformation unfolded in international relations, the natural world was also
undergoing irreversible changes. The evolving role of the state in responding to emerging environmental issues
became a topic of discussion, especially as states seemed to fail in addressing problems like global warming that
emerged in the 1960s. Green theorists argue that states' pursuit of relative gains is a key driver of environmental
problems. States prioritize solving environmental issues that directly affect them, while being reluctant to address
problems that involve common goods like water and air. Furthermore, states often prioritize short-term economic
interests over environmental protection, leading to the exploitation of natural resources. This state-centric approach
in world politics has led Greens to question its sustainability and efficacy in addressing global environmental
challenges. The pressures of the state system and the global economy often lead states like Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Brazil to assert their sovereign rights to exploit natural resources, framing it as a matter of sovereignty rather than
environmental concern. Realists argue that despite challenges and past ineffective policies, states remain the most
legitimate and capable actors to enforce environmental rules due to their resources and regional control.
Environmental agreements further reinforce sovereignty principles, strengthening the state system as states
formulate foreign policy. Despite Greens' opposition to state hegemony, some Green thinkers advocate for a strong
state capable of negotiating at the global level and redistributing resources from wealthy to impoverished areas.
While many Green thinkers are generally wary of states and their intentions, some view the state as a necessary
entity, albeit with suspicion.

Green Economy
Green international relations theory encompasses an international political economy perspective. The link between
environmental issues and the international economy became evident after the 1970s, leading to discussions at
international summits and conferences. However, economic interests often hinder consensus on environmental
action, with debates on burden-sharing between developed and developing states. Climate negotiations often
prioritize economic self-interest over environmental action. From a green international political economic
viewpoint, while global awareness is crucial, actions should primarily be taken at the domestic level. This involves
challenging the economic, social, and political foundations of the global economy. The principle of "think globally,
act locally" is emphasized for addressing global problems. Since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
sustainable development has been a dominant strategy to address economically driven global issues. While most
nations now recognize the importance of sustainable development, environmentalists and green political theorists
remain skeptical about its effectiveness. Deep environmentalists view development itself as problematic, as it often
leads to increased injustice in the world.

In conclusion, Greens argue that extensive trade contributes to the erosion of national independence, economic
security, and ecological problems. They critique the global economy for viewing ecology solely as a resource to
exploit and emphasize a normative and ethical perspective on human-nonhuman relations. However, Green rejection
is not against consumption per se; rather, they advocate for a balanced approach that considers both consumption
and protection of the environment.

CRITICISM AND CONCLUSION

Environmental issues and global warming present new challenges for international relations, as traditional means of
military defense and deterrence are insufficient to address them. Green international theory advocates for radical
political change to challenge the existing world order and protect the planet from human-induced damage. Humans
are seen as responsible for environmental problems and have an ethical duty to protect the Earth and its biodiversity.
One key aim of Green thought is to ensure a fair share of the environment among species and prevent communities
from exploiting nature solely for their own benefit. However, critics of Green politics argue against its ecocentric
worldview, considering it too radical and rejecting the idea of completely abandoning anthropocentrism in
international relations. Additionally, some critics view certain arguments of Green theory, such as the limits to
growth, as outdated and lacking modern scientific support. They also criticize the perceived radicalism of Green
theory, arguing that its assumptions and expectations are unrealistic and that systemic change cannot occur quickly.

Green theory offers a profound reevaluation of the conventional understanding of the relationship between the state,
the economy, and the environment within the realm of International Relations (IR). Typically, IR analysis tends to
view globalization through the lens of states and markets, often overlooking the potential for the development of
shared global ecological values within this framework. However, green theory challenges this perspective by
questioning the notion of sovereign nation-states operating in competition, thus aligning with the post-Westphalian
trend in IR thought. The significance of green theory in IR lies not only in its capacity to challenge traditional
paradigms but also in its unique origins, rooted in planetary ecology and transcending current political-economic
structures. By prioritizing the health of the planet as a foundational principle, green theory provides not just an
alternative description of the world, but also a distinct logic for comprehending it and guiding actions towards
meaningful change. As green theory gains traction, it has the potential to disrupt and reorient IR discourse. This
transformation is not solely due to the persuasive arguments put forth by green theorists, but rather stems from the
necessity for IR scholars to grapple with the imperative of sustainable living on our planet. Consequently, there
arises a need to move beyond the state-centric focus of traditional IR analysis and explore alternative political
reference points such as policy networks or social movements. In essence, green theory prompts a fundamental shift
in how we conceptualize and engage with global issues, urging us to transcend narrow national interests in favor of
broader ecological concerns. Its influence on IR theory signifies a growing recognition of the interconnectedness of
human societies with the natural world and underscores the imperative of forging new pathways towards planetary
sustainability.
REFERENCES:

 Ozekin, M.Kursad, Gunar, Engin Sune. Critical Approaches to International Relations: Philosophical
Foundations and Current Debates, First Edition (2022), pp.240-262, Brill, Leiden, Boston.
 Ari, Tayyar, Toprak Elif. Theories of International Relations II, First edition (2019), pp.163-178, Anadolu
University Publication, Turkey.
 Mcglinchey, Stephen, Walters Rosie& Scheinpflugpp Christian. International Relations Theory, (2017),
pp.84-90, E-International Relations, Bristol, England.
 Devetak, Richard, True, Jacqui. Theories of International Relations, Sixth Edition (2022), pp.462-500,
Bloomsbury Academic, London.
 Burchill, Scott, Linklater, Andrew, et al. Theories of International Relations, Second Edition(2005),
pp.235-254, Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom.
 Eckersley, Robyn. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, (2004), The MIT Press.