Manuela Chyang

POLI 480

                                  ECO-POLITICS AND SOVEREIGNTY

 

Environmental problems have been considered as challenges to state sovereignty. However, states can’t be the only actors in environmental governance; but they should corporate with citizens in order to solve environmental problems. Rose Eckersley argues that states do not play an important role in the ecosystem, and facilitates environmental destruction; therefore the state should redefine its structure. Ken Coca argues that non-state actors and transnational networks do not bring a solution to environmental problems, and challenge state sovereignty. Steven slaughter argues that states and citizens have to share the responsibilities.

Ken Coca recognized two mechanisms that emerged in global environmental governance which are interstate or international regimes, and transnational civil society. In his view, in international regimes while states bind to other institutions which create these regimes, the state can lose some sovereignty. Similarly, in transnational civil societies the “state” lacks the ability to control local access to or uses of natures, whereby authority is not consolidated. Basically, environmental problems create problems with sovereign borders and govern mentality. I don’t agree with the fact that Ken Coca totally cast non-states actors in environmental governance, because the state can’t carry the responsibility alone.

Steven Slaughter on the other hand, argues that the state should move from liberalism to neo- Roman republicanism, because liberalism is the cost of the escalation of environmental problems. The first concept of neo-republicanism is non -domination which means that there shouldn’t be any interference in a person life. The second concept is public good which is an egalitarian that can only be obtained in a society where there is no arbitration. The third concept is political participation which means that the citizen should have active interest in state affairs. I agree with Steven argument, because individuals have a role to play in state affairs and the government should give them the chance to participate. Because, if an individual find him- self in a society where he is dominated or does not have a say he or she can’t be a potential actor. We can see this in many states where there is not a true sense of democracy, which means that citizens are always fearful to take part in state affairs or bring solutions to certain problems, in this case environmental problems. For instance, when it comes to recycling this mostly works in the first world, because in most of third world countries citizens are not even considered by the government so if the government put in place a recycling project they would not participate.  Just as Rose Eckersley argues, the state should not be anarchic and centralized. One important argument she made is that individuals should not be defined by what they own. I think this is a very important point, because capital is not the only thing that makes up an individual and defining an individual only with this, restraint most individuals from contributing in the construction of a green society or state. Also, we are living in a society where the economic gap is continuously increasing between the rich and the poor, thereby defining people with capital leave the majority out. Basically Steven Slaughter and Rose are very supportive of the involvement of other agents in environmental governance.

In conclusion, states can’t solve environmental problems on their own, they should allow other agents to contribute but just make sure the state is well structured. Even if the sovereignty is challenged, as long as they play their role that’s what matters; because a green society is beneficial for all.