scholarly journals Atores não-estatais e meio ambiente nas relações internacionais: Greenpeace e a Antártica

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael A. Duarte VILLA

O artigo analisa a crescente importância que vem tomando nas relações internacionais os atores nãoestatais transnacionais. Especificamente, o autor explora o caso dos atores ecológicos através de um estudo de caso: a ação do grupo Greenpeace na Antártica na década de 80. A hipótese central da pesquisa é que os atores não-estatais transnacionais, a exemplo dos grupos ecológicos, revisam a noção do enfoque realista da política internacional segundo a qual o monopólio das relações internacionais pertence ao Estado nacional. Congruente com tal hipótese, a emergência do ator não-estatal ecológico vai no sentido de questionar essa noção e abrir espaço para o surgimento de um sistema internacional plural quanto a seus atores e sua agenda de questões. A conclusão aponta para um envolvimento cada vez mais crescente, no nível internacional e nacional, desse tipo de ator não-estatal em arenas diferenciadas da dimensão estratégico-militar. Este estudo foi feito com base na interação desse grupo ecológico com o sistema de estados reunidos em torno do Tratado Antártico. Actors who not pertain to the state, and dealing with environmental issues in international relations: Greenpeace and the Antarctic Abstract This article analyses the growing importance transnational, non-statal actors has taken in international relationships. Specifically, the author explores the case of environmental actors discussing a case study: Greenpeace’s action in Antarctic, during the 1980’s. The main hypothesis states that transnational, non-statal actors, just like environmental groups, forces a reviewing of the realistic approach to the theory of international relationships, according to whom the monopoly of those international relationships belongs to the national State. According to that hypothesis, the emergence of transnational, non-statal actors defies the realistic notion, and opens space for an international system that is plural for its actors and agenda. The conclusion sets for a growing commitment, at national and international levels, for that kind of non-statal actor, in an arena different from the stractegic-military one. So, this study has been made considering the interaction of Greenpeace and the State system organized to the Antarctic Treaty.

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 632-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Jabour

This article draws on the work of John Lewis Gaddis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian particularly well known for his scholarship on the Cold War. In his 1986 paper, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System” Gaddis posited a range of plausible reasons for why neither the United States nor the Soviet Union took the ultimate step of initiating a nuclear war against the other. This restraint was founded on principles of mutual understanding of the consequences of such an action and contributed to what he termed the ‘long peace’ in post-Cold War international relations. This article examines why there has also been a ‘long peace’ in Antarctic relations, using Gaddis’s theories and applying them to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties’ dealings with each other in the context of the Antarctic Treaty System – the legal regime that governs Antarctica. It finds that despite a radically different set of international relations circumstances today, Gaddis’s theories hold true. How long this long peace will last is not the point here; merely that it exists is cause for optimism.


Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla

The Study is based on the state as one of the main pillars in international politics. In additions, it tackles its position in the international order from the major schools perspectives in international relations, Especially, these schools differ in the status and priorities of the state according to its priorities, also, each scholar has a different point of view. The research is dedicated to providing a future vision of the state's position in the international order in which based on the vision of the major schools in international relations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 135406612110338
Author(s):  
Joanne Yao

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), created in 1959 to govern the southern continent, is often lauded as an illustration of science’s potential to inspire peaceful and rational International Relations. This article critically examines this optimistic view of science’s role in international politics by focusing on how science as a global hierarchical structure operated as a gatekeeper to an exclusive Antarctic club. I argue that in the early 20th century, the conduct of science in Antarctica was entwined with global and imperial hierarchies. As what Mattern and Zarakol call a broad hierarchy, science worked both as a civilized marker of international status as well as a social performance that legitimated actors’ imperial interests in Antarctica. The 1959 ATS relied on science as an existing broad hierarchy to enable competing states to achieve a functional bargain and ‘freeze’ sovereignty claims, whilst at the same time institutionalizing and reinforcing the legitimacy of science in maintaining international inequalities. In making this argument, I stress the role of formal international institutions in bridging our analysis of broad and functional hierarchies while also highlighting the importance of scientific hierarchies in constituting the current international order.


2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Castro Pereira

Is it possible to talk about the rise of a new global (dis)order founded on the challenges posed by environmental issues? Through the review of the state of the art on the subject, this article analyzes the growing importance of the environment, and natural resources in particular, in international relations; and aims to raise awareness among International Relations scholars to the potential positive impact of the development of the discipline in integration with global environmental change studies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-179
Author(s):  
Daniel St. Pierre

Since the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states have created treaties and conventions to outline what is or is not acceptable regarding the treatment of human beings, with the understanding that if a state signs and ratifies these documents then that state will comply with the principles outlined within it.  Time and again however, compliance, or the lack thereof, has presented as a concern amongst many states, as well as non-state actors.  The issue of compliance is a serious one because it speaks to credibility.  If states do not anticipate compliance from one another it undermines the entire international system and any structure that has been created to address the anarchic nature of international relations will dissolve.  In order to make analysis of this massive issue area manageable, I focus on state compliance with human rights law and more specifically, compliance with the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989, or C169.  Both Brazil and Argentina have signed and ratified C169 and both are democratic with indigenous populations.  Comparing these two states it allows us to better ascertain the circumstances under which states may comply with or defect from international human rights law.  I provide an overview on what rationalist theories suggest about compliance, followed by constructivist views.  I then outline my position before examining the results of the case study and assessing its’ impact as related to both theory and my arguments.  Ultimately, I find that notwithstanding ratification and well-developed democratic institutions that allow for a strong civil society to participate in politics, there are still circumstances wherein a state will defect from a human rights treaty because the gain of doing so outweighs the cost of non-compliance.


1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN HOBDEN

Recent interest in the work of Historical Sociologists has concentrated on their renewed interest in the state. There is considerable regard for the historical account of state formation and development produced by writers such as Mann, Skocpol and Tilly. Surprisingly there has been less attention paid to another feature of their writings—the locating of states in an inter-state context. This article examines the international context envisioned by four historical sociologists. It argues that, although these writers have been successful at historicising state formations, this powerful account has not been matched with a historical account of international relations. If this project is to move forward, a complementary historical account of international contexts, or global structures, is required.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-242
Author(s):  
James Harrison

Abstract Marine protected areas (MPA s) are an important tool for protecting marine ecosystems both within and beyond national jurisdiction, but the integrated management of MPA s is challenging due to the institutional fragmentation that exists in international ocean governance at global and regional levels. In the absence of fundamental reform of international ocean governance, integrated management of MPA s can at present only be achieved through cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination between relevant international institutions. Understanding regime interaction in this context requires an analysis of both the relevant legal framework and the manner in which coordination mechanisms operate in practice. This article carries out a case study of regime interaction between the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, as well as other relevant institutions, in order to identify the key opportunities and challenges for promoting the integrated management of regional MPA networks in practice. It will also consider how the cooperative arrangements for the regional management of the Southern Ocean may provide lessons for the development of a new legally binding instrument for the conservation and management of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.


Author(s):  
John M. Owen IV

Liberalism has always been concerned with security, albeit the security of the individual; institutions, including the state, are all established and sustained by individuals and instrumental to their desires. Indeed, liberalism cannot be understood apart from its normative commitment to individualism. The tradition insists that all persons deserve, and it evaluates institutions according to how far they help individuals achieve these goals. Nor is liberalism anti-statist. Liberal theory has paid particular attention to the state as the institution defined by its ability to make individuals secure and aid their commodious living. Although liberal security literature that only examines individual states’ foreign policies may be guilty of denouncing the role of international interaction, the general liberal claim argues that the international system, under broad conditions, permits states choices. As such, for liberalism, states can choose over time to create and sustain international conditions under which they will be more or less secure. Liberalism’s history can be traced from the proto-liberalism in the Reformation to the emergence of the social contract theory and neo-theories, as well as liberalism’s focus on increasing security. Meanwhile, current debates in liberalism include the democratic peace and its progeny, reformulations of liberal international relations (IR) theory, and meta-theory. Ultimately, liberalism’s most striking recent successes concern the democratic peace and related research on democratic advantages in international cooperation. Liberalism is a useful guide to international security insofar as individuals and the groups they organize affect or erode states.


Author(s):  
Claudia Aradau

Sovereignty has been variously understood as the given principle of international relations, an institution, a social construct, a performative discourse subject to historical transformation, or a particular practice of power. The “articulations” of sovereignty refer to sovereignty as a practice that is worked on and in turn works with and against other practices. Alongside territory and supreme authority, sovereignty is characterized by the capacity to make and enforce laws. Sovereignty has also been defined in opposition to rights, as the spatiotemporal limits it instantiates are also the limits of rights. Another conceptualization of sovereignty has been revived in international relations, partly in response to the question of exclusions and limits that sovereign practices enacted. In addition, sovereignty is not inextricably tied up with the state but is articulated with heterogeneous and contradictory discourses and practices that create meaning about the international, and has consequences for the kind of community, politics, and agency that are possible. There are three effects of the logic of sovereignty in the international system: the ordering of the domestic and the international, the spatio-temporal limits to politics, and the exclusions from agency. In addition, there are three renditions of the international as a “thick” social space: those of globalization theories, of biopolitics, and of empire.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Saul ◽  
Tim Stephens

One aspect of the ‘Asian Century’ has been the growing interest from Asian states in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. There has been a significant shift in the approach by a number of Asian states to the Antarctic Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) that has been built upon and around it. While Asian states continue to be under-represented in the ATS (there are seven Asian state parties to the Antarctic Treaty), participation has grown, and more significantly the view that the ATS is an ‘exclusive club’ dominated by developed states has given way to a more pragmatic, more cooperative and less ideological approach to Antarctic affairs. Broadening ATS membership and increasing interest from existing Asian state parties to the ATS, most notably China, prompts questions as to whether there are distinctive Asian–Antarctic issues, and if so whether the Antarctic regime can evolve to address them. Specifically, are the governance and law-making processes of the ATS, which have not changed significantly for decades, up to the task of providing an effective international system of Antarctic management in this Asian Century?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document