Robyn Eckersley

The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The increasing scope and disciplinary force of international trading rules have generated concern in the international environmental community concerning how far different types of trade restrictions in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are compatible with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Environmental Nongovernment Organizations (ENGOs) have argued that the WTO exerts a form of disciplinary neoliberalism that has a chilling effect on both the implementation and negotiation of MEAs. This paper assesses this claim, particularly in the light of the stalled deliberations of the WTOs Committee on Trade and Environment and recent WTO jurisprudence, and concludes that the WTOs trade agreements do serve to limit the scope and operation of MEAs, albeit mostly in subtle rather than direct ways. After exploring a range of options for reform it is concluded that the prospects for greening the WTO from both within and without are by no means bright.

Moving Forward in the Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or Minilateralism?

The slow progress of the international climate negotiations has generated calls for a shift from large-n multilateralism (inclusive multilateralism) to more streamlined negotiations that are confined to the major emitters whose support is crucial for an effective climate treaty (exclusive minilateralism). This article pushes critical theory in an applied direction to explore under what circumstances, if any, minilateralism might help to advance the climate negotiations. I show that inclusive multilateralism is unlikely to produce a timely climate treaty, while exclusive minilateralism is elitist, procedurally unjust, and likely to be self-serving. Instead, I defend inclusive minilateralism, based on “common but differentiated representation,” or representation by the most capable, the most responsible, and the most vulnerable. I also offer some practical suggestions as to how a minilateral climate council might be constituted, what its remit should be, and how it might be embedded in and answerable to the UNFCCC.

The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature

This article critically explores what it might mean to ‘represent nature’ in discursive dialogue and whether such representation must necessarily be anthropocentric in a substantive rather than merely trivial sense. The analysis also examines whether, and to what extent, it is legitimate to inscribe ecocentric norms into the procedures of discursive dialogue as a matter of justice. Against Habermas, it is argued that the capacity for self‐directedness, however rudimentary, rather than communicative competence per se, should be accepted as the basis for moral considerability. Habermass objection to allowing natures interests to condition the dialogue are shown to be primarily epistemological rather than normative (that is, nature cannot speak, we cannot speak for nature and therefore it is not morally considerable). However, if these epistemological barriers are accepted as secondary to questions of morality, then non‐human beings ought to enter the circle of moral considerability and the idea of special...

Political theory and the ecological challenge

Introduction Andrew Dobson and Robyn Eckersley Part I. Modern Political Ideologies and the Ecological Challenge: 1. Conservatism Roger Scruton 2. Liberalism Marcel Wissenburg 3. Socialism Mary Mellor 4. Feminism Val Plumwood 5. Nationalism Avner de-Shalit 6. Communitarianism Robyn Eckersley 7. Cosmopolitanism Andrew Linklater Part II. Political Concepts and the Ecological Challenge: 8. Democracy Terence Ball 9. Justice James P. Sterba 10. The state Andrew Hurrell 11. Representation Michael Saward 12. Freedom and rights Richard Dagger 13. Citizenship Andrew Dobson 14. Security Daniel Deudney.

Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle for inclusion

Is there a necessary, in‐principle connection between ecocentric values and democracy or is the relationship merely contingent? Is it possible to incorporate the interests of the non‐human community into the ground rules of democracy? Through an immanent ecological critique of the regulative ideals and institutions of liberal democracy, it is suggested that ecocentric values and democracy can be connected to some extent ‐ at least in the same way that liberalism and democracy are connected ‐ through an extension of the principle of autonomy and the rights discourse to include ecological interests. However, the move from autonomy, to rights, to an ecologically grounded democracy encounters a number of hazards, not all of which can be successfully negotiated owing to the individualistic premises of the rights discourse. While the rights discourse may be extended to include human environmental rights and animal rights in relation to captive and domesticated species, it becomes considerably strained and unwor...

Free market environmentalism: Friend or foe?

‘Free market environmentalism’ proposes that environmental problems can be solved by creating and enforcing tradeable property rights in respect of common environmental assets. But while the market can allocate resources efficiently, it cannot by itself perform the task of setting an optimal (in the sense of just) distribution of income nor an optimal (in the sense of sustainable scale) of the economy relative to the ecosystem. There are certain specific environmental problems where ‘free market environmentalism’ may prove to be the most appropriate solution (it can, for example, promote energy efficiency through market mechanisms), but it is inappropriate as a blanket solution to the ecological crisis. This calls for economic policies concerned with three broad goals ‐economic efficiency, social justice and ecological sustainability.

Habermas and green political thought

ConclusionMy principal ecocentric objection to Habermass social and political theory has been that it is thoroughly human-centered in insisting “that the emancipation of human relations need not require or depend upon the emancipation of nature.” Ibid., 140. Although Habermas has moved beyond the pessimism and utopianism of the first generation of Critical Theorists by providing the conceptual foundations of the practical and emancipatory cognitive interests, he has, as Whitebook points out, also “markedly altered the spirit of their project.” Whitebook, “The Problem of Nature in Habermas,” 41. Yet it is precisely the “spirit” of the early Frankfurt school theorists, namely, its critique of the dominant “imperialist” orientation toward the world (rather than its critique of a simplistically conceived idea of science) and its desire for the liberation of nature, that is most relevant to - and provides the most enduring Western Marxist link with - the ecocentric perspective of the radical Greens.

Markets, the State and the Environment: An Overview

Although the emergence of widespread popular concern over environmental problems is typically dated from the 1960s, the 1980s decade is more likely to be remembered as the period during which environmentalism rose to prominence in terms of the degree of media saturation, public concern and national and international political debate given over to environmental problems. This was also the decade that saw the emergence of Green parties as a new minority political force — a symptom of increasing frustration and disillusionment with the capacity of established political parties and the policy-making process to address ecological problems. The mounting popular concern and political agitation over the environment have exerted pressure on governments around the world to move from a piecemeal and largely reactive response towards a more integrated and anticipatory strategy.

Soft law, hard politics, and the Climate Change Treaty

This chapter offers a critical constructivist interpretation of the legislative phase of international politics and international public law manifest in the treaty making process. Drawing in particular on the critical theory of Jurgen Habermas and the constructivism of Alexander Wendt, I seek to show how treaty making is shaped and constrained, on the one hand, by the deeper constitutional structure and associated norms of international society and, on the other hand, by the particular roles, interests and identities of those state and non-state actors involved in the rule-making process. Central to the contributions in this volume is the idea that assumptions made about the nature of politics (including the nature of political community) circumscribe understandings of law, while particular kinds of legal order, in turn, shape and constrain the political understandings and practices of social agents. The central problem with neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist approaches is that they not only tend to reduce law to politics but also tend to employ an unduly limited understanding of politics (which is typically reduced to the play of power and/or national interests). Critical constructivists, in contrast, proceed on the basis of a broader conception of politics that encompasses not only questions of material capability and utility but also questions of morality/justice and identity. Moreover, critical constructivists understand the relationship between law and politics as mutually constitutive and mutually enmeshed. Indeed, this mutual enmeshment of law and politics makes the delineation of any clear practical boundary almost impossible, despite the fact that boundaries are routinely invoked by political actors for justificatory or regulatory purposes. Using the climate change negotiations as a case study, and focusing in particular on the contrasting roles played by the United States and the European Union (EU) in the negotiations, I highlight this mutual enmeshment of law and politics by exploring the

From cosmopolitan nationalism to cosmopolitan democracy

This article offers both a critique and reconstruction of cosmopolitan democracy. It argues that cosmopolitan democracy promotes an excessively individualist account of political life and a functionalist approach to political community that are likely to undermine the kinds of national communities and citizens that are most likely to mobilise against global injustices. It argues that the alleviation of global injustices depends on the rescuing and reframing, rather than weakening, of national identities so that they take on a more cosmopolitan character. Cosmopolitan democracy is dependent upon cosmopolitan nationalism, based on a commitment to common liberty and justice at home and abroad.