دولت پژوهی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

هزینه مقالات

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

داوران

داوران سال 1403

داوران سال 1402

داوران سال 1401

داوران سال 1400

داوران سال 1399

داوران سال 1398

راهنمای ثبت در Publons

امنیت زیست محیطی؛ چشم انداز جایگاه و نقش دولت ها در حکمرانی جهانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مطالعات منطقه‌ای دانشکده حقوق علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 دکتری روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق،الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

10.22054/tssq.2025.82256.1574

چکیده

امروزه بحران‌ها و مسائل زیست‌محیطی تهدیدات اولیه و ثانویه بی‌سابقه‌ای را علیه بشر رقم‌زده و این موضوعات را در بطن سیاست جهانی قرار داده است. تأثیر مخرب و ویران‌کننده این تهدیدات بر سلامت، اقتصاد، امنیت و ژئوپلیتیک جهانی، تشدید بیکاری و افزایش نابرابری‌های اقتصادی و چالش‌های ناشی از آن‌ها در سیاست داخلی کشورها نظیر افزایش پوپولیسم، به قدرت رسیدن حکومت‌های اقتدارگرا، تحت‌الشعاع قرار گرفتن تجارت آزاد، افزایش نزاع‌ها و درگیری‌های منطقه‌ای، افزایش مهاجرت اجباری، افزایش خشونت‌ها، جرائم سازمان‌یافته و خطر تروریسم و بنیادگرایی، درک سنتی از مفاهیم صلح و امنیت را که بیشتر نظامی، محدود و با حاصل جمع صفر بود را دستخوش تحول ساخت، و مفهوم جدید و فراگیری از امنیت را به وجود آورد که نه تنها تمامی مؤلفه‌های نظامی‌ و سیاسی بلکه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست‌محیطی را در برمی‌گیرد. این مفهوم جامع و فراگیر امنیت، با توجه به فقدان یک نهاد و قدرت سیاسی فراگیر بین‌المللی برای حل این مسائل و ناتوانی دولت‌های ملی در پاسخ به این چالش‌ها و تهدیدات، وظیفه تأمین امنیت را به یک شبکه گسترده حکمرانی فراملی، چندجانبه و چند سطحی جهانی سوق داده است. مقاله پیش رو ضمن تبیین معنا و مفهوم امنیت زیست‌محیطی، به مفهوم‌پردازی حکمرانی جهانی در این حوزه و همچنین جایگاه و نقش دولت‌ها در این پدیده نوین سیاست جهانی و روابط بین‌الملل می‌پردازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Environmental Security; The Outlook for the Position and Role of States in Global Governance

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Sarvestani 1
  • Mohammadreza Mohammadi 2

1 PhD, Department of Regional Studies, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Research Problem and Background
Contemporary environmental crises have precipitated unprecedented primary and secondary threats to humanity, placing these issues at the core of global politics. The devastating impact of these threats on global health, economy, security, and geopolitics—manifesting in intensified unemployment, widening economic inequalities, and associated domestic political challenges such as the rise of populism, authoritarian regimes, the undermining of free trade, regional conflicts, forced migration, violence, organized crime, and the risks of terrorism and fundamentalism—has fundamentally transformed the traditional, military-centric, and zero-sum understanding of peace and security. This evolution has given rise to a new, comprehensive concept of environmental security that encompasses not only military and political dimensions but also economic, social, and environmental components. Given the absence of a supreme international political authority to resolve these issues and the limitations of nation-states in responding to such transnational challenges, the responsibility for ensuring environmental security is increasingly shifting towards a vast, transnational, multilateral, and multi-level network of global governance.
This article is situated within the scholarly debates on environmental security and global governance. While traditional security studies focused on state-centric military threats, the post-Cold War era expanded the security agenda to include environmental dimensions. Concurrently, the literature on global governance emerged to describe the complex systems of rule-making and implementation involving both state and non-state actors at multiple levels. This research bridges these two discourses, examining how global governance structures are being shaped to address environmental security challenges and, crucially, what role nation-states retain within this evolving framework.
Research Objective: This study aims to elucidate the meaning and conceptualization of environmental security and to analyze the phenomenon of global governance in this domain. Its primary objective is to critically examine the position and role of nation-states within this novel architecture of global politics and international relations, specifically concerning environmental security.
Research Methodology
This qualitative research employs an analytical-descriptive methodology, grounded in a critical review of existing literature. It synthesizes theories from international relations, security studies, and global environmental politics. The analysis involves conceptual investigation to define core terms like environmental security and global governance. Furthermore, it examines empirical evidence, including case studies of international environmental agreements (e.g., the Paris Agreement), statistical data trends on environmental degradation and cooperation, and comparative analysis of different countries' experiences with ecological crises. This multi-faceted approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics between state sovereignty and transnational governance mechanisms.
Findings and Discussion: The analysis reveals that global governance, whether viewed positively as a novel mechanism to tackle globalization's problems or critically as a political project of global dominance, has instigated three fundamental shifts in world politics concerning environmental security. First, it describes global policies that are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments but are shaped by a network of transnational and sub-national non-state actors. Second, global governance policies are formulated through new forms of cooperation within networks involving both states and non-institutions, extending beyond traditional state-negotiated binding legal instruments. Finally, global governance has created diverse networks and clusters of rule-making and implementation, where authority is distributed both horizontally among various actors and vertically across transnational, national, and sub-national levels.
Regarding the future of global governance for environmental security, several scenarios emerge from the findings. Some theorists, citing the borderless nature of environmental problems and declining trust in the capacity of nation-states, posit that transnational actors will increasingly collaborate to fill the void, potentially leading to a global governance system that gradually supplants state-centric governance. The examined data, including the role of agreements like the Paris Accord in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, supports the significant positive impact that international cooperation and global governance can have on enhancing environmental security.
Conversely, the findings also highlight a countervailing trend. The rise of nationalism and geopolitical tensions threatens to erode the space that fostered transnational governance in recent decades. This shift towards nationalist and authoritarian domestic politics constrains the ability of sub-state and non-state actors to operate across borders, suggesting a potential overall contraction in civil society space and non-governmental activism within global governance for environmental security.
Conclusion
This article argues that the ultimate trajectory likely lies between these two extremes. It predicts a continued coexistence of multiple levels of global governance for environmental security. As expanding environmental threats like resource scarcity and natural disasters elevate ecological issues to high politics and increase their weight in domestic political discourse and electoral agendas internationally, the accumulation of environmental crises will likely pressure the global governance regime. This pressure may drive a shift from soft, normative laws towards harder, more binding and restrictive international environmental regulations, imposing greater constraints on nation-states. Therefore, while the state's monopoly in governing environmental security is being challenged and transformed, it is not rendered obsolete. Instead, states are compelled to navigate and negotiate their role within an increasingly complex, multi-actor global governance landscape aimed at securing a fragile planetary environment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Environmental Security
  • Global Governance
  • Nation-State
  • Transnational Actors
  • International Relations
  • Environmental Politics
  • Multilateralism
  • Non-State Actors
  • Paris Agreement
  • Ecological Crisis
مراجع
  1. Alagappa, M. (1998). Rethinking security: a critical review and appraisal of the debate. In Asian Security Practice: material and ideational influences(pp. 27-64).
  2. Auer, M. R. (2000). Who participates in global environmental governance? Partial answers from international relations theory. Policy Sciences, 33(2), 155-180.
  3. Bakrač, S. T., Vuruna, M. M., & Milanović, M. M. (2010). Environmental degradation: Impact on ecological security. Vojno delo, 62(3), 314-328.
  4. Behr, T., Jokela, J., & Europe, N. (2011). Regionalism & Global Governance: The Emerging Agenda. Notre Europe.
  5. Biermann, F., & Dingwerth, K. (2004). Global environmental change and the nation state. Global Environmental Politics, 4(1), 1-22.
  6. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277-294.
  7. Caldwell, L. K., & Weiland, P. S. (1996). International environmental policy: from the twentieth to the twenty-first century. Duke University Press.
  8. Camilleri, J. A. (1994). Security: Old dilemmas and new challenges in the post-Cold War environment. GeoJournal, 34(2), 135-145.
  9. Chasek, P. (2010). Stockholm and the Birth of Environmental Diplomacy. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/still-one-earth-stockholm-diplomacy_0.pdf, 1.
  10. Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747-760.
  11. Collins, A. (2016). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
  12. Conca, K. (1995). Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Components, and Consequences. Occasional Paper, 6.
  13. Cooper, A. F., & Thakur, R. (2014). The BRICS in the new global economic geography. In International organization and global governance(pp. XX-XX). Routledge.
  14. Declaration, R. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development.
  15. Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (2005). Transnational processes and social activism: An introduction. In Transnational protest and global activism(pp. 1-XX).
  16. Delreux, T. (2018). Multilateral environmental agreements: A key instrument of global environmental governance. In European Union External Environmental Policy(pp. 19-38). Springer.
  17. Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P. (2006). Global governance as a perspective on world politics. Global governance: A review of multilateralism and international organizations, 12(2), 185-204.
  18. Dyer, H. (2018). Introducing Green Theory in International Relations. International Relations Theory, 84-90.
  19. Esty, D. C., & Ivanova, M. H. (2002). Revitalizing global environmental governance: A function-driven approach. Global Governance: Options & Opportunities.
  20. Faotto, A. (2019). Environmentalism in IR Theory.
  21. Francioni, F., & Bakker, C. (2013). The evolution of the global environmental system: Trends and prospects. Transworld Working Papers.
  22. Fuchs, D. A. (2002). Globalization and global governance: Discourses on political order at the turn of the century. In Transformative change and global order: Reflections on theory and practice(pp. XX-XX).
  23. Graeger, N. (1996). Environmental security? Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), 109-116.
  24. Hale, T. (2020). Transnational actors and transnational governance in global environmental politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 203-220.
  25. Handl, G. (2012). Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment (Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, 11.
  26. Hewson, M., Sinclair, T. J., & Sinclair, T. (1999). Approaches to global governance theory. Suny Press.
  27. Jaafar, B. (2019). Role of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in Global Governance. https://mirswebsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/root/root/images/111782019roleofmncinglobalgovernance.pdf, accessed on 3 march 2021.
  28. Kaniaru, D. (2002). UNEP Governing Council adopts Guidelines on Compliance with and enforcement of multilateral environmental agreements. Sixth International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.
  29. Karns, M., Mingst, K. A., & Stiles, K. W. (2004). International organizations: The politics and processes. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
  30. Kirton, J. J., & Kokotsis, M. E. (2015). The global governance of climate change: G7, G20, and UN leadership. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  31. Maniruzzaman, T. (1982). The security of small states in the Third World. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Research School of Pacific Studies.
  32. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea green publishing.
  33. Mishra, S. K. (2008). Korean peninsula in the post-cold war era: a study of security paradigm.
  34. Morgenthau, H., & Nations, P. A. (1948). The struggle for power and peace. Alfred Kopf.
  35. Mosala, A. M. (2017). The Impact of Globalisation on Security. GRIN Verlag.
  36. Newell, P. (2008). The political economy of global environmental governance. Review of International Studies, 34(S1), 507-529.
  37. O'neill, K. (2017). The environment and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
  38. O’Neill, K., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2005). Transnational environmental activism after Seattle: Between emancipation and arrogance. In Charting Transnational Democracy(pp. 195-219). Springer.
  39. Ott, C., Kläy, A., Wymann von Dach, S., & Kakridi Enz, F. (2005). Global conventions and environmental governance.
  40. Paterson, M., Humphreys, D., & Pettiford, L. (2003). Conceptualizing global environmental governance: from interstate regimes to counter-hegemonic struggles. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 1-10.
  41. Price-Smith, A. T. (2008). Contagion and chaos: disease, ecology, and national security in the era of globalization. MIT press.
  42. Princen, T. (1994). NGOs: creating a niche in environmental diplomacy. In Environmental NGOs in world politics: Linking the local and the global(pp. 29-47).
  43. Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global governance: A review of multilateralism and international organizations, 1(1), 13-43.
  44. Sands, P., & Peel, J. (2000). Environmental Protection in the 21st Century: Sustainable Development and International Law. In Environmental Law, the Economy and Sustainable Development: the United States, the European Union and the International Community(pp. 24-28).
  45. Saunier, R. E., & Meganck, R. A. (2012). Dictionary and introduction to global environmental governance. Earthscan.
  46. Schmidt, B. C., Wight, C., Fearon, J., Wendt, A., Snidal, D., Adler, E., . . . Baldwin, D. A. (2002). Handbook of international relations.
  47. Seyfang, G. (2003). Environmental mega-conferences—from Stockholm to Johannesburg and beyond. Global Environmental Change, 13(3), 223-228.
  48. Sohn, L. B. (1973). Stockholm declaration on the human environment, the.
  49. Speth, J. G. (2002). The global environmental agenda: Origins and prospects. In Global environmental governance: Options and opportunities(pp. 1-20).
  50. Strauss, M. (2013). How to lobby at intergovernmental meetings. Routledge.
  51. Vasconcelos, A. (2010). Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture. Inst. for Security Studies.
  52. Vernadsky, V. I. (1998). The biosphere. Springer Science & Business Media.
  53. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
  54. Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third world quarterly, 21(5), 795-814.
  55. e-education.psu.edu. The Role of Nation-States in Global Environmental Governance. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme504/node/685, accessed on 5 march 2021.
  56. Young, O. R., & Gasser, L. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT press.

 

Translated References into English

  1. Elyasi, M. and Tondro, M. (2025). Changes like State Governance; the Transition to Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies (A Case Study on the Government of the United States). State Studies, (23)2, -. doi: 10.22054/tssq.2024.79762.1521. [In Persian]
  2. Mehrabi Koushki, R. and Hamidi, M. (2025). Analysis of the System of Problems in Digital Government Transformation in Iran Using the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). State Studies, 11(42), -. doi: 10.22054/tssq.2025.75064.1444. [In Persian]
دولت پژوهی
دوره 11، شماره 43
مهر 1404
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار