Suchergebnisse

In the climate change negotiations the thirteen countries that are members of OPEC obstruct progress towards reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Although these actions undermine sustainable development in developing countries, the larger Group of 77 (G-77) coalition nevertheless tacitly supports its OPEC members in the climate regime. This article explains the connection between OPEC's interests in oil exports and its inaction on climate change, and the divergence of these interests with those of the G-77. It argues that OPEC's influence within the G-77, and therefore the climate regime, stems from the desire to maintain unity within the G-77. This unity has and is likely to continue to cost the majority of developing countries in the form delayed assistance for adaptation, the possibility of inadequate reduction in emissions under the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and continued dependence on increasingly expensive oil imports.

This article develops a theory of peace as freedom that explains some important relationships between peace and development. It does this by critically examining and then synthesizing Johan Galtung's theory of peace as the absence of violence and Amartya Sen's theory of development as freedom. Galtung's theory of peace is clear on the meaning and causes of direct violence, but vague on the details of structural violence. Sen's theory helps overcome many of the problems associated with structural violence, although its focus on agents and the state tends to downplay the importance of larger-scale political and economic processes. In the theory of peace as freedom, peace is defined as, and in praxis is enlarged through, the equitable distribution of economic opportunities, political freedoms, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, protective security and freedom from direct violence. The institutions required for peace as freedom are considered, and it is suggested that the pluralist state is the best model for providing and maintaining peace as freedom. Some implications of this theory for existing and future analyses of the causes of violent conflict are discussed.

The argument that environmental degradation will lead to conflict is a well
established concern of international studies, and it dominates the literature on environmental
security. This article critically examines theories about wars fought over scarce 'environmental'
resources, 'water wars', and the argument that population growth may induce conflict.
One significant research programme—the Project on Environment, Population and Security—
is also discussed. The article ends with an evaluation of the theoretical merits and practical
effects of the environment–conflict thesis. It argues that the environment–conflict thesis is
theoretically rather than empirically driven, and is both a product and legitimation of the
Northern security agenda.