Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article is to assess the relationships between majority (South) and minority (North) world environmental groups by focusing on one of the largest transnational environmental organisations: Friends of the Earth International (FoEI):1 1. For this article I am drawing on data gathered at the FoEI biennial meeting in Croatia in September 2004 and documents provided by FoE Australia on their work in FoEI. View all notes a federation of autonomous groups from 71 countries (see Appendix). FoEI's federal structure gives more power to southern groups than other transnational environmental organisations and FoEI has taken a relatively radical line on issues of global justice. Nevertheless, there have been arguments over strategy and ideology between northern and southern groups. The article examines how FoEI responded to a crisis in its identity over North–South differences in 2002–4. The trust developed through regular international meetings and a distinctive organisational culture allowed the network to rebuild its solidarity, although without ever fully resolving differences of ideology. It is argued that FoEI will be best able to maintain its North–South representation if it accepts that internal conflicts and debates over core ideological questions are normal for social movements.

Following criticism from some of its national member organisations that it marginalised Southern agendas, Friends of the Earth International engaged in heated debates in the 2000s which aimed to address its internal political differences. FoEI defined its positions on democracy, capitalism and social transformation, reorienting itself more towards the global South. The centrality to this process of debate about broad political ideas is unusual; well established and mature organizations do not usually change identities fundamentally. In practice, FoEI did not resolve its differences, but came to a political settlement which made those differences manageable. To interpret the changes in FoEI, the concept of agonistic politics developed by Chantal Mouffe and the idea of a modus vivendi associated with so called realist (liberal) critics of 'moralistic liberalism' are employed. A full account of the process nevertheless requires acknowledgement of the positive effect of solidarity as enabling changes in collective identity.

Investigating the recent direct action campaigns against genetically modified crops in France and the United Kingdom, the authors set out to understand how contrasting judicial systems and cultures affect the way that activists choose to commit ostensibly illegal actions and how they negotiate the trade-offs between effectiveness and public accountability. The authors find evidence that prosecution outcomes across different judicial systems are consistent and relatively predictable and consequently argue that the concept of a "judicial opportunity structure" is useful for developing scholars' understanding of social movement trajectories. The authors also find that these differential judicial opportunities cannot adequately account for the tactical choices made by activists with respect to the staging of covert or overt direct action; rather, explanations of tactical choice are better accounted for by movement ideas, cultures, and traditions.

This article compares the tactic of trashing genetically modified crops in activist campaigns in Britain and France. In Britain, most crop trashing was carried out covertly, while in France most activists undertook open, public actions. In seeking an explanation for this, the article shows that the analysis of political opportunities, dominant in comparative studies of social movements, can only take us so far. While it helps explain the occurrence of direct action, it is much less useful in explaining the tactical differences between each country. It is argued that a fuller explanation requires an understanding of how action was shaped by different activist traditions. In France, action was staged as a demonstration of serious, responsible, collective Republican citizenship; in the United Kingdom, activists combined a sceptical view of legality developing from anarchist individualism with an explicitly non-threatening, playful, ethos. The article concludes that a focus on activist traditions can provide an effective bridge between structural and cultural approaches to understanding the determinants of social movement action.

A consistent thread weaves through all the articles in this edition. Each author, in some fashion, reflects upon the dual concepts of a 'global green public sphere' and the 'global governance state', as they intersect with the politics of environmentalism. Indeed, as is evidenced in the preceding pages, the politics of green concern transmute into a myriad of different collective forms. Despite this diversity of responses found within and between environmental groups, we conclude that most greens cross boundaries in a positive fashion. Through the construction of transnational networks of solidarity, movements become global entities, acting in concert to protect ecosystems and emancipate humans and non-humans from degradation and subjugation and expanding the public sphere of green debate transnationally. In certain instances, however, environmentalism is used as a tool for continued conquest and domination. These instances, although not generally reflective of green movements as a whole, are often writ large due to the relative power, in comparative terms, of the proponents. 'Environment', therefore, can be either a symbol for liberation or repression; emancipation or conditionality. It can be used to support democracy or, alternatively, to support authoritarianism; it can be used to attack neoliberalism and corporate-controlled globalisation, and it can be used to support it; it can be used to lionise concepts of 'the local', and it can be utilised to denigrate local systems of meaning in a neocolonial fashion.

This introduction considers three themes that recur across the various contributions to this collection. The first is the nature of borders and how these have been affected by the increase in transnational collective action and the growth in the power of transnational institutions. The second is the distinction between environmental movements and the social movement forms of environmentalism: meaning that not all forms of environmental movement are social movements. The third is the evidence of the diversity of environmentalisms, which leads us to identify three principal kinds of environmental movement, the postmaterial movements strongest in the USA and Australia, the postindustrial movements that are strongest in Europe and the postcolonial movements of the South.

Direct action campaigns against new roads in the UK received much attention, but campaign groups were locally organised and little is known about how they worked. Protests by three local environmental direct action groups in the years 1992-2001 are examined. Their repertoire was confrontational, targeted mainly at business and the state. Most protests were small-scale and most were unreported in either local or national media. In the larger groups, in Manchester and Oxford, most actions were carried out locally and direct action groups worked mainly alone. In the smaller Bangor group, campaigners sometimes needed alliances with less radical groups to campaign effectively, and travelled more to events outside their locality. Environmental direct action groups remain largely autonomous from strategic alliances, locally or nationally, and from efforts to influence state policy. Their protests are challenges to the norms underlying political and capitalist institutions rather than calculated attempts to influence government. Evidence that their actions, on issues such as road-building, genetic modification, global justice and climate change, were affecting public debate sustained and revitalised action more than did changes in political opportunities.

In Thacker and ors the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of the 'Stansted 15' due to a misdirection on the substantive offence. However, the court rejected their necessity defence, following Jones, as their actions were political, outweighing a desire to avoid a risk of death or serious injury; in a 'functioning democratic state' their claims should have been pursued through conventional means. This is a reaffirmation of what we call 'Hoffmann's Bargain'; in Jones, Lord Hoffmann noted that non-violent protestors who act proportionately can expect the state to act with restraint, but a necessity defence is unavailable. We argue that this rejection of the defence is mistaken and overly broad for direct action cases. It also fails to acknowledge Valderamma-Vega, where the Court of Appeal held that defendants who claim duress may act for different motives as long as one is the avoidance of death or serious injury.

We describe and analyse the fuel protests in the UK in September and November 2000. We draw on theories of social movements to explain the success of the first of these protests and the failure of the second. We show how the loose, network forms of organisation contributed to the success in September, and the attempts to impose more formal organisations helped to cause the failure in November. We also show how the success of the protests depended on the articulation of the aims of the protestors with dominant social forces in British politics, in particular the oil companies, the police, and the mass media.