Search results

From the introduction: This book seeks to explain the ecological paradox in global climate politics without mobilising the traditional toolkit of International Relations theory. Or, put more, simply, it is interested in the 'politics' of global climate politics. Though, instead of adding yet another analysis of the UNFCCC to the literature, it seeks to approach this issue through a rather novel empirical field: the mainstreaming of climate change in global politics.

The concept of governmentality has gained significant influence among scholars of International Relations. Recently, however, there is a growing literature engaging critically with the notion of a global governmentality. This article seeks to inform this debate with insights from global climate change politics as a paradigmatic case for applying governmentality to global politics. Drawing on an analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism, it makes three arguments, which seek to refine the global governmentality concept. First, governmentality does not necessarily centre on the notion of the 'population', but can also function as a governmentality of other 'technological zones'. Second, the seeming failure of a governmentality in its own terms is better understood within a 'post-foundational' framework of depoliticization. Third, governmentality and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the former allows the latter to 'govern at a distance'. The Clean Development Mechanism illustrates these points perfectly. Although it is based on a global 'carbon governmentality', it is able to conduct individual conduct directly. Its apparent failure in terms of carbon emission reductions is in fact a success of depoliticizing climate politics, excluding fundamental social structures. And although it is based on an international treaty, it establishes an advanced liberal government of the climate. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

The concept of governmentality has gained significant influence among scholars of International Relations. Recently, however, there is a growing literature engaging critically with the notion of a global governmentality. This article seeks to inform this debate with insights from global climate change politics as a paradigmatic case for applying governmentality to global politics. Drawing on an analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism, it makes three arguments, which seek to refine the global governmentality concept. First, governmentality does not necessarily centre on the notion of the 'population', but can also function as a governmentality of other 'technological zones'. Second, the seeming failure of a governmentality in its own terms is better understood within a 'post-foundational' framework of depoliticization. Third, governmentality and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. Instead, the former allows the latter to 'govern at a distance'. The Clean Development Mechanism illustrates these points perfectly. Although it is based on a global 'carbon governmentality', it is able to conduct individual conduct directly. Its apparent failure in terms of carbon emission reductions is in fact a success of depoliticizing climate politics, excluding fundamental social structures. And although it is based on an international treaty, it establishes an advanced liberal government of the climate.

"Die wachsende Bedeutung nichtstaatlicher Akteure in der globalen Klimapolitik hat sich auch in der Entstehung neuer theoretischer Betrachtungsweisen niedergeschlagen. Gemeinsam ist diesen Ansätzen wie dem liberalen Institutionalismus und der Global-Governance-Schule jedoch zumeist, dass sie Staat und Gesellschaft als strikt getrennte Sphären verstehen. Diese Trennung will der vorliegende Beitrag problematisieren, indem er die Verwobenheit staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Akteure in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Auf Basis poststrukturalistischer Theorieansätze wird argumentiert, dass NGOs in vielen Fällen sowohl Produzenten wie auch Produkte hegemonialer Diskurse sind und daher eng mit Herrschaftsverhältnissen auf der internationalen Bühne verwoben sind. Auf Basis von Sekundärliteratur wird dabei anhand von Beispielen aus der internationalen Klima- und Waldschutzpolitik nachgezeichnet, welchen Mehrwert sowohl die poststrukturalistische Hegemonietheorie und das Konzept der Gouvernementalität für die Analyse nichtstaatlicher Akteure in der globalen Klimapolitik haben." (Autorenreferat)

More and more international organisations are starting to incorporate climate protection as an important policy goal. Strikingly, most institutions only rephrase existing activities in the terms of climate protection instead of changing them, although there are tensions and contradictions between short-term economic and long-term environmental goals. The aim of this article is to explore the logic of climate mainstreaming and explain the paradoxical result of such a consistent inconsistency. It employs a poststructuralist approach that combines elements of governmentality and discourse theory. Analysing discourses of the WTO, IMF, World Bank and OECD, it argues that the global governmentality of climate protection is built on four discursive pillars — globalism, scientism, an ethics of growth and efficiency — that make climate protection function as an empty signifier; that is, they make it possible to integrate climate protection into the global hegemonic order without changing the basic social structures of the world economy. International organisations can claim to be in favour of climate protection and stick to business as usual at the same time. This claim is backed up by an interpretive discourse analysis of 31 texts of the respective organisations.

The concept of resilience was born and grew up in the environmental sciences during the 1970s. After migrating into many other disciplines, resilience is now 'coming home' to the politics of the environment in the name of security. The field of climate change induced migration is investigated as a paradigmatic case of environmental security. On a theoretical level, resilience is studied as a governmentality; that is, as advanced liberal government which governs through contingency. On an empirical level, a brief genealogy of environmental migration is presented with a focus on the latest discursive shift towards resilience. It is demonstrated that climate change induced migration was once represented as a pathology to be prevented and, more recently, as an issue of refugee rights. However, the shift towards resilience has reframed the debate. Climate change-induced migration is now presented as a rational strategy of adaptation to unavoidable levels of climate change and the relocation of millions of people is rendered acceptable and rational. The most drastic policy implication of this shift is that the space of the political is eliminated. Climate change is presented as a matter of fact rather than as a social problem that could still be tackled by significant emission reductions and lifestyle changes by residents in the major developed economies.