RELEVANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY: A CRITIQUE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES

This article critiques the adequacy of mainstream international relations theories—realism, liberal institutionalism, and constructivism—in accounting for the growing salience of environmental security. It argues that realist frameworks underestimate non-military threats, liberal institutionalism overstates cooperation potential, and constructivism often neglects material constraints. Drawing on cases such as climate negotiations, biodiversity treaties, and regional river basin conflicts, the paper assesses how well theory informs practice. The study advocates for an interdisciplinary approach that integrates ecological economics, risk analysis, and security studies. It concludes that while IR theories provide useful heuristics, they must be revised to engage meaningfully with environmental change as a core driver of insecurity.

The body begins with a review of environmental security’s rise in global discourse since the 1980s. Section One dissects realist neglect of non-traditional threats, contrasting it with empirical evidence of environmental stress driving conflict and migration. Section Two evaluates liberal institutionalist optimism, pointing to partial successes such as the Montreal Protocol but highlighting the persistent weakness of compliance regimes in climate and biodiversity agreements. Section Three assesses constructivist contributions, noting insights into norm diffusion but critiquing the lack of attention to structural inequalities and ecological limits. Section Four sketches an integrative framework that blends IR with earth-system science, proposing concepts such as “planetary security” and “ecological interdependence.” The conclusion stresses that revising theory is not just an academic exercise but essential for designing governance that reflects the realities of the Anthropocene.