This paper analyses why all of the major ODC-producing countries, as well as several developing countries dependent on ODCs for domestic development, “decided to sign the treaty after many had opposed a regulatory ozone treaty for over a decade”. Because the United States (US) and the member states of the European Community (EC) had seemingly irreconcilable differences at the beginning of the negotiations, I will focus on these two major actors. While acknowledging that Japan and the former Soviet Union played also a crucial role.
This paper tries to explain the emergence of the ozone regime by using the neoliberalism and neorealism theory of international relations. The key variable for explaining the emergence of the ozone regime is interest in neoliberal terms and power in the neorealist school. Due to the fact that three schools of thought have shaped the discussion of regimes, I will also examine the constructivist approach to explain the ozone regime formation, because the other approaches neglect the influence of causal and social knowledge for the decision making of actors.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical evolution of the stratospheric ozone regime
2.1 Problem of the stratospheric ozone depletion
2.2 Regime formation
2.3 The ozone regime
3. The neorealist approach
3.1 State coordination for the ozone regime formation in terms of neo-realism
4. The neoliberal approach
4.1 How the neoliberal approach explains the emergence of the ozone regime
4.2 The free- riding problem
5. The constructivist approach
5.1 The ozone regime explained in terms of the weak cognitive approach
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to explain the emergence of the international ozone regime by applying and synthesizing three major theories of international relations: neoliberalism, neorealism, and constructivism. It seeks to understand why, despite initial resistance and conflicting national interests, major industrial nations and developing countries ultimately converged to sign the Montreal Protocol.
- Analysis of the historical development of the ozone regime and the Montreal Protocol.
- Application of neorealist perspectives regarding state interests, power, and hegemonic stability.
- Examination of neoliberal arguments concerning rational cooperation, transparency, and the resolution of collective action problems.
- Integration of the constructivist approach to understand the role of knowledge and epistemic communities.
- Evaluation of why interest, power, and knowledge are collectively necessary to explain the emergence of international regimes.
Excerpt from the Book
The neorealist approach
For realists, states are the main actors which focus on their security and power; “international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate even when they share common interests” (Grieco 1988: 485). As a result, the behavior of states is shaped by structure of the international system. Because there is no overwhelming Leviathan in form of a world government which fosters rules and monitors the compliance among states, individual states ”are pessimistic about the chances for international regime formation” (Rowland 1992: 28). States are self-interested-oriented rational actors, and an anarchic and competitive system pushes them to favour self-help over cooperative behavior (Lamy 2011: 119). But they recognize that regimes enable states to coordinate problems which they cannot solve alone. For them, regimes form when uncoordinated strategies produce suboptimal outcomes (Little 2011: 303). Grieco argues that they will cooperate to increase their own capabilities in terms of power and influence (Lamy 2011: 119). The problem of coordination among states is that they are not only concerned about absolute gains. “States worry that today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy in war, and fear that achievements of joint gains that advantage a friend in the present might produce a more dangerous potential foe in the future” (Grieco 1988: 487), creating a concern about the relative gains other achieve through cooperation (Bull 1977 in Rowland 1992: 30). States want to maintain their position in the international system, and so prefer to prevent others from gaining more power even at the cost of attaining the highest possible individual payoff (Grieco 1988: 498). Due to the fact that power is the central feature of regime formation and survival, states uses their power capabilities in situations requiring coordination to influence the nature of the regimes (Little 2011: 296). That implies that a hegemon1 is essential for regime formation, because he not only has the power to influence others to cooperate, he even can provide order in the international system (Seaver 1997: 34).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the scope of the study regarding the ozone regime and introduces the three theoretical lenses used to explain its emergence.
Historical evolution of the stratospheric ozone regime: Provides a chronological overview of scientific findings, the initial conferences, and the diplomatic path leading to the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol.
The neorealist approach: Discusses state behavior in an anarchic system, focusing on power dynamics, relative gains, and the necessity of a hegemon for regime stability.
The neoliberal approach: Explores how states overcome the problem of anarchy through transparency, institutional cooperation, and the mitigation of the free-riding problem.
The constructivist approach: Investigates the role of social learning, shared knowledge, and the influence of epistemic communities on national policy and interest formation.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, arguing that neither theory alone suffices and that the interaction of interest, power, and knowledge is essential for understanding the ozone regime.
Keywords
Ozone regime, Montreal Protocol, International Relations, Neorealism, Neoliberalism, Constructivism, Epistemic communities, Environmental policy, Global cooperation, CFCs, Stratospheric ozone depletion, Power dynamics, Hegemony, Collective action, Social learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the historical and theoretical background of the ozone regime and analyzes its emergence through the lens of international relations theories.
Which three theoretical schools of thought are applied to the ozone regime?
The study utilizes neorealism, neoliberalism, and constructivism to explain how and why states decided to cooperate on a global environmental issue.
What is the primary research question?
The paper investigates why countries with seemingly irreconcilable interests, particularly the US and the European Community, eventually agreed to sign the Montreal Protocol after years of opposition.
Which scientific method is used to analyze the subject?
The author performs a theoretical synthesis, applying concepts from international relations scholarship to analyze historical diplomatic evidence and state actions.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details the ozone depletion problem, the evolution of the Montreal Protocol, and provides a comparative analysis of how realist, liberal, and constructivist frameworks account for the regime's creation.
What are the fundamental characteristics of this work?
The work is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach, combining environmental science history with political science frameworks to explain international governance.
How does neorealism interpret the role of the United States in the ozone regime?
Neorealism interprets the US role as a hegemon that pushed for the regime because it had economic interests in protecting its market position and promoting CFC substitutes it had developed.
What role did epistemic communities play according to the constructivist analysis?
Epistemic communities acted as knowledge-shapers that informed policymakers about the risks of ozone depletion, effectively shifting national perceptions and interests over time.
Why does the author argue that no single school of thought explains the outcome?
The author concludes that while each theory provides valuable insights, the complex reality of international negotiations requires a synthesis where interests, power, and knowledge all interact.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Maximilian Eibel (Autor:in), 2012, The Emergence of the Ozone Regime. An Explanation in the Light of International Relation Theories, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/298305
