Environmental NGOs and the fate of the traditional nation-state

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Summer 2003 by Pagnani, Marissa A

But what binds us into an international community? Jn the broadest sense, there is a shared vision of a better world for all people . . . . There is a sense of common vulnerability in the face of global warming and the threat posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction. There is a framework of international law . . . . There is equally a sense of shared opportunity, which is why we build common markets and joint institutions . . . . Together, we are stronger.

- Kofi Annan1

I. INTRODUCTION

Globalization has changed the fora in which States, nations, and entities operate,2 and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an increasingly significant role in the international arena. Transsovereign problems - "problems which transcend state boundaries in ways over which states have little control and which cannot be solved by individual state action alone . . . fill the international relations agenda."3 Specifically, serious environmental issues are now considered to be international in scope,4 as environmental degradation, ozone-depletion, global warming, overpopulation, and related problems plague our earth. The growing intensity and awareness of environmental problems create global interdependence involving both the traditional State and nation-like groups such as environmental NGOs.5 Transnational NGOs challenge the traditional definitions of State and, as a consequence, raise questions about whether the State is a necessary entity for effecting progressive change.

Part II of this paper is a general introduction to transnational environmental NGOs, beginning with a discussion of the political climate in which such NGOs emerged. Part III examines the extent to which environmental NGOs transcend traditional State boundaries and make the notion of State irrelevant. Specifically, I will engage in a theoretical discussion of what constitutes the "State" and the "nation," followed by an analysis of whether and how environmental NGOs have transcended traditional "State" and "national" lines. Part IV will focus on the consequences of environmental NGOs for the traditional State, specifically considering when environmental policies within a nation are divisive and when State policies on the environment help to create national unity. Part V will conclude by assessing whether the environmental movement has created its own cultural community that is transnational or anti-State. This final exploration asks whether environmental NGOs are reconfiguring communities across traditional boundaries, and what ramifications this has on the traditional State structure and State efforts to achieve policy change.

In taking a cosmopolitan approach, I hope to show that NGOs, rather than creating divisive communities of interest, have broadened "the community of we" for many people. Environmental NGOs accomplish this task by helping individuals think as global citizens about issues that cross traditional State and national boundaries. A consequence of an individual's involvement with NGOs may be the eroding of an original commitment to their nations or States. However, I seek to demonstrate that rather than coming between an individual and his or her State, environmental NGOs encourage civic participation and then rely on the State to implement ideas and objectives. Environmental NGOs both strengthen and weaken the State accordingly, but do not render it obsolete. Most importantly, the nationalistic qualities of NGOs make them a stronger force to engender change and a stronger partner to work with the State to achieve environmental and nationalistic ends. Though transnational bodies are the focus of this paper, they can still engender nationalistic sentiments within a State because the citizenry is actively involved in political affairs and using the State structure to implement goals.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs

A. THE POLlTICAE CLIMATE IN WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS DEVEEOPED

Mass environmental concern has moved to the forefront of national and international discussions as evidenced by opinion surveys, national campaigns, legislation, and international agreements.6 On the national level, and particularly in the United States, a lack of political will and competing pressures, such as industrial and economic goals, have kept environmental issues off the agenda.7 There is a timing issue in the American political structure that keeps public officials concerned primarily with short-term issues and goals.8 The same forces were at work in the international arena, which has resulted in inaction. Further compounding the problem internationally were general problems with international law such as enforcement and lack of an international legal regime. The results in the environmental sphere were weak agreements and unenforceable promises.9

There are four primary issues that contributed to State level inaction. These issues include: a nation's lack of accountability, the collective action problem, the "assembly problem," and sovereignty issues. First, on both national and international levels, governments lack accountability because environmental problems belong to no one nation.10 Similarly, there is no one overarching international body mandating that governments act to protect the environment or ameliorate environmental concerns, and thus there is no liability for inaction.