ABSTRACT
Scientific approaches such as regime theory and most environmental governance approaches see in the emergence of international environmental policy institutions a reaction to transboundary problems, which can only be dealt with multilaterally and in consultation with non-state actors. Due to this, the assessment of global regulation is primarily, if not exclusively, a question of whether and to what extent the institutions are appropriate in view of the given problems – such as, for example, the thinning of the ozone layer, climate change or the erosion of biological diversity. To the extent, however, that only the more or less direct effects of environmental policy institutions are studied and assessed, this understanding of the problems represents too narrow a perspective on the functioning and effects of international environmental politics. There are quite a number of reasons for this. First of all, environmental problems are not given but constituted. More recently, many approaches in political science and environmental sociology take into consideration the question of how that which is to be regarded as an ‘‘environmental problem’’ – or generally as a part of the ‘‘ecological crisis’’ – is scientifically, politically and culturally constructed. It is less often recognised, however, that in this problem constitution the interests of the participating actors play a decisive role. Many analyses only examine whether and if so how a more or less uniform understanding of the problem is reached and institutionalised in the disputes among scientific and political experts. Less attention is paid to the question of whether the results may have been achieved by neglecting or even deliberately disregarding the viewpoints of weaker societal actors. The consequence of this might be that the treatment of global problems is not linked to the (changing) capitalist mode of production and associated gender and ethnic relations, as well as societal relationships with nature and the reproduction of unequal power relations and social domination. Therefore, a critical social science analysis should tread carefully when
dealing with such problems and remain critical in the face of pure problem solving theories (Cox 1998: 39). With this study we wish to open up a perspective which avoids the usual dichotomisation between ecological and societal problems, on the one hand, and social relations of domination, on
the other. Ecological problems and the institutions dealing with them affect the reproduction and re-formation of global domination, just as the treatment of them cannot be understood without taking into consideration societal interests and power relations. That both levels are closely interlinked can be illustrated by the emergence of post-Fordist ‘‘globalised’’ relationships with nature. In the reaction to a global ‘‘environmental problem’’ – the loss of biological diversity – new interests in genetic resources articulate themselves and completely new patterns of the formation of compromises and the regulation of societal contradictions emerge. In this final chapter, we summarise and discuss our arguments and emphasise theoretical consequences. Moreover, we focus on some questions which seem important to us for further research.
