Global environmental politicsbroader structural factors such as globalisation and the system of interna-
tional trade, to which we turn in thenext chapter.
◗ Further reading and websites
Porteret al. ( 2000 ), Elliott ( 2004 )and Clapp and Dauvergne ( 2005 )provide
good introductions to global environmental politics. Betsill et al. ( 2006 )is
an excellent review of the major theoretical approaches to the study of
international environmental politics. On specific approaches and issues, see
Deudney ( 2006 )and Swatuk ( 2006 )onenvironmental security; Young ( 1994 )
and Vogler and Imber ( 1996 )for a conceptual discussion of regime formation;
Andresen et al. ( 2000 )onthe role of science in regime formation; and Young
(1999), K ̈utting ( 2000 )andMilesetal.( 2002 )for an evaluation of regime
effectiveness. Haas ( 1999 )provides a critique of institutionalist approaches.
Stevis and Assetto ( 2001 )analyse international political economy and the
environment. Levy and Newell ( 2005 )isacollection of readings on the role
of business actors in global environmental politics.
See the journalsGlobal Environmental Politics,Environmental Politics,Global
Environmental ChangeandInternational Affairsfor developments in interna-
tional environmental politics. For details and updates on recent devel-
opments in environmental diplomacy, see theEarth Negotiations Bulletin
published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(http://www.iisd.ca/). Useful websites for other key conventions include:
http://www.unfccc.de/ (climate change); http://ozone.unep.org/index.asp
(ozone); http://www.biodiv.org/ (biodiversity); http://www.unccd.int/ (com-
bating desertification); http://www.basel.int/ (hazardous wastes); and
http://www.cites.org/ (CITES).
NOTES
1 See Axelrod ( 1984 )foran analysis of game-theoretic approaches to international
relations.
2 Put in game-theoretic language, repetitive, or iterated, playing of games like
the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ can come to resemble an ‘assurance game’ where
‘cooperation is an individually rational strategy provided that the actor
contemplating cooperation can be assured that others will cooperate’ (Weale
1992 :191;seealso Axelrod 1984 ).
3 The term ‘institutionalist’ is used here to refer to a wide range of approaches,
notably neo-liberal institutionalism, but also those from alternative
epistemological perspectives, which emphasise the role of international
institutions in managing conflict and solving collective-action problems – the
focus that has dominated the study of international environmental politics (e.g.
Young 1994 , 1999;Rowlands 1995 ). For a critique of this perspective, see Paterson
(1996:ch.6), Haas ( 1999 ), K ̈utting ( 2000 )and Broadhead ( 2002 ).
4 Detailed accounts of ozone diplomacy include Benedick ( 1991 ), Litfin ( 1994 )and
Rowlands ( 1995 ). Seaver ( 1997 )analyses ozone diplomacy using a range of
international relations theories.