Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Climate change, in which man-made global warming is a major
factor, will likely have dramatic and long lasting consequences
with profound security implications, making it a challenge the
United States must urgently take up. The security implications will
be most pronounced in places where the effects of climate
change are greatest, particularly affecting weak states already
especially vulnerable to environmental destabilization. Two things
are vitally important: stemming the tide of climate change and
adapting to its far-reaching consequences. This project examines
the destabilizing effects of climate change and how the military
could be used to mitigate global warming and to assist at-risk
peoples and states to adapt to climate change, thereby promoting
stability and sustainable security.
Traditionally, national security is defined in terms of the ability of
the state to protect its interest from external aggressions and
these interests are broadly defined as territorial integrity,
sovereignty and independence of the nation (Walt 1991:213). One
can see a paradigm shift in the security concept of the nation
states after the emergence of non-traditional security aspects like
climate change, biodiversity, food security, health security,
transitional crimes etc. (Brown 1996:31). It was the international
conference on the relationship between the Disarmament and
Development convened by United Nations General Assembly in
1987 that the concept non-traditional security aspects came into
prominence. Three years later in 1990, United Nations Human
Development Report considered economic crisis as one of the
crucial non-military threat to the society. This heralded a vibrant
discussion on the non-traditional security aspects concerning the
security of nation states.
The literature has identified multiple connections between climate change and
security. The general discourse on climate change is very complex and there are
evidences for both securitization and climatization. First, a broader overview of
existing perspectives within the"environmental security literature is
provided. Second, more in-depth knowledge is provided by looking
at previously conducted research relating to the discourse and practices
surrounding climate change. Overall, the literature review provides the basis on
which to build this research, and simultaneously locates it within the existing body
of literature.
Several links between climate change and security have been established within the
environmental security literature. Climate change commonly is seen to threaten
national and human security directly or through secondary impacts, e.g., causing
resource scarcity. Gemenne, Barnett, Adger and Dabelko (2014: 4) identify four
key areas of investigation within the literature on climate change and security:
violent conflict, forced (mass) migration, reversed causality, and risks to human
security. These themes often can be found within the political
discourse as well.
First, probably the largest body of research has been done on the connections
between climate change and violence. Specifically this type of research considers
if and how climate change may increase the risk of violence as well as the
potential mechanisms through which climate change may increase that risk
(Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While some scholars have made strong claims about
causal connections between climate change and increased risk of violent conflict
(e.g., see Hsiang and Burke 2014), others remain critical to that connection and
have found little evidence to explain convincingly the relationship between climate
and conflict (see Gleditsch 2012). Thus, instead of portraying climate change as a
direct cause of conflict it has often been referred to as a threat multiplier
instead (Barnett 2013: 198). This body of research is connected closely to
the environmental conflict thesis, by Thomas Homer-Dixon. A
commonly featured theme is resource scarcity as a key driver for various conflicts.
As natural resources are seen to decrease, civil strife and the likelihood for violent
conflict could increase (Floyd 2008; see also Homer-Dixon 1999).
trigger mass migration in various regions. Similar to the first body of literature,
climate change is considered a substantial threat to the security of states and
people. However, some scholars point out that a clear-cut connection between
climate change, migration and violent conflict is hard to establish empirically (e.g.,
see Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).
Third, a lot less attention has been paid to reversed causality where conflict is a
powerful driver of vulnerability to climate change (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).
While it remains contested to which extent climate change can directly or
indirectly cause violent conflict, some scholars are certain that it is violent conflict
that renders people more vulnerable and exposed to climate change (see Barnett
2006) This body of literature considers that this reversed causality applies to
migration as well, as migration actually is an important mechanism of adaption to
climate change (see Tacoli 2009).
Lastly, another main area of investigation has evolved around the risks posed by
climate change to human security. The causal connections between climate change
and human security increasingly are considered and some studies have concluded
that climate change poses risks to livelihoods, communities, and cultures
(Gemenne et al. 2014: 4; see also Barnett and Adger 2007). Human health and
security can be affected directly or indirectly byvarious impacts of climate change,
such as more intense natural disasters, decreasing natural resources, loss of
geographical space etc. A common critique to this human security approach,
however, is that it is too all-encompassing and offers little advice on realizable
policy-making(Floyd 2008: 57). Floyd (2008: 58-61) identifies another, yet rather
small, discussion within environmental security that focuses on environmental
peacemaking or environmental cooperation and explores the possibilities of joint
environmental action to foster international cooperation. The idea of environmental
peacemaking or environmental cooperation certainly provides a starting point for a
counter-discourse to the securitization of climate change and might open up space
for a "de-securitization of the matter (Floyd 2008: 58-61).
Nevertheless, it also needs to be pointed out that not all scholars agree with this
notion"securitization. As an example, some argue that with new
understandings of security, new logics and actors enter the field which in
public discourse. In their study, Detraz and Betsill (2009) conducted a discourse
and content analysis of the UN Security Council debate on global climate change
in 2007. They found that the debate mostly has been framed in a way that they call
environmental security. Thus, most states expressed their
concern about the negative security implications of environmental degradation
for human beings, representing a human security understanding of climate change
(Detraz and Betsill 2009: 2 It should be noted that this particular study was
conducted by a think tank of the US Navy306). Even though 85 percent of the
speakers acknowledged a link between climate change and armed conflict, they
mainly did so in a broad understanding of security instead of a narrower national
security understanding. Moreover, the speakers remained divided on whether the
UNSC is the right forum for discussing climate change. Detraz and Betsill (2009)
then compared the discourse employed at the 2007 UNSC debate to earlier debates
and documents on climate change, e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). They found that the environmental security
perspective was largely the dominant one. In comparison, relatively
little evidence was found for a narrower traditional security understanding, which
they calenvironmental conflict (Detraz and Betsill 2009).
According to Detraz and Betsill (2009), climate change commonly has been
understood to increase human vulnerabilities and affect human security. However,
they do not rule out the possibility of a future discursive shift to an
environmental conflict understanding of climate change a shift
they would consider counterproductive. While the findings Detraz and Betsill
(2009) provide detailed insight into the discourse on climate change, they do not
connect discourse and practice.
In another study, Brzoska (2012) creates a clearer link between discourse and
practice when analyzing the discourse on climate change in various states White
Papers and nationaldefense documents. Using the terms environmental
securityand environmental conflict from Detraz and Betsill (2009),
Brzoska (2012) also finds that the broader environmental
securityperspective represents the most common way the links
between climate change and security are understood. A few states, such as
USA, UK, Finland, Russia and Australia, see climate change as a potentially large
or very large threat and add to the broader human security understanding also a
narrower national security understanding, i.e. the environmental conflict
perspective (Brzoska 2012). Yet, a clear majority of states do not
seem to adopt such a perspective, but rather they estimate that climate change
threatens the lives as well as livelihoods of individuals. Accordingly, disaster
management, to ensure human security, represents the dominant focus of policy
measures within the security documents. Other policies suggested by the various
documents include adaptation, crisis management, conflict prevention, and in very
few cases enhancing military capabilities (Brzoska 2012). Even though many of
the proposed policy measures, such as disaster management and conflict
prevention, make room for active involvement of the armed forces, Brzoska (2012)
concludes that there are generally few suggestions for a clear role of thearmed
forces in regards to climate change. Brzoska (2012) provides in-depth knowledge
of national understandings of and approaches to climate change. However, an
analysis of how different policy fields incorporate climate change and security
remains open.
Regarding the practical approaches to climate change, Oels (2013) has found that
traditional risk management based on prediction and risk management through
contingency are the dominant risk managing approaches. The traditional risk
management approach aims to [r]educe risks to a tolerable level defined
by science and technology (Oels 2013: 19). This type of risk management
represents the risk of climate change as knowable, calculable and controllable,
while aiming to reduce possible vulnerabilities of some social groups (Oels 2013:
19). Rather than reducing risks to a safe level, the risk management through
contingency approach aims to [m]obilise and empower people to adapt to radical
contingency, which includes capacity building, data-mining and surveillance
(Oels 2013: 19). Climate change is presented as an uncertain, hard to predict, and
inevitable risk which calls for preparedness and resilience. Furthermore, Oels
(2013: 21) finds that besides mitigation, which focuses on the control of
greenhouse gas emissions in order to preventdangerous climate change
On a more general level, various scholars have warned about the linking of
theenvironment to security. Even though the securitization of the environment and
climate change raises awareness and attention paid to the issue, it also can backfire.
For example, Deudney (1999) claims that securitizing environmental change is in
fact counterproductive to developing effective solutions for a sustainable future,
and that we should abandon the security framing of environmental concerns
entirely. Moreover, scholars within theenvironmental security field, especially
those dealing with ecological security(meaning the environment is the
referent object to be protected from harmful practices) warn that a traditional
security approach and even our general anthropocentric view on the environment is
he wrong way to deal with environmental concerns, as this type of approach tends
to neglect the root causes of climate change (see Barnett 2013; Detraz 2012).
HYPOTHESIS
The above narrations raise questions and perceptions of security
or threat based on this the following assumption stand
1.Climate change emerge as a non-traditional security threat.
2.The impacts of climate change on security of human beings
have securitized climate change in Indias foreign policy.
3.India has taken many actions at the domestic level on climate
change in veiw of the threats climate change poses to human
being.
4.Since climate change is global, India has played a major role to
put the burden of combating climate change on the developed
countries.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHAPTERIZATION OF STUDY
The Research work has all together five chapters :
The Chapter 1 : Introduction: This chapter explains about the
significance of the study, literature review, objectives of the
study, hypothesis, research methodology and chapterization of
the study.