UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

(1)

51

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 5 Issue 1

UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Bhaskar Jyoti Deka1

Abstract

The contemporary debate on non-traditional security threats identifies the acute nexus between

environment and security. After the end of the Cold War, the concept of environmental security

received increasing worldwide interest from governments, scientific institutions,

intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations, calling for greater

attention to the potential threats to security posed by environmental change. National solutions

to environmental problems were identified as being insufficient to address the potential threats

emerging out of environmental degradation.The debates over the concept of „security‟ have been

expanded beyond issues of geopolitics, international balance of power and military strategy. The

trend of reconceptualising security challenges the traditional understanding of „state-centric security‟ that emphasises the existential threats to the state emerging from external forces. The

meaning of security has also been interpreted as a reaction to the negative implications of

globalization and environmental and climatic alterations. The linkage between security and

environment has many dimensions. Issues of peace and conflict, development, well-being of the

entire humanity and a sustainable future have all been incorporated into security discourses.

Key words: environmental security, greening of international relations, human security.

Research Questions

The core questions posed by this article are as follows-

1_{Ph.D. Scholar, Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, School of International Studies,}

(2)

52

1. How the „greening of international relations‟ has produced a movement away from the traditional understanding of state-centric security?

2. Why it is important to prioritise environmental issues in international security discourses? 3. Why it is so significant to understand international security in terms of human security? 4. How to assess the criticisms that has been mounted against the concept of „environmental

security‟ in the international academic debate?

Hypotheses

1. Recognizing and acting on problems of environmental degradation and vulnerabilities of populations has become an increasingly common feature of security policy.

2. Taking the first hypotheses as an independent variable it is worthy to be noted the importance of the concept of human security in understanding the discourse of security in international security discourse.

Objectives

1. This paper aims to examine the changing contours of the concept of “environmental security” in International Relations.

(3)

53

Background

The concept of „environmental security‟ encompasses the issues of environmental degradation, deprivation, and resource scarcity. The concept of environmental security considers “the ecosystem as its referent object (security of whom?); sustainability as the value at risk (security of what?) and humankind as the source(s) of threat (security from whom/what?)” (Brauch 2008: 29). It seeks to ensure energy, food, health, and livelihood and deals with the challenges and risks that may cause vulnerability and pose a survival dilemma. The basic argument underlying the „environmental security‟ discourse refers to the inability of the earth‟s ecosystem to support the growing demands of the world population. Since the end of the Cold War, the environmental problems have been recognized as a potential threat to national security and it has become an international issue as national solutions to environmental problems are not sufficient in the long run.

The conventional security analysis tends to eschew armed conflict to settle differences. The unlimited production of greenhouse gases and toxic wastes, deforestation, unrestricted use of carbon fuels, increasing numbers of profligate consumers and wasters, changing energy use patterns, climate change, polluted air, water contamination, floods and droughts, internal displacement and environmental refugees imperil the earth‟s liveable environment. Climate change, for instance, has become an existential threat worldwide. The rise of sea level and agricultural disruptions, the death of low-lying coastal areas, disruptions of rainfall and droughts cause large-scale internal displacement or „environmental refugees‟ and possibly civil wars which push to greater depths of insecurity regionally. „Environmental refugees‟ tend to be surpassed by development processes, and suffer extreme deprivation and fear among individuals or in simple language it means human insecurity in the contemporary international environment.

Re-conceptualising Security in International Relations

The term „security‟ in International Relations is a widely contested phenomenon. The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (1993) claimedthat „security‟ as a fundamental social science

(4)

54

context, security depends on the perceptions of the individuals to feel free in their position in the environment, not an objective condition of being justified in feeling the way they do. The subjective sense of security cannot be absolute as individuals differ in what makes them secure or insecure. On the same lines, sovereign entities or states in the international political environment are not perfectly secure or completely insecure. John Herz is credited with the formulation of the term “security dilemma”, i.e. increasing the perception of insecurity among others that “leads groups to acquire more capabilities, in the process rendering their opponents insecure and thus compelling both sides to engage in a “vicious circle of security and power accumulation” (Herz 1950: 157). This resulted in hegemonic wars waged by great empires, innumerable interventions into the domestic affairs of other states, competition to acquire nuclear weapons, ideological conflicts and religious crusades along with the systems of alliance and competition for self-sufficiency and so on.It is a matter of degree of feeling secure to some extent as Arnold Wolfers stated that “„security‟ in an objective sense measures the absence of threat to acquired values and in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked” (Wolfers 1952: 485). The United Nations Charter in Article 51 provides that every statereserves the right to individual and collective self-defence despite the prohibition of use of force and the provisions of peaceful settlement of conflicts among nations.

(5)

55

The „national security‟ concept has been criticised by many. Wolfers criticised „national security‟ as an “ambiguous symbol” claiming that “the symbol of national security is nothing but a stimulus to semantic confusion, though closer analysis will show that if used without specifications it leaves room for more confusion than sound political counsel or scientific usage can afford” (Wolfers 1952: 483). He argues that the demand for a „policy of national security‟ must have a normative character which indicates a “rational means toward an accepted end” and it covers the security interests of the other side as well. According to Wolfers suggested the rational and least destructive course of action that could eventually minimize the willingness of the other to resort to violence. Richard Ullman (1983) argued that defining national security primarily in terms of military threats arising beyond the territorial borders conveys a false image of reality. Ullman argued in favour of the inclusion of “other dimensions of security” such as earthquakes,rapid growth of world populations, scarcity of resources, migration etc. as threats to „security‟. In other words, „security‟should mean the preservation of acquired values and not merely the presence or absence of military threats. Barry Buzan called security an “underdeveloped concept” indicating the lack of conceptual literature on security prior to the 1980s” (Buzan 1991: 3). Buzan also suggestedthat the concept ofenvironmentshould be included in the national security agenda as a security threat might appear in an ecological form just like a military or economic one that can potentially damage the physical base of the state. Hal Harveyproposed the term “natural security” instead of “national security” in the 1980s (Deudney 1990: 462).

(6)

56

proposals for giving high priority to issues such as human rights, economics, environment, social injustice etc.

Some international security analysts equate security with other values that are morally superior to the politico-military aspect of traditional security. Some proponents of the Frankfurt School conceive security as „emancipation‟. Smith insistedon taking referent points of security other than the state,arguing that strategic studies might sometimes be antithetical to achieving human emancipation. Booth argued that “emancipation, not power or order, produces true security” (Booth 1991: 319). His argument is to make individual human beings the ultimate referent object of security analysis. Wyn Jones talked of deepening security by conceiving security as a reflection of the deeper assumptions on the nature of politics; broadening the security agenda beyond military threats, and extending security by overcoming state-centrism and moving towards identity analysis and emancipation (Jones 1999: 117-118).

Jessica Mathews (1991) gave an explicit call for redefining security in broader terms that projected environmental decline and climate change assignificant generators of human insecurity. Mathews‟ illustrations of environmental security derived from two perspectives- she identified environmental issues as global challenges such as catastrophic ozone depletion or deforestation and she also included the issues of resource scarcity and regional instability. The events that degrade environmental viability also undercut economic potential and human well-being which eventually fuel political tensions and create situations of conflict. She stated that “environmental decline occasionally leads directly to conflict, especially when its impact on nation‟s security is felt in the downward pull on economic performance and, therefore, on political stability” (Mathews 1991: 366).Such a situation of domestic turmoil over environment could become an interstate convulsion beyond territorial borders.

(7)

57

basic requisites that are the due of every person on Earth. The collectivity of citizen needs – “overall safety and quality of life … should figure prominently in the nation‟s view of security” (Myers 1993: 31). John Barnett proclaimed “environmental degradation” as “human degradation” and urged to consider humans as the referent object and emphasized on a human-centred environmental security concept (Barnett 2001: 338).

Elise Boulding, emphasized on the “separation of strategy of warfare to eliminate destructiveness in all forms including economic and ecological and increase the levels of human cooperation and environmental awareness as fast as possible” (Boulding 1992: 65). Lother Brock signified the need for widening the concept of security to include the environment by saying that defining environmental issues as security threats is itself a risky operation. He argued that non-deliberate destruction of environment by the human civilization can potentially damage the biosphere bringing irreversible consequences for the future generations. It is as dangerous as a deliberate initiation of a war. Brock linked environmental security with the concepts of peace and cooperation, sustainable development and delink it from the militarized concept of environmental security. . Patricia Mische coined the concept of “ecological security” (Mische 1992: 104) in 1986 with a suggestion to increase the focus on the linkage between the environment, peace, and security. Litfin proposed his idea “to rehabilitate the concept of security to encompass the environmental danger such as land degradation, desertification and increasing wave of species extinctions which is a growing source of insecurity in the modern world” (Litfin 1999: 320).

(8)

58

energy, oil and chemical industries; third, “population related problems” combining the problems of population growth and consumption, epidemics and health insecurity, migration and unmanageable migration; fourth, “food related problems” that include poverty, famine, degrading soil quality and water resources etc.; fifth, “economic problems” that include unsustainable modes of production and social instability and eventual structural breakdowns; and finally, “violent conflict-related problems” including impact of war on environment and violence occurring due to environmental disruptions. The bottom line of Wilde‟s understanding of environmental security is the “preservation of the existing levels of civilization” (Wilde 2008: 598) which is close to Buzan‟s definition that says that “environmental security concerns the biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend” (Buzan 1991: 19-20). Hence, the ultimate challenge in achieving environmental security is to overcome the risk of losing the achieved levels of human civilization. The reverse can lead to or contribute to the outbreak of violent conflicts. Environmental degradation triggers a competition for scarce resources and worsens social relationships between nations, causing greater resentment and insecurity.

(9)

59

The Process of Greening International Relations

The so-called agenda of “high politics” focuses on military threats and related responses and ignores other factors such as economic or environmental crises or issues of “low politics”. The process of “greening of international politics” (Litfin 1999: 315) that began in the 1970s questioned the conventional understanding of security in international politics. This period is characterized by increasing numbers of international conferences and reports on global environmental change that created a public awareness on issues relating to the environment. After the Cold War, environmental security issues received worldwide interest from a complex web of actors such as governments, politicians, scientific institutions, industries, intergovernmental agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and indigenous people calling for greater attention to the potential threats posed by environmental degradation.

During the nineteenth century, interstate commissions were established between neighbouring states to govern the use of natural resources. For example, the Interstate River Commission in Europe, Commission between the United States and Canada over the Great Lakes, etc. NGOs were formed to address environmental issues, for example, the Society for the Protection of Birds in 1892 in order to protect specific bird species; the Friends of the Earth in 1969 envisioned a peaceful and sustainable world with a compassionate society; Greenpeace in 1972 aimed at protection and conservation of the environment and peace; the Sierra Club in 1992 aimed to generate environmental awareness. Severn Cullies-Suzuki, (then a twelve year old girl) through the Environmental Children‟s Organization (ECO) revealed her fear of environmental degradation and concerns for the future generations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Many international leaders expressed their views and shared strategies to tackle environmental problems. The idea of “common heritage of mankind” was mentioned in the preamble to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,1954.

(10)

60

resources such as whales, in particular, as „common heritage of mankind‟. A memorable speech was made by the UN representative from Malta Arvid Pardo in the UN General Assembly in 1967 demanding the General Assembly to declare the seabed and ocean floor as the „common heritage of mankind‟ beyond the jurisdiction of national governments. He also put forwarded an idea to create a UN organ and an international regime for the exploration of seabed resources and assure such areas as a “trustee for all countries”. The Argentinean Ambassador Aldo Armando Cocca, Prince of Thailand Wan Waithayakon also talked of internationalization of marine resources. Positions on natural resource management, particularly on international legal aspects of conservation of water and other minerals, competition in the energy sectors etc. were solidified US President Harry Truman claimed control over access to minerals – primarily oil and gas – on the continental shelf.Gamani Corea from Sri Lanka and Dutchman Jan Pronk exhibited similar views. Regarding “common heritage of humankind”, Immanuel Kant in his essay Towards Perpetual Peace commented that “use of the right to the earth‟s surface which belongs to the human race in common would finally bring the human race ever closer to a cosmopolitan constitution” (Kant 1999: 329).

(11)

61

Many UN Secretary Generals have often highlighted environmental concerns in their speeches. Kofi Annan, for instance, advocated for inclusion of the environmental dimension in the concept of “comprehensive security” in the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (UN 2004: 2). In the context of UN Reforms,he reiterated that a “collective trusteeship” should be in place to promote integrity and sustainable use of global environmental resources available in common areas, such as the high seas, outer space, and the atmosphere. Another thought provoking idea was to create “green UN police forces” proposed in the 1980s by an international NGO in the context of “Ecoforum for Peace”. These forces were to be entrusted with some power to prevent illegal dumping, monitor pollution and other accidents, to supervise the actual application of international safety guidelines in the context of constructing and operation of chemical industries. The proposers of UN environmental forces proffered that such forces should be created under the mandate of UN peacekeeping operations.

(12)

62

environmental regime to implement the required programmes. The debates in the United Nations always affected by North-South political confrontation. The developing countries always complain that the developed countries use the environmental concerns to maintain their status-quo rather than initiating necessary changes in order to tackle the environmental problems or to strengthen the concept of environmental security.

Deibertargued in favour of redirecting military satellites or “satellite reconnaissance” in the context of Strategic Research and Development Program (SERDP) towards monitoring the human relations on the planet as well as for environmental rescue operations (Deibert 1995: 267-269). The US Senator, Sam Nunn in 1990 proposed a similar idea of shifting the Defence Department with technological equipment as well as intelligence resources to counter the ecological challenge. He optimistically envisaged the simultaneous use of military resources for environmental purposes. The US Armed Services Committee collectively called for creating a “Strategic Environmental Research Program” which Al Gore dubbed as “philosophical point” in strategic thinking to recognize environment as a the negligence of the environmental issues “not only threatens the quality of life, but life itself and thus global environment qualifies to be a national security issue” (Gore 1990: 60). Dauvergne and Clapp observed that “in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the Global Environmental Politics (GEP) field studied the problems defining those eras such as air pollution, nuclear testing, whaling, the ivory trade, the seal hunt, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ozone depletion” (Dauvergne& Clapp 2016: 6). Brown‟s idea of a period of “ecological awareness” (Brown 1989: 519) encompasses the broader issues such as sustainable development, conservation of natural environment, peace and health of humanity have been incorporated into the national security agenda.

A Leap from Security to Human Security

(13)

63

economic development. „Environmental change‟ refers to “short and long-term changes in the biological, physical and chemical components and systems that sustain human life, which result from both human activities and natural processes” (Barnett 2008: 355). The United Nations Human Development Report 1994 which is a significant document on human security defines „environmental security‟ in terms of “a pollution free world, preventing degradation of the local and global ecosystem and a strong disaster management system to cope with natural emergencies” (UNDP 1994: 28-29).Environmental security has become a key objective in the environmental policy initiated by the international community or individual states. Environmental security encompasses the issues of environmental degradation, deprivation, and resource scarcity. The growing rate of environmental change and the negative outcomes are closely linked with the notion of human security. These concerns are being viewed as a graver challenge than conflict and war or military security, especially since the end of the Cold War. Liotta and Shearer (2007: 17) opine that the term „environmental security‟ refers to the “sustained viability of the ecosystem and recognizes that natural processes are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction”. Similarly, Najam (2003: 59) states that “the non-military threats within nations such as poverty, social vulnerability, or ecological resiliency are not considered as concrete and tangible” but “the wrong end of a smokestack can be as much of a security concern to humans as the barrel of a gun”. This is because of the possibility of environmental changes generating, triggering, and intensifying the forms of conflicts and instability.In 2004, the debate shifted from „security dilemma‟ to „survival dilemma‟ as Brauch argued in favour of survival dilemma within the discourse of environmental and human security as a people-centred and

bottom-up approach. This approach encompasses both military and non-military security threats such as the security challenges emanating from war, violence, global environmental changes, epidemics, poverty and hunger, natural disasters and so on.

(14)

64

shortages, acid rain or water salinization generate regional as well as transboundary challenges. Arthur Westing opines that “global deficiencies and degradation of natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable, coupled with the uneven distribution of these raw materials, can lead to unlikely- and thus unstable- alliances, to national rivalries, and, of course, to war” (Westing 1986: introduction). Therefore, it is widely argued, mostly by the realist thinkers that in a Hobbesian world, states are more likely to engage in war as they desperately compete for scarce resources and tend to reduce their dependence on other countries.

Demystifying the Concept of Environmental Security

Some scholars tend to defy the notion of environmental security. Authors like Deudney (1990) question the causal link between environmental change and international conflict and argue that environmental degradation is not likely to cause interstate conflict. The central argument is based on the declining utility of military forces for ensuring security of natural resources and resolving confrontations among riparian nations. Besides, the emergence of bilateral and multilateral agreements renders such conflicts implausible (Deudney 1990; Dalby 1992a). For example, Ronnfeldt points to the example of West Africa where “regional cooperation faded away the causal link between environmental scarcity and conflict” (Ronnfeldt 1997: 477).

The nexus between ecological problems which are universal in nature and violent conflicts incorporates multiple issues that do not conform to the traditional state-centric notion of security in the international security discourses. Many mainstream security experts completely reject the validity of the term „environmental security‟, preferring to keep a narrow definition of security primarily focused on military threats and military means of preventing those threats. Dabelko and Dabelko pointed out that “the cases made against redefining security to include environmental issues and/or accepting environmental stress as a cause of conflict differ markedly in terms of the sources of the critiques and the critiques themselves” (Dabelko and Dabelko 1995: 6).

(15)

65

term „security‟ meaningless and it becomes ambiguous and diluted. It will militarize environmental policies, with detrimental effects on society rather than finding solutions to environmental problems. Secondly, such environmental security policies may actually reduce security if they tend to push toward conflict rather than peaceful relations among nations” (Benjamin 2000: 4). This implies that the inclusion of new security goals will decrease a nation‟s security by antagonizing its rivalries and by encouraging overseas interventions. These authors suggest transfer the responsibility of protecting the environment to other countries.They think that despite the vivid geopolitical circumstances began waggling in the world affairs after the Cold War, the military response is necessary to counter multiple number of threats emanated from the external forces. Military involvement in civilian activities such as ensuring public safety, medical assistance, providing transport facilities, preventing drug trafficking, and sometimes overseas missions, has mushroomed. Opposition to the inclusion of environmental threats within the national security agendas is based on the belief that it is inappropriate to use military means to address environmental problems, which substantially ignore national borders. Hence they demand cooperative ventures rather than military instruments designed to safeguard the territory of a state.

(16)

66

These authors also claim that the military is identifiedas having an adverse impact on the environment; it is a part of the problem and not the solution. The causes and cures of an environmental problem cannot be discovered in the traditional domain of national security analysis which is primarily related to violence and militarism and aggressiveness in state behaviour, which are not plausible answers to environmental problems.

Lipschutz and Holdren argue that “war is less cost-effective than pursuing the same goal through trade; that technological advances have increased the substitutability of materials; and that raw materials are now less important to economic success” (Lipschutz and Holdren 1990: 126).Another group of critiques collocates both national security and environmental security under a common head of “threats”. However,violent security threats and environmental disruptions are different although both could jeopardize human well-being and survival. Usually, violent threats to national security appear to be intentional while environmental threats are a fallout of other activities. It will loosen the “analytical usefulness” of the term „security‟ and it becomes a “loose synonym of „bad‟ or “drain the term of any meaning” (Deudney 1990: 464, 465). For Walker “it may be true that purely military definitions of security are far too narrow, but if the meaning of security is extended too far, so as to become almost synonymous with, say, development or even justice, then it will soon cease to have any useful analytical or operational meaning at all” (Walker 1990: 5).

(17)

67

Thesesceptics reject the popular argument that resource scarcity and environmental degradation stimulate violence and interstate war (Deudney 1990; Lipschutz and Holdren 1990; Brock 1992; Dabelko and Dabelko 1995; Barnett 2000).

The lack of a causal connection between resource scarcity and acute conflict disqualify the claim of linking environmental problems with national security issues. Dabelko and dabelko point out that “all the issues of environmental degradation should not be forced to fit into the matrix of security and conflict. The conception of security must instead be changed to reflect the new threats of environmental degradation”(Dabelko and Dabelko 1995: 8). Weaver rejects the “securitization of the environment”, defining security as “speech act” that implies that “security is articulated only from a specific place, in an institutional voice, by elites” (Weaver 1995: 57). Nationalism involves militarism and it is often understood as a game of “us vs. them” whereas environmental problems identify the enemy as “we” and not them. Hence, environmental issues are global in nature and national sentiments are not enough to coping with these global problems. Buzan notes that the concept of security is basically about maintaining one‟s status quo and the threats and defence are state-centric notions and labelling environmental problems under these headings will leave the problem unsolved. Using the term environmental security will dramatize the problems and it will generate “an inappropriate construction of the environment, as a threat or defence problem” (Buzan et al. 1995: 26).

(18)

68

reluctantly accept the causal link between resources scarcity and violent conflict and the third wave proponents suggest “to broaden the concept incorporating more independent variables of peace and conflict studies” (Ronnefledt 1997: 476) to better understand the concept of security through the lens of human security.

Assessing Environmental Security in International Relations

There is scepticism and disagreement over defining environmental security and its relationship with national security but the basic arguments in these debates centers around inventing appropriate means to achieve a common goal, that is to find the best way to ensure a more secure and sustainable future. Matthew observes that “different authors implicitly and explicitly associated the concept with “national security”, “collective security” or “comprehensive security”- vague terms that obscure as often as they clarify matters” (Matthew 1995: 19). Schrijver points out that “environmental and ecological security is an evolving concept; consequently an established definition does not exist” (Schrijver 2010: 115). Dalby defines “security as a very useful term partly because international relation resonates with widely held personal desires to be unthreatened” (Dalby 1992b: 512).

(19)

69

to be in place. Strengthening the concept of environmental security could provide the states, individuals and local communities with the help of international institutions. Otherwise, absence and pollution of a single element of the environment jeopardise the security of all individuals.It may further be noted that in this endeavour, the failure of states to address the problem of climate change will mean an inability to provide „environmental security‟ effectively to its citizens.

References

Art, Robert J. (1993), “Security”, in Krieger, Joel (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 820-822.

Barnett, J. (2001), “The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era”, London: Zed Books.

Booth, Ken, (1991), “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies, October, 17 (4): 313-326.

Boulding, Elise (Ed.), (1992), “New Agendas for Peace Research. Conflict and Security Reexamined”, Boulder & London: Lynne Reinner Publishers.

Brauch, Gunter Hans at al. (Eds.), (2008), “Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century,Vol. 3, New York: Springer.

Brown, Neville (1989), “Climate, Ecology and International Security” Survival, November/December, 31 (6): 519-532.

Buzan, Barry (1991), “Environment as a Security Issue” in Paul Painchaud, (Ed.) Geopolitical Perspectives on Environmental Security, Quebec: The Studies and Research Center on

Environmental Policies, Université Lava, pp. 1-28.

Buzan, Barry and Hansen Lene (2009), “Evolution of International Security Studies”, Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, Barry et al. (1995), “Environmental, Economic andSocietal Security”, Working Papers, No. 10, Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research.

(20)

70

Dalby, Simon (1992a), “Security, Modernity, Ecology: The Dilemmas of Post-Cold War Security Discourse”, Alternatives, 17: 95-134.

Dalby, Simon (1992b), “Ecological Discourse: Environmental Security and Political Geography”, Progress in Human Geography, 16 (4): 503-522.

Dauvergne, Peter and Jennifer Clapp (2016), “Researching Global Environmental Politics in the 21st Century”, Global Environmental Politics, 16 (1): 1-12.

Deibert, Ronald (1995), “Out of Focus: U.S. Military Satellites and Environmental Rescue”, in Danial Deudney et al. (1999), Contested Grounds: Security and Conflicts in the New Environmental Politics, New York: State University of New York Press.

Deudney, D. (1990) “The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security”, Millennium, 19 (3): 461-476.

Diehl, Paul E. and Nils Fetter Gleditsch (Eds.) (2001), “Environmental Conflict”, USA: Westview.

Finger, Matthias (1991), “The Military, the Nation State and the Environment.” The Ecologist, 21 (5): 220-225.

Gore, Al (1990), “SEI: A Strategic Environment Initiative,” SAIS Review10, Winter–Spring, 1990.

Herz, John H. (1950), “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, January, 2 (2): 157-180.

Jones, Richard Wyn, (1999), “Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory”, Boulder & London: Rienner Publishers.

Kant, Immanuel (1999), “Toward Perpetual Peace” in Kant, Immanuel (ed.) Practical Philosophy, Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, Gregor M.J. (Trans.),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(21)

71

Lipschutz, Ronnie and John P. Holdern (1990), “Crossing Borders: Resource Flows, the Global Environment and International Security”, Bulletin of Pease Proposals, 21 (2):121-133.

Litfin, Karen (1999), “Constructing Environmental Security and Ecological Interdependency”, Global Governance, 5: 359-377.

Mathews, Jessica T. (1991), “The Environment and International Security”, in Michael T. Klare& C. Thomas (Eds.), World Security: Trends and Challenges at Century‟s End, New York: Martin‟s Press, pp. 362-380.

Mische, Patricia M. (1992), “Security Through Defending the Environment: Citizens Say yes!”, in Elise Boulding (Eds.) New Agendas for Peace Research, Boulder and London: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 103-119.

Moss, Richard H. (1995), “Environmental Security? The Illogic of Centralized State Responses to Environmental Threats,” in Painchaud Paul (Ed.) Geopolitical Perspectives on Environmental Security, Cahier du GERPE, No. 92-05, Université Laval, Quebec.

Myers, Norman (1993), “Ultimate Security: The Environmental Basis for Political Stability”, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Najam, Adil (Ed.) (2003), “Environment, Development and Human Security: Perspectives from South Asia”, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Rønnfeldt, Carsten F. (1997), Three Generations of Environment and Security Research”, Journal of Peace Research, November, 34 (4): 473-482.

Rosso, Stephen Del (1995), “The Insecure State: Reflections on „the State‟ and „Security‟ in a Changing World,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, spring, 124 (2): 175-207.

Schrijver, Nico (2010), “Development without Destruction: The UN and Global Resource Management (United Nations Intellectual History Project Series)”, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

(22)

72

Weaver, Ole (1995), “Securitization and Desecuritization”, in Ronie D. Lipschutz (Ed.) On Security, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 46-87.

Westing, Arthur (Ed.) (1986), “Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors in Strategic Policy and Action”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilde, Jaap D. (2008), “Environmental Security Deconstructed”, in Hans Guntur Brauch et al. Globalization and Environmental Security: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century, Vol.

3, Springer.