Pol Sci Mains

8/23/2019 Pol Sci Mains

1/37

Cracking IAS Study Circle, Chennai. www.crackingIAS.com Call: us: 09884554654

Cracking IAS Study Circle, Y-block. 3020/1, 3rd street, 13th main road, Shanti Colony Road. AnnaNagar, Chennai-40. Landmark : Behind Natesan Institute. (Take 2nd left from Police Booth).

1

FEEL THE PULSE OF UPSC with CrackingIAS

We feel proud to share our joy with all of you that our Student Nitika

Pawar has secured AIR -18 (IAS 2011) in her very first ATTEMPT. We

strive to serve the Student Community with more joy and dedication. Best

Wishes to all our members who had come out successful.

(Also many students have scored 320+ in POLITICAL SCIENCE in the

previous years using our Study Materials & Class). (AIR - 2 in POL.SCI.

PAPER 2 in 2007 (190)as per our known records).

ANTONIO GRAMSCI

Centrality

Politics and Ideology were independent of the economic base. No ruling class could dominate by economic factors alone. Working class can achieve political liberation by political and intellectual struggle. Real class control in capitalist societies is ideological and cultural rather than physical. Only the working class educated by radical intellectuals could see through and overthrow

bourgeoisie propaganda.

CIVIL SOCIETY

Capitalist state rules through force plus consent. Political Society which is the arena

of political institutions and legal constitutional control, is the realm of force. Civil Society

which is commonly seen as the private or non-state sphere is the realm of consent. The

division is however purely conceptual and the two can overlap in reality.

State = Political Society + Civil Society.

The use of coercion in the process of domination is the domain of what he calls

political society, meaning the armed forces, police, law courts and prisons, together with all

the administrative departments concerning taxation finance, trade, industry, social security, etc.

These are the structures of coercion.

Consent to domination, the second portion of Gramscis formula of power, is

developed within civil society. It is an internalized form of domination that differs from the

external, direct domination achieved through the coercive force of political society. Civil

society is the sphere within which the state pursues (and maintains) hegemony, a social order

where a common social-moral language is spoken, in which one concept of reality is dominant,

informing with its spirit all modes of thought and behaviour. The structures associated with


2/37



2

these are the structures of legitimation. These structures lend legitimacy to the rule of

capitalist class so that even injustice involved in this rule would carry the impression of justice.

All the organisations which make up civil society are the result of a complex network of social

practices and social relations, including the struggle between the two fundamental classes,

capital and labour.

One set of institutions, the apparatuses which make up the state, are separated from all

the rest in having a monopoly of coercion. All these social relations and the organisations which

embody them (other than the state with its, coercion) are called by Gramsci civil society. The

social relations which make up civil society are distinct from the relations of production, and the

organisations within civil society are distinct from the apparatuses which make up the state.

Civil society is the sphere of class struggles and of popular-democratic struggles. Thus it is

the sphere in which a dominant social group organises consent and hegemony. It is also the

sphere where the subordinate social groups may organise their opposition and construct an

alternative hegemonya counterhegemony. The concept of civil society as the sphere of

class and popular-democratic struggles, and of the contest for hegemony between the two

fundamental classes, adds a new dimension to Marxism. It develops very significantly the

Marxist theory of political power and of the revolutionary process. Gramsci says that civil

society is ethical or moral society, because it is in civil society that the hegemony of the

dominant class has been built up by means of political and ideological struggles.

Gramsci uses the term political society for the coercive relations which are materialised

in the various institutions of the statethe armed forces, police, law courts and prisons,

together with all the administrative departments concerning taxation finance, trade, industry,

social security, etc., which depend in the last resort for their effectiveness on the states

monopoly of coercion. He was of course very well aware that the activities of the state are far

more than coercion and that the state apparatuses play a vital part in the organisation of consent;

he refers to the educative and formative role of the state. The term political society is not a

substitute for the term state, but refers only to the coercive relations embodied in the state

apparatuses.

Gramsci derived the terms civil society and political society from Hegel, whom he had

studied just as Marx and Engels had; and he transformed Hegels concepts of civil and political

society just as Marx and Engels transformed other Hegelian concepts. In Hegels system, civil

society was used to designate the sphere of economic relations, which was indeed the sense in

which it was widely used in Britain and France in the eighteenth century. This was also the


3/37



3

sense in which it was used by Marx in his early works, but in the later works of Marx and

Engels, after they had developed the theory of historical materialism and the concepts of forces

and relations of production, they abandoned the term civil society.

Gramsci located civil society in the political superstructure. He underlined the

crucial role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for

the survival of the hegemony of capitalism. Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier

Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving.

Gramsci proposed that civil society be the arena where various social groups and classes

struggle to undermine the hegemonic position of the bourgeoisie and prepare the transformation

of (or revolution against) the capitalist state.

HEGEMONY

Hegemony is the notion of the exercise of domination through political legitimacy ,

rather than through force. Hegemony is the notion of the acquisition of the consent of the

governed. Hegemony is an ideological dominance of society, in which the subordinate levels

of society allow the ruling class to exercise social and economic dominance, with the consent of

the subordinate classes in the support of the common good.

3-Dimensions of Hegemony

a) Intellectual

b) Moral - leadership and consent.

c) Political - domination, subjugation, force, and coercion.

Two Processes of Attaining Hegemony: From Subaltern Group to Dominant Group in

the State:-

a) Eliminating or Subordinating Opposing Forces.

b) Winning Active or Passive Consent of Subaltern Allies.

For Gramsci, the state was the chief instrument of coercive force, the winning of consent

being achieved by the institutions of civil society e: g: the family, the Church and the Trade

Unions. Hence the more prominent is civil society; the more likely it is that hegemony will be

achieved by ideological means.

Hegemony is unlikely ever to be complete. In contemporary capitalist societies, for

example, the working class has a dual consciousness, partly determined by the ideology of the

capitalist class and partly revolutionary, determined by their experience of capitalist society. For

capitalist society to be overthrown, workers must first establish their own ideological

supremacy derived from their revolutionary consciousness. In its subtler sense, however, it


4/37



4

implies some notion of consent and is particularly associated with the writings of the Antonio

Gramsci.

A politically dominant class maintains its position not simply by force, or the threat of force,

but also by consent. That is achieved by making compromises with various other social and

political forces which are welded together and consent to a certain social order under the

intellectual and moral leadership of the dominant class. Thus hegemony is produced and

reproduced through a network of institutions, social relations, and ideas which are outside

the direct political sphere.

The Gramiscian concept of hegemony is not only compatible with pluralism, it implies it;

but this is a pluralism which is always located within the hegemony of the working class

Mouffe.

PLATOs THEORY OF EDUCATION

Platonic education is intimately linked with his theory of justice. He considered

education as spiritual remedy for many evils of the society. Platos Republic is the finest

treatise on education that has ever been written ROUSSEAU.

Plato believed that virtue is knowledge and it is the duty of the state to provide that

knowledge. During his time two diametrically opposite methods of education were in vogue.

The Athenian System in Private hands and the Spartan system in States control. The Salient

features of Platonic Education are: -

1.State controlled education2.Compulsory education to children3.Gender equality in education4.Strict censorship of all literary and artistic works.5.It aimed at both moral and physical development.6.Its chief aim was to produce Philosopher kings. Plato envisaged education as a life-long

process of the Philosopher king.

7.Platonic education involves integration. It involves a slow growth.S.No. CATEGORY AGE CURRICULUM

I Basic / Elementary 0-20 years

1. First Stage 0-6 years Language, Religion &

Religious Institutions.

2. Second Stage 6-18 years Music and Gymnastic


5/37



5

3. Third Stage 18-20 years Compulsory Military education.

II HIGHER STAGE 20-35 years

At 20 years there has to be

screening test. Thoseshowing aptitude for

Science & Philosophy

were to be given further

education for 15 years.

20-30 years

At 30 years ascreening test

has to be held.

Mathematics, Geometry, Logic

& other sciences.

30-35 years Dialectics as it was the only

system of knowledge through

which highest reality could be

achieved. This stage was

essentially meant to produce

philosopher kings.

The Philosopher king was expected to rule from 35 years to 50 years of his age, then

retire and resume study for the contemplation of God.

Criticism

1)Meant for Guardian class alone.2)Life-long process.3)Far from reality.4)Not logical.5)No technical and vocational education.6)No training in administration.7)Contrary to human diversity.

Significance

1) It aims at both moral and physical development.2) He insists on tests to weed out unfit.

ARISTOTLE - STATE

Politics for Aristotle is not a struggle between individuals or classes for power, nor a

device for getting done such elementary tasks as the maintenance of order and security without

too great encroachments on individual liberty. The state is "a community of well-being in

families and aggregations of families for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life."

A natural institution

Like Plato, Aristotle also starts with the rejection of the Sophists view that political

society is the product of convention. He treats state as a natural institution possessing moral


6/37



6

authority. The state was developed from the family to satisfy the needs and desires of the

people. An individual can achieve self-sufficiency only in the state. Since the man was a

rational being, the state was a rational institution. He emphasized the organic nature of the

state. There are two primary natural instincts which compel human beings to associate

themselves together:-

1. Reproductive Instinct which brings a man and woman together.2. Instinct of self preservation which brings together master and slave.

Aristotle declared that man by nature is the political being. For Aristotle, to live in a

state and to be a man were identical for whoever was not a member of a state or was unfit to be

one was either a god or beast i.e. such person was either above the state on the below it. Man is

much more a political animal than any kind of bee or any herd animal. For, as we assert,

nature does nothing in vain, and man alone among the animals has speech.[S]peech serves to

reveal the advantageous and the harmful and hence also the just and unjust. For it is peculiar to

man as compared to the other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad and just

and unjust and other things of this sort; and partnership in these things is what makes a

household and a city.

The fact that an individual is not self sufficient is the very reason which makes the

family necessary to him. The same natural necessity which makes individual combine in a

family makes families combine to form a village and villages in their turn to form a state.

Nature and the city-state the nature of a thing is its end.

Aristotle defends three claims about nature and the city-state:

1. First, the city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitivenatural associations and it serves as their end, because only it attains self-sufficiency.

2. Second, human beings are by nature political animals, because nature, which doesnothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral

concepts such as justice which are formative of the household and city-state.

3. Third, the city-state is naturally prior to the individuals, because individuals cannotperform their natural functions apart from the city-state, since they are not self-sufficient.

City-state is the most complete community, because it attains the limit of self-

sufficiency, so that it can exist for the sake of the good life. Individuals outside of the city-state

are not self-sufficient, because they depend on the community not only for material necessities

but also for education and moral habituation. "Just as, when perfected, a human is the best of


7/37



7

animals, so also when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all". The end of all

human development is to realize its rational nature and this is realized in the state only.

State a natural organism

Aristotle conceived of State as being like an organism rather than like a machine, and as

a collection of parts none of which can exist without the others. The state is better understood

as a 'natural' rather than a 'mechanical' phenomenon, with different institutions performing

different functions, and the good health of the whole being attributable as much to the good

working of the whole as to the contribution of any particular part.

State as an association of associations

A state is "an association" based on civic friendship, designed to promote "noble

actions" and "living happily." State is a supreme association, because it is the highest of all the

associations. Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with

a view to some good, but if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community,

which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree

than any other.

The family is the first form of association and is established for the supply of men s

everyday wants. The family is the lowest form of association and is behind the village. The

village is the next form of association and it meets cultural wants the family cannot provide.

The city-state is the highest form of association in terms of social evolution. The city-state

exists for the sake of a good life, whereas the family and village exist for companionship and

life preservation. Aristotle felt that man, at each stage of association, develops himself so as to

meet self-actualization in portions. These portions are relevant to which stage the individual is

at in their lives. Within the family, man reproduces himself. The village provides the man with

companionship that he naturally seeks. In the city-state man is finally shown as distinct from the

beasts and other natural creatures. Aristotle continues, by stating that all associations aim at a

common good through joint action, with the state seeking the greatest good of all associations

for all.

State a koinonia

A family, for Aristotle, is merely a koinonia in which two individuals unite to produce

offspring and to manage household assets. A village is a koinonia connecting several

households; like other partnerships, the village is nothing more than a simple aggregate, with no

distinct properties or values beyond its constituent parts.


8/37



8

Just as the human is a self-sufficient unity with its own distinct and ethical existence

beyond the mere components of its body, the koinonia politike emerges out of the routine

interactions of connected elements to create a higher meaning for them all. (i.e) common

activity (koinonia) defines a state.

Role of State

The main objective of the state is to promote perfect and self-sufficing life, by which

Aristotle meant a happy and honorable life. He assigns to the state most positive functions of

promoting the good.

The state should give proper education to the members for proper performance of their

functions. It should train the young minds in the way of righteousness and make the life of

citizens supreme and moral. He considered the state like a mother to its citizens and its actions

could legitimately extend to all affairs of the individual.

CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION OR STATES

Aristotle defines the constitution as a way of organizing the offices of the city-state,

particularly the sovereign office. A constitution is just when it benefits everyone in the city and

unjust when it benefits only those in power. The constitution thus defines the governing body,

which takes different forms.

Aristotle says that the State is a Kiononia but the Kiononia is embodied in the

constitution. He considers the constitution as an

important factor which determines the character of the

state. He emphasizes that the State changes its identity

when the constitution changes. No constitution in the

world is either absolutely good or bad it is only

comparatively good or bad.

His classification is based on two principles

viz. Quantitative and Qualitative. If the government

aims at the common interest of all the people, it is a

pure form of government. If the Government serves the private and selfish interest of the ruling

class it becomes a corrupt or perverted government. Depending upon the number of people

involved in governing and the focus of their interests, Aristotle distinguished six kinds of social

structure in three pairs. His classification is best understood through the following table: -

S.No. No. of persons who Pure form Perverted Form


9/37



9

exercise power (Normal Govt.)

1 ONE Monarchy Tyranny

2 FEW Aristocracy Oligarchy

3 MANY Polity DemocracyIn each pair, the first sort of state is one in which the rulers are concerned with the good

of the state, while those of the second sort are those in which the rulers serve their own private

interests.

Although he believed monarchy to be the best possible state in principle, Aristotle

recognized that in practice it is liable to degenerate into the worst possible state, a tyranny. He

therefore recommended the formation of polity, or constitutional government, since its

degenerate form is the least harmful of the bad kinds of government. As always, Aristotle

defended the mean rather than run the risk of either extreme.

Aristotle acknowledges that giving full sovereignty to either the governing body or the

laws might make room for abuses of power and suggests that a polity is probably least

susceptible to corruption, especially when the laws are given higher authority than the

governing body.

Constitutions are usually changed by a large, dissatisfied faction that rises up against the

people in power. To preserve a constitution, Aristotle recommends moderation, education,

and inclusiveness. The interests of the rich minority and poor majority can be balanced by

allowing both factions a roughly equal amount of power. In such an arrangement, each

individual rich person would have more political power than each individual poor person, but

the poor and the rich as groups would be balanced against one another.

Criticism: -

1.Not applicable to the present system.2.He considers democracy a prevented form of government.3.He is guilty of confusing the two terms viz. Government and the State.4.His classification is quantitative rather than qualitative and is not based on any scientific

principles.

5.Bluntschli holds the view that Aristotles classification failed to record the existence oftheocratic states where God/Religion is the center of power and not the people.

Concept of Legitimacy

Legitimacy - It denotes one or more aspects of the lawfulness of a regime, a political

system, its representatives and their commands. The doctrine of legitimacy implies that


10/37



10

the authority should be used according to well recognized and

accepted pattern. Command and obedience relationship is based on the assumed legitimacy

in the exercise of authority. Force and Coercion are not legitimacy but these are used either

to establish legitimacy or by the legitimate authority for legitimate purpose. There are two

basic types of governmental legitimacy namely:-

Numinous Legitimacy- implies the concept of God king (i.e) every king is himself a God.

King James of England wrote, kings are the breathing image of God upon Earth Hegel said

The king is March of God on Earth.

Civil Legitimacy- is said to exist when a system of government is based on agreement.

Manu agreed to be a king of Devas, as they paid him 1/6th of the land revenue. The theory of

social contract emphasis the contractual characters of the origin of civil authority.

Max Weber put forward a very influential account of legitimacy that excludes any recourse

to normative criteria. According to Weber, that a political regime is legitimate means that its

participants have certain beliefs or faith (Legitimittsglaube) in regard to it: the basis of

every system of authority, and correspondingly of every kind of willingness to obey, is a

belief, a belief by virtue of which persons exercising authority are lent prestige. As is well

known, Weber distinguishes among three main sources of legitimacyunderstood as both

the acceptance of authority and of the need to obey its commands. People may have faith in

a particular political or social order because it has been there for a long time (tradition),

because they have faith in the rulers (charisma), or because they trust its legality

specifically the rationality of the rule of law. Weber identifies legitimacy as an important

explanatory category for social science, because faith in a particular social order produces

social regularities that are more stable than those that result from the pursuit of self-interest

or from habitual rule-following.

In contrast to Weber's descriptive concept, the normative concept of political legitimacy

refers to some benchmark of acceptability or justification of political power or authority

andpossiblyobligation. On the broadest view, legitimacy both explains why the use of

political power by a particular bodya state, a government, or a democratic collective, for

exampleis permissible and why there is a pro tanto moral duty to obey its commands. On

this view, if the conditions for legitimacy are not met, political institutions exercise power

unjustifiably and the commands they might produce do then not entail any obligation to

obey. John Rawls, in Political Liberalism (1993), presents such an interpretation of

legitimacy.


11/37



11

The normative concept of political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of

authority. To make sense of this interpretation of legitimacy, authority must be understood

as a distinct concept. This view implies that effective or de facto authority can exist without

being legitimate.

Legitimacy and the Justification of Political Authority

John Locke's starting-point is a state of nature in which all individuals are equally free in the

sense that they possess equal political authority. As Rawls characterizes Locke's

understanding of the state of nature, it is a state of equal right, all being

kings. Natural law, while manifest in the state of nature, is not sufficiently specific to rule

a society and cannot enforce itself when violated. The solution to this problem is a social

contract that transfers political authority to a civil state that can realize and secure the

natural law. According to Locke, and contrary to his predecessor Thomas Hobbes, the

social contract thus does not create authority. Political authority is embodied in

individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature. The social contract transfers the

authority they each enjoy in the state of nature to a particular political body.

While political authority thus pre-exists in the state of nature, legitimacy is a concept that

is specific to the civil state. Because the criterion of legitimacy that Locke proposes is

historical, however, what counts as legitimate authority remains connected to the state of

nature. The legitimacy of political authority in the civil state depends, according to Locke,

on whether the transfer of authority has happened in the right way. Specifically, it depends

on individuals' consent: no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political

power of another without his own consent. Anyone who has given their express or tacit

consent to the social contract is bound to obey a state's laws. Locke understands the consent

criterion to apply not just to the original institutionalization of a political authoritywhat

Rawls calls originating consent. It also applies to the ongoing evaluation of the

performance of a political regimeRawls calls this joining consent. Note that while

originating consent is necessarily express, joining consent may be tacit or express.

Justifying Power and Creating Political Authority

Legitimacy, in this interpretation, is linked to the creation of political authority qua defining

the permissible use of coercive power.

In Hobbes' influential account, political authority does not exist in the state of nature. It

can be created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is

threatened in a state of nature. Legitimate authority depends on the ability of a state to


12/37



12

protect its citizens. Hobbes argues that it is rational for all to consent to a covenant that

authorizes a sovereign who can guarantee their protection and to transfer their rights to a

sovereignan individual or a group of individuals. When there is no such sovereign, one

may be created by a covenantHobbes calls this sovereignty by institution.

According to Hobbes, once a sovereign is in placeboth manners of creating a sovereign

are equally legitimateeveryone is obligated to obey him. This holds at least for as long as

the sovereign ensures their protection, as Hobbes believes that the natural right to self-

preservation cannot be relinquished. Beyond that, however, there can be no further

questions about the legitimacy of the sovereign. In particular, there is no distinction between

effective authority and legitimate authority in Hobbes' thought. It might even be argued that

Hobbes fails to distinguish between legitimate authority and the mere exercise of power.

Legitimacy, for Rousseau, justifies the state's exercise of coercive power and creates an

obligation to obey. Specifically, Rousseau suggests that legitimacy arises from the

democratic justification of the laws of the civil state.

For Kant, as for Hobbes, political authority is created by the establishment of political

institutions in the civil state. It does not pre-exist in individuals in the state of nature. Yet

some form of individual authority exists in the pre-civil social state, according to Kant. It is

the moral authority of each individual qua rational being. Unlike Hobbes, Kant does not

view political authority as created by a voluntary act. The social contract which establishes

the civil state is not the result of a voluntary association, in which individuals come together

to pursue ends that they share. Instead, in the pre-civil state individuals have a moral

obligationan imperfect dutyto form a civil state, and as rational and moral beings, they

can recognize this duty. The civil state, according to Kant, establishes the rights necessary to

secure equal freedom. According to Kant, coercion is part of the idea of rights. Coercion

is defined as a restriction of the freedom to pursue one's own ends. Any right of a person

independently of whether it is respected or has been violatedimplies a restriction for

others. Coercion, in this view, is thus not merely a means for the civil state to enforce rights

as defenders of an authority-based concept of legitimacy claim. Instead, according to Kant,

it is constitutive of the civil state. This understanding of rights links Kant's conception of

legitimate political authority to the justification of coercion.

Kant, unlike Hobbes, recognizes the difference between legitimate and effective authority.

For the head of the civil state is under an obligation to obey public reason and to enact only

laws to which all individuals could consent. If he violates this obligation, however, he still


13/37



13

holds authority, even if his authority ceases to be legitimate. This view is best explained in

relation to Kant's often criticized position on the right to revolution. Kant famously denied

that there is a right to revolution. Kant stresses that while a peopleas united in the civil

stateis sovereign; its individual members are under the obligation to obey the head of the

state thus established. This obligation is such that it is incompatible with a right to

revolution. Kant offers a transcendental argument for his position. A right to revolution

would be in contradiction with the idea that individuals are bound by public law, but without

the idea of citizens being bound by public law, there cannot be a civil stateonly anarchy.

However, there is a duty to establish a civil state. Kant's position implies that the obligation

of individuals to obey a head of state is not conditioned upon the ruler's performance. In

particular, the obligation to obey does not cease when the laws are unjust.

Kant's position on the right to revolution may suggest that he regards political authority as

similarly absolute as Hobbes. But Kant stresses that the head of state is bound by the

commands of public reason. This is manifest in his insistence on freedom of the pen: a

citizen must have, with the approval of the ruler himself, the authorization to make known

publicly his opinions about what it is in the ruler's arrangements that seems to him to be a

wrong against the commonwealth.

Political Legitimacy and Political Obligations

Historically speaking, the dominant view has been that legitimate political authority

creates political obligations. Locke, for example, writes: every man, by consenting with

others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to

every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded

by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society,

would signify nothing, and be no compact if he be left free and under no other ties than he

was in before in the state of nature

However the question of what constitutes legitimate authority is distinct from the question

of what political obligations people have. Ronald Dworkin defends a view of this sort. He

maintains that if an authority is legitimate, there is a general obligation to obey its

commands but this does not show that there is, in each case, an obligation to obey particular

decisions of that authority. Dworkin's (1986) argument rests on treating political obligations

as a fundamental normative concept in its own right. What he calls associative obligations

arise, not from legitimate political authority, but directly from membership in a political

community.


14/37



14

Sources of Political Legitimacy

Consent

Three ways in which the relation between consent and legitimate political authority may be

understood are

(i) consent of those governed is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of political

authority - Locke and Nozick

(ii)consent is not directly a condition for legitimacy, but the conditions for the legitimacy of

authority are such that only political authority that enjoys the consent of those governed can

meet them - Kant and Rawls

(iii) the conditions of legitimate political authority are such that those governed by that

authority are under an obligation to consent - David Estlund

Beneficial Consequences

In the utilitarian view, legitimate political authority should be grounded on the principle of

utility. This conception of legitimacy is necessarily a moralized one: the legitimacy of

political authority depends on what morality requires. Jeremy Bentham rejects the

Hobbesian idea that political authority is created by a social contract. According to

Bentham, it is the state that creates the possibility of binding contracts. The problem of

legitimacy that the state faces is which of its laws are justified. Bentham proposes that

legitimacy depends on whether a law contributes to the happiness of the citizens.

With regard to the defense of liberty rights, Mill argues that the restriction of liberty is

illegitimate unless it is permitted by the harm principle, that is, unless the actions suppressed

by the restriction harm others.

Public Reason and Democratic Approval

According to Rawls, the exercise of political power is always ultimately coercive in

nature. Thus the institutions that exercise political power face a special justificatory

burden. There are two reasons for this special justificatory burden.

1. First, coercive political power in liberal democratic societies is authorized, and ultimately

exercised, by citizens working together as a collective body. In order to exercise political

power as a collective body, citizens need to provide mutually acceptable justifications for

that exercise.

2. Second, coercive political power necessarily limits citizens freedom and, because

citizens are conceived of as free and equal by political liberalism, such restrictions need to

be justified to citizens. Thus citizens dual role as sovereigns and subjects with respect to


15/37



15

their societys coercive political institutions imposes on those institutions a special

justificatory burden.

Complicating any attempt to meet this justificatory burden is what Rawls calls the fact of

reasonable pluralism the fact that reasonable persons living in liberal democratic

societies invariably will come to subscribe to a variety of different comprehensive

doctrines (religious, moral and philosophical views).

Our exercise of political power is fully proper only when it is exercised in accordance with

a constitution the essentials of which all citizens as free and equal may reasonably be

expected to endorse in the light of principles and ideals acceptable to their common human

reason. Rawls.

Three observations from the above statement:

*The distinctive feature of the principle is that it makes reasons count. That is, the principle

bases legitimacy on reasonable endorsement in the light of principles and ideals acceptable

to . . . common human reason.

*The principle does not require that citizens actually endorse the constitutional essentials.

Rather, the requirement is that citizens may reasonably be expected to endorse the

constitutional essentials. (i.e) the constitutional essentials must be justified by public

reasons in such a way that the justification is one that reasonable citizens could be expected

to accept.

*Citizens are asked to endorse the constitutional essentials as free and equal. That is, the

principle assumes a certain political conception of citizens as free and equal members of

society. The reasons are addressed to citizens conceived in this way, and not to citizens as

they are, if that includes their rejection of the notion that each and every citizen should be

regarded as a free and equal member of society.

Rawlss liberal principle of legitimacy points us in the direction of a whole family of

ideas about legitimacy. Rawlss principle is tied to his idea of public reason.

A liberal regime is legitimate, Rawls contends, only if it can win the consent of the

reasonable citizens to whom it is proposed; the consent of unreasonable citizens is not

necessary for legitimacy. According to Rawls, a citizen is reasonable only if he (1) accepts

the fact of reasonable pluralism and (2) is willing to propose and honor fair terms of

cooperation to govern his dealings with those with whom he profoundly disagrees as to

comprehensive views.


16/37



16

Reasonable citizens want to live in a society in which they can cooperate with their fellow

citizens on terms that are acceptable to all. They are willing to propose and abide by

mutually acceptable rules, given the assurance that others will also do so; and they will

honor these rules even when this means some sacrifice to their own interests. Reasonable

citizens want, in short, to belong to a society where political power is legitimately used.

Each reasonable citizen has his own view about God and life, right and wrong, good and

bad. Each has, that is, what Rawls calls his own comprehensive doctrine. Yet because

reasonable citizens are reasonable, they are unwilling to impose their own comprehensive

doctrines on others who are also willing to search for mutually agreeable rules. Though each

may believe that he knows the truth, none is willing to force other reasonable citizens to

live by that truth, even should he belong to a majority that has the power to enforce it.

One ground for reasonable citizens to be so tolerant, Rawls says, is that they accept a

particular explanation for the diversity of worldviews in their society. Reasonable citizens

accept the burdens of judgment. The deepest questions of religion, philosophy, and

morality are very difficult even for conscientious people to think through, and people will

answer these questions in different ways because of their own particular life experiences

(their upbringing, class, occupation, and so on). Reasonable citizens understand that these

deep issues are ones on which people of good will can disagree, and so will be unwilling to

impose their own worldviews on those who have reached different conclusions. So only

political liberals are reasonable persons; comprehensive liberals like Kant and Mill are

unreasonable. Their consent is not necessary for liberal legitimacy.

Rawls further claims that the politically liberal state may take positive steps to curb the

influence of unreasonable comprehensive views: A given society may also contain

unreasonable, irrational, and even mad, comprehensive doctrines. In their case the problem

is to contain them so that they do not undermine the unity and justice of society.

According to Rawls, political power is ultimately the power of free and equal citizens as

a collective body.

Loss of legitimacy

When a political authority oversteps the boundaries of the natural law, it ceases to be

legitimate and, therefore, there is no longer an obligation to obey its commands. Legitimacy

may be lost by legally constituted authority if it fails to fulfill its civil obligations. The right

to resist tyranny has been held lawful by Locke. Revolutions unlike usurpation or coup

dtat are not necessarily illegitimate. If that succeed they introduce a new principle of


17/37



17

legitimacy that supersedes the legitimacy of the former regime. Opposed to legitimacy is the

concept of usurpation office- the throne presidency or the government.

Ordinarily authority is conveyed to an individual through an office, a position in which a

certain kind and amount of authority is inherent and which exists independently of its

occupant at any given time. Theoretically authority can exist without power, although it

would be useless, and power can be exercised without authority. But for social order and

stability, both are essential.

Every revolution is preceded by what is called delegitimation process whereby the

dominant ideas justifying the established structure of power come under attack, the

foundations of the old order are undermined and finally overthrew. The process of

legitimating and delegitimation are permanent features of any political system. Elections

are primarily a means of legitimizing the right of the rules to govern-Ball.

ENVIRONMENT & WORLD POLITICS

Human beings are the only organisms who try to modify the environment to fulfill their

needs. Their acts have often disturbed the links and balance of the environment. This

environmental imbalance gives rise to various environmental problems. Some of the

environmental problems are pollution, soil erosion leading to floods, salt deserts and sea

recedes, desertification, landslides, change of river directions, extinction of species, and

vulnerable ecosystem in place of more complex and stable ecosystems, depletion of natural

resources, waste accumulation, deforestation, thinning of ozone layer and global warming.

Global environmental problems involve one or more of the following:-

Deforestation Desertification Rapid Population Growth Food Production and Equitable Distribution Global Warming Depletion of the Atmospheric Ozone Acid Precipitation and Air Pollution Ocean Pollution

GLOBAL COMMONS

Global Commons refers to the areas of the world that arent owned by one country and may be


18/37



18

viewed as shared international spaces. E.g. Deep sea beds, the stratosphere, troposphere, outer

space and some areas of land (such as Antarctica) are all global commons. The concept can also

be extended to the larger biosphere such as Forests, oceans, the Atmosphere and climate. Global

commons are hence natural assets outside national jurisdiction such as the Oceans, outer space

and the Antarctic. Global commons not only refers to physical areas of the world but can also

include cultural and local areas. e.g.

1. Cultural commons- which include literature, music, performing and visual arts: film,

television and radio: design and community arts: and areas of heritage.

2. Public goods- such as public education and health: and infrastructure (water and electricity

system).

Global commons first arose in medieval Europe where certain places were marked as

common land for use by the community. This practice also occurred in Africa and Latin

America. Shared land spaces were used by households for animal grazing or growing crops. The

common were passed down to future generations and were subject to community regulation.

The commons were public goods not subject to market laws or private exploitation. The decline

of commons was related to the rise of private property and market rules. Environmentalists

revived the notion of common in the 1970s to describe the concept of global responsibility for

the environment.

Since there are no property rights governing a particular persons or groups use of the commons,

no one state is responsible for the regulation of these areas. As a result these areas may be

subject to exploitation like overfishing, overgrazing and excessive use. The UN lists three

major impacts on the global commons:-

1. Increasing levels of CO2

2. Massive use of fertilizers

3. Exploitation of marine fisheries

Throughout human history, we let the noxious gases and particles from our cooking, heating,

industrial activities and more recently our various modes of transportation and delivery of goods

drift on the wind, without really considering what happened to these materials downwind from

us. No one bears responsibility for acid rain, persistent smog, increasing atmosphere CO2 and

disturbance of the stratospheric ozone layer.

We have mined water from underground as if the supply was in exhaustible. We have

discharged our industrial effluents and our sewage, into streams or lakes or into the ground with


19/37



19

The environment is now considered the "common heritage of mankind" and

environmental problems are increasingly the subject of international efforts because of their

little thought to the consequences. There is a dramatic drop in the level of the water table under

many key agricultural areas and cities. Ground water and surface water are no longer safe to

drink. Even aquatic resources are getting depleted. There is a depletion of fisheries.

We have ploughed the ground and heavily fertilized and/ or irrigated our crops. Realizing

short term gain but not readily recognizing the long term losses. It has resulted in soil erosion

with accompanying loss of soil depth nitrification of lakes and streams adjacent to farmland and

loss of formerly productive land by salinisation of soil.

We have cut forests for fuel and timber and to create pastures or cropland. We have further

altered the landscape by expanding cities and industries or by building dams to augment our

water needs, supply power for our homes and factories or control floods that might wash away

our structures. We have over fished our rivers, lakes, and oceans and over hunted many of our

game animals. We have introduced foreign animals or plants into new areas where they have no

natural controls on their spread . We have disrupted ecological that have existed in balance with

their surroundings for millennia.

Protecting the global commons

1. MEAs (Multilateral Agreement) are an agreement between two or more countries. MEAs

raise the issue of who is responsible for taking action against pollution, enforcing regulations or

imposing penalties. These are problems that can affect the international economy and also

damage relationships between nations. However if the terms of MEAs were agreed and adhered

to perhaps enforcing them would be possible.

2. Second option is to use trade measures to achieve environmental objectives which would be

agreed to internationally. However possible infringements on WTO members could result.

3. Recently the UN called for more research into eco systems, the evaluation of current

environmental policies and assessment of the state of the environment. This included

investigating how different regions use the physical landscape and how it might affect the

sustainability of the global commons.

We must constantly remind ourselves that we are an interdependent component of those

eco systems that form the complex web of life on this planet. We each have a responsibility to

be aware of our dependence on the successful function of all components of the Global

Commons for the future well being of humanity.


20/37



20

cross-border effects and the impossibility that just one or a few nations can solve these

problems on their own.

Given the globalization of environmental problems since 1970s, the environmental

justice discourse has been increasingly used to frame various international or global

environmental issues like toxic waste trade, ozone depletion, biodiversity protection, and global

warming.

There are three spatial dimensions of Environmental issues in world politics namely -

international, transnational, and global.

The transnational dimension of world politics has been most visible in the increasing

speed and volume of communication, trade of goods, and human travel across borders. Many

things, both tangible and intangible, were involved in this accelerating process: goods, services,

people, ideas, information, capital, terrorism, disease, pollution etc. The porous nature of state

boundaries has been particularly alarming in parallel to states increasing inability to control the

movement of undesirable objectswhether ideas or peopleacross their borders. This growing

incompetence has raised concerns and questions over the principle of state sovereignty, and

exposed the gap between the de facto and de jure aspects sovereignty.

However, the most interesting aspect of the transnational dimension is not the

transboundary movement of undesirable objects. It is rather the transnational interactions of

social actors and the diffusion of ideas across national boundaries. It has been argued that, under

certain circumstances, the transnational organizations and networks could facilitate political

changes in world politics by changing the behavior of states or international organizations

through numerous political strategies such as campaigning, lobbying, information-sharing etc.

Beyond mere political influence, the diffusion of norms through the transnational interactions of

civic actors may even affect more enduring cultural changes in the long run.

The global dimension of world politics is related to both international and transnational

dimensions but there is a qualitative difference between them.

Global institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO are currently the

most influential actors in this brand new dimension of world politics. Although they are inter-

governmental institutions dependent on the co-operation of states for their existence, in some

cases, they operate autonomously as sui generis global actors, independent of their constituent

member-states.

The neo-liberal economic policies followed and prescribed by these global organizations

have had serious adverse consequences on local communities of indigenous and rural people.


21/37



21

The development projects financed by the World Bank, the structural adjustment policies of the

IMF, and the trade liberalization policies of the WTO have all been in one way or another

detrimental to local environments, communities and democracy, especially in developing

countries.

The term GLOCAL has been coined to highlight the interplay between the global and

local perspectives. This hybrid term draws our attention to the increasing interdependency

between the global and local levels. The superiority of a glocal perspective over a highly

abstract global one, with respect to environmental issues, could be seen in the debate over the

Global Environmental Facility (GEF), which was created in 1991 as an international

mechanism under the supervision of the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP to provide funds and

technical assistance for national initiatives addressing global environmental problems. The

globalist side of this debate argued that GEFs funding must be restrict with the truly global

environmental issues such as ozone depletion, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and

pollution of international waters. The glocalists, on the other hand, argued that seemingly local

issues such as land degradation problems in developing countries (desertification and

deforestation) must also qualify for financial and technical assistance since they were connected

to other global problems. With the fundamental restructuring of GEF in 1994, this dispute was

resolved with a compromise solution that included land degradation problems as eligible for

funding in so far as these cases were related to GEFs four focal areas (i.e., ozone depletion,

climate change, biodiversity loss and international water pollution).

In the international domain of world politics, the major issue concerning EJ has been

the integration of the principle of equity into international environmental law and institutions.

Characteristics of International Environmental

Problems

1. Many of the international problems involve the use of

common pool resources - air, water, ocean and forests that are

owned by no one nation.

2. Human and environmental impacts of the problems transcend

the borders of any one country. Impacts of such problems as acid

precipitation, ozone depletion and air pollution are not felt at

only within countries where the problems are often created.


22/37



22

Environmental

equity is a matter of taking

steps to ensure that the rich

and powerful do not

insulate themselves from environmental harm largely by displacing problems on to the poor and

weak. The displacement of environmental harms across borders immediately raises three crucial

questions for any international environmental problem at hand:

(1) who is responsible,

(2) who suffers the most, and

(3) how the costs of preventive measures be apportioned.

Equitable answers to the first and last questions suggest an extension of the polluter

pays principle to the international context. On the other hand, the second question goes

beyond empirical questions of responsibility or technical capacity of states by drawing attention

to the vulnerability of the weak. All three questions, in the end, call for paying closer attention

to the particular processes that lead to and may ensue from the common environmental

problems and arrangements in the international context.

3. International Environmental Problems require international

Cooperation to resolve them.

Factors Responsible for the Emergence of the Environment as a Global Issue

1. The Multiplication and Deepening of Environmental Problems. The rapid growth inpopulation and its effects on resource exploitation has led to the emergence of many

environmental problems. Problems such as deforestation, air pollution, acid precipitation and

oil spills have become a common sight. Many people have experienced the effects of human

activities on the environment such as the impacts of toxic waste dumping at Love Canal,

New York and the Chernobyl nuclear fallout.

2. Improvement in Scientific Research: An increase in scientific research onenvironmental problems has contributed to much richer and by no means, a complete

understanding of several environmental problems. The work of Rachel Carlson on DDT

educated the public on the consequences of chemicals.

3. Effective Dissemination of Information about Environmental Disasters: The advent ofradio and television, e-mails and the web, book publishing and air transportation brought

about very efficient way of disseminating either environmental problems occurring at far

away locations or new materials (films, books and research) about environmental education.

4. The Rise and Establishment of Grassroots Environmental Organizations: In responding


23/37



23

These questions were particularly debated in connection with ozone depletion and

climate change problems. In both cases, it was argued that rich industrialized states should

assume more responsibility for causing these problems in the first place. It was also suggested,

in the case of global warming, that the poor states such as Bangladesh or small island states

will be the most hard hit due to their higher vulnerability to the adverse consequences of

climate change (e.g., sea-rise, floods, storms, crop failure etc.), and/or their technological and

financial incapacity to cope with them alone. These conditions (of greater historical

responsibility and technical capacity of the rich states, on the one hand, and greater vulnerability

of the poor and

weak states on the other) have been the most common reasons to justify the moral obligation

that poor states should not be overburdened with, rather compensated for, the additional costs of

to local environmental problems caused by toxic waste dumping, citing of nuclear plants or

the preservation of plant and animal species, the door to door campaigns of local groups have

galvanized into strong internal forces that have made environmental problems an issue in

local politics and elections.

5. The rise of National and International Environmental Political (Green) Organizations:Environmentalism has become a dominant political force in many nations. In many Western

countries, environmental concern has manifested itself in the development of Green

Movements and Green Political Parties to challenge the environmental management policies

of established political parties. Beginning first in West Germany in the 1970s, Green parties

have sprung up all over the world including Brazil, Costa Rica, Japan, Canada, Soviet Union,

United States (Barry's Commoner's Citizens Party 1980) to press for solutions to global

environmental problems. Candidates from Green parties have been elected into parliaments

in Switzerland, (first in 1979) Finland, Belgium, Portugal, West Germany (1983),

Luxembourg (1984) Austria (1986) Italy (1987), Sweden (1988), and the Netherlands

(1989).

6. Evolution in thinking about Relationships between Economic Activity and theEnvironment. With increased research on environmental issues and effective dissemination

of such research findings, the public and some politicians have come to understand the

relationship between economic activities and environmental problems.

7. International Environmental Conferences: The meeting of world leaders atinternational environmental conferences have highlighted common environmental concerns

and sought to galvanize local environmental groups into action.


24/37



24

environmental protection by rich states in the case of an international environmental

cooperation.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility of states has been

invoked as a matter of environmental equity particularly in response to the first and third

questions mentioned above. This principle was implicit in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on

the Human Environment (Principles 11, 12, 20, and 23), in which special circumstances of

developing countries were acknowledged and equitable arrangements to lighten their

environmental burden were called for. Negotiations over ozone depletion have been the first

testing ground for the implementation of this principle. The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987

successfully applied the principle of equity as a matter of common but differentiated

responsibilities, especially after its London amendment in 1990, by assigning more

responsibility to the developed countries for causing the ozone depletion problem, allowing

developing countries a delayed schedule to phase out their consumption of CFCs, and by

establishing a funding and technology transfer mechanism for developing countries transition

to CFC substitutes.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility was explicitly espoused in

the 1992 Rio Declaration (Principle 7) as the basis of an equitable global partnership. The two

legally binding Conventions (on Biodiversity and Climate Change) adopted during Rio Summit

also incorporated this principle in their arrangements. The Global Environmental Facility

(GEF), a financial mechanism created to meet the costs of preventive measures on global

environmental problems, not only embodies the equity principle but also, after its major

overhaul in 1994, represents an exemplary model of procedural justice, which still remains to be

a source of tension in the international and global domains of world politics. The double

majority voting system of this quasi-institution combines the weighted voting model of Bretton

Woods with a one country-one vote principle of UN model. The former, assessed according to

the financial contributions of the participant countries, was favored by donor countries (OECD),

while the latter was favored by recipient developing countries (G77). In addition to its equitable

purposes and procedures, the GEF also accommodated the developing countries concern for

land degradation by incorporating them into its list of four focal areas. Beyond this, as a

semiautonomous global actor, the GEF may also generate environmental justice if it chooses to

re- orient its policies towards environmental conflict prevention, as suggested by some scholars.

In short, the GEF can be instrumental in achieving equitable outcomes in international and

global domains of world politics.


25/37



25

International environmental equity implies a fair and just distribution among countries

of benefits, burdens, and decision-making authority associated with international environmental

relations.

International negotiations over the climate change before and since the Rio Summit have

produced numerous proposals of distributive justice. In these proposals, historical injustices

(committed through the colonial, imperial or neo-colonial schemes) were often given as the

strongest moral basis of international equity principle.

These historical conditions as background justice inescapably seep into the questions

of internal justice. The former, which is often overlooked during international environmental

negotiations, is the justice of the circumstances within which the agreement is made, while

the latter is the justice of the terms of the agreement. The lack of background justice often

undermines the negotiating power of developing countries and, in turn, the possibility of

reaching an internally just agreement.

Due to these persisting conditions of background injustice, international and global

environmental negotiations have been embroiled in a tense North-South relationship reflecting

the larger issue of North-South relations in world politics. This mutual tension and distrust

between the North and South in international environmental negotiations continues since the

Stockholm 1972, although it subsided somewhat at the 1992 Rio Summit with the compromise

language of sustainable development.

This moral critique of the North for environmental reasons is basically an ecological

adaptation of dependency theories, to which the North-South conflict was also central to

understand world politics. The connection can be seen best in concepts such as the alleged

ecologically unequal exchange that takes place between developed and developing countries

and the ecological debt, or carbon debt owed by developed countries to the developing

countries.

Hence we should be wary of the reductionism inherent in the North-South polarity when

it comes to questions of environmental (in) justice. This framework is simply too narrow to

represent relationships such as (in) justice that cut across the north-south antinomy. The

cooperation of states to generate environmental justice in world politics is necessary but does

not exhaust the universe of environmental justice in world politics. A more promising to seek

environmental justice is the transnational dimension of world politics.

When we look at the history of international environmental issues, we can see an

evolving understanding of harms moving across national borders. From the US-Canadian Trail-


26/37



26

Smelter dispute to acid rains in Europe, the initial focus of international environmental law and

politics was on the transboundary movement of harmful particles across national borders. Both

the 1972 Stockholm (Principles 21 and 22) and the 1992 Rio Declaration (Principles 2 and 13)

called on states to take responsibility for the transboundary damages caused by the activities

from within their jurisdictions. But the Rio Declaration, in addition, enjoined states to

discourage the transboundary shipment of hazardous activities and substances (Principle 14).

This second form of transnational harm has been a matter of increasing concern in the

1980s. The Basel Convention was eventually adopted in 1989 to regulate and monitor the

transboundary movement of hazardous waste from industrialized to developing countries; but it

was soon realized that inherent weaknesses of the convention rendered it susceptible to various

types of evasion and cheating. These loopholes (such as waste recycling) led a coalition of

NGOs, the G-77 and some European states to amend the convention in a series of conference of

parties sessions by instituting a complete ban of waste exports from OECD to non-OECD

countries. Although the ban is yet to enter into force of international law, the process that led to

it represented a

LIMITATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

International Environmental Treaties bind only those states that agree to comply with them.

There is no international police force to enforce such agreements and as such, compliance toprovisions and obligations of such treaties depends on the good faith of the states being

regulated by the treaties. There are generally no rewards or punishments to check

compliance.

Leaders of Rich and Poor countries share different perspectives on the nature ofenvironmental problems and often fail to agree on the danger that could result from

environmental disasters. For example, at the Rio Conference of 1992, Poor developing

countries emphasized development and Global equity Concerns while the rich industrialized

countries emphasized issues related to International Governance of the Environment.

The environmental problems and solutions that leaders of various countries choose tosupport or ignore depend upon environmental politics within their countries. For example, in

1992, George Bush's government did not support many of the issues on the Environment

raised at the Rio Conference because the local Conservative Agenda was pro-Industry and

the President could not afford to loose the Conservative Base during an impending

presidential election in the US.


27/37



27

more sophisticated example of the transnational dimension of environmental politics because of

the critical role played by non-governmental actors in this process.

Environmental justice movements in developing countries often revolve around

livelihood concerns. A livelihood struggle for people living off the land means much more than

an economic problem. Deprived of their means of livelihood, most of these rural communities

not only get materially impoverished but are culturally and psychologically disabled in addition.

The difference between material and cultural deprivation corresponds to the difference between

poverty and destitution. The latter represents a state of impotency beyond the simple lack of

means. This is so because productive activities of a community not only produce material goods

or services but also reproduce culture and power. When the material resource base of a

community is disrupted, these will have repercussions in its overall conditions.

The Politics of local environmental Issues often Conflict with that of International Politics onthe Environment. a) In the less developed countries, illiteracy, poverty, hunger and internal

conflicts influence and/or limit domestic perception of environmental problems. b) In the rich

countries, private managers of corporations wield far-reaching powers over stakeholders and

employees and therefore make decisions that affect the public without any clearly defined

responsibility to the people. Corporate managers also wield a lot of influence on politicians

and public policy by virtue of their ability to make political campaign contributions. Aside

the campaign contributions, the powerful Corporate Managers lobby Congress and Senate to

pass laws that favor Industry against the Environment.

Local events and internal politics compel leaders to commit to different stands prior to suchinternational conferences on the environment. The countries often fail to reach agreements on

such pre-formulated principles without first seeking advice from home.

The countries of the world have markedly different perspectives about the attention thatglobal environmental problems must receive as against the economic and social problems at

home.

The rich and poor countries of the world do not agree on who must take responsibility forcausing environmental problems we face today, and how the cost of addressing the

environmental problems should be shared.


28/37



28

Despite the dissimilarity of actors involved in environmental disputes over resources,

some recurring procedural patterns can still be identified. For example, communities are rarely

consulted by companies or governments before a development project is set in motion. If

consultations occur at all, they are often designed to manipulate the outcome rather than to

allow free and open negotiations. Divisions and consent within community are frequently

manufactured through bribery, intimidation and threats. Critical information on the details of the

project (such as its probable or actual effects on the environment, its benefits to the community)

is withheld from the community members (though they may be disclosed only to community

leaders after striking special deals with them). If agreements are reached after a consultation

process, they are not abided by the company or enforced by the government. These typical

interactions inevitably result in mistrust not only

towards the corporation but also towards their own

state.

Damages caused by these projects in several

cases have led to intermittent clashes between harmed

communities and state or private security forces

protecting the interests of TNCs. This imbalance of

power relationships often provides legitimacy for the

intervention of transnational advocacy networks from

outside in favor of the marginalized sub-national actors.

Most of the environmental injustices dome to vulnerable people stem from their relative

lack of capacity to exercise rights. Transnational networks provide this vital capacity to local

people in developing countries in many issue-areas. However, environmental issues that

threaten the subsistence base of local people carry a fundamental significance because most of

the ills follow the initial erosion of this base. The transnational environmental organizations

such as Greenpeace attend to such particular circumstances through their rhetorical strategies. In

their campaign to save ancient forests in Brazilian Amazon with majestic mahogany trees, they

primarily target the beneficiaries of mahogany trade. The partners in mahogany crime are the

foreign manufacturers and retailers in affluent countries such the US, UK and Netherlands, and

domestic mafia-like mahogany kings.

EJ in the transnational dimension of world politics plays a crucial supportive role

towards the achievement of environmental justice in the global and international dimensions of

world politics. Transnational environmental NGOs or advocacy networks on the one hand press

ECOLOGICAL-DUMPING, orEco-Dumping, can be defined as a

policy which prices environmentally

harmful activities at less than the

marginal cost of environmental

degradations, i.e. a policy which does

not internalize all environmental

externalities.


29/37



29

for democratic changes in the institutional structure of global (environmental) governance

towards more transparency, power-sharing and accountability and, on the other hand, for the

creation of necessary environmental regimes in the international domain that would secure

certain environmental goods or minimize the bads.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RICH POWERFUL NATIONS

These countries have had more experience with environmental problems and solutions

to such problems. Extensive research has revealed the seriousness of environmental problems.

The widespread of television, radio and the press have ensured the dissemination of good and

bad environmental problems and issues. The rich nations also have more resources and

technology to spare and hence devote some to environmental priorities. Environmental activism

is also more developed in the rich countries where environmental interest groups often mobilize

public opinion and lobby politicians to attend to environmental problems. The rich developed

countries must therefore do more to solve environmental problems. However, internal

environmental policies and the commitment of leaders in the rich countries depend upon the

thrust of public opinion against hard lobbying by corporations. In many cases however, industry

has won and international commitment to the environment has suffered.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF POOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Leaders of the poor countries of the world seem less enthusiastic about Global

Environmental governance for the following reasons:

Economic development is of much higher priority for their people than the preservation of theenvironment. It seems polluted air and contaminated water is a price the poor countries are

prepared to pay to industrialize and produce enough food to feed their people.

The poor developing countries view the strong motivation of the rich nations inEnvironmental preservation with suspicion. The see the effort in that direction as; An excuse

to cut down on development assistance to them, An attempt to prevent them from

industrializing to the same level as the rich nations have achieved already (as contained in the

Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth"). An excuse for people in rich nations to continue

with their luxurious life styles without making any sacrifice to save the environment while at

the same time they force the poor to sacrifice their development to save the planet.

The poor countries have very few resources and very low levels of technology to devote someto saving the environment.

Developing countries are saddled with heavy foreign debts, weak markets for their goods and


30/37



30

A decent political community is crucial to maintain the possibility of a good life and

healthy environment for human beings. Environmental justice can contribute to build up or

strengthen the ties of political community in multiple ways. The viability of decent political

communities, however, is increasingly threatened by international, transnational or global

forces, which damage not only the material resource bases but also undermine the cultural

unities of local communities around the world. There is no way to combat this threat other than

practicing environmental justice in all three dimensionsinternational, transnational, and

globalof world politics.

RIVER WATER DISPUTES

The issues of cross-border water distribution, utilization, management and irrigation and

hydroelectric power projects affecting the upper and lower riparian countries are gradually taking

centre stage in defining interstate relations as water scarcity increases and both drought and floods

make life too often miserable.

Thanks to its location, size and borders with other South Asian countries, India, as an upper

and lower riparian territory, has come into conflict with all its neighbours except Bhutan, on

the cross-border water issues. Given an atmosphere of mistrust, an upper riparian India has serious

issues to resolve with lower-riparian Pakistan and Bangladesh and, despite being lower-riparian,

with upper riparian Nepal.

1. INDIA vs. PAKISTAN

The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (signed between Nehru and Ayub Khan)

The salient features of the Indus Waters Treaty are:

~ Three Eastern rivers namely Ravi, Sutlej and Beas were given to India.

~ Three Western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were given to Pakistan.

~ Pakistan to meet the requirements of its Eastern river canals from the Western rivers by

declining terms of trade that compel them to exploit more of their forests and natural

resources to import essential goods (health, education, technolog

Documents

Pol Sci Mains