Climate change is one of the biggest challenges that the world faces today. From everrising temperatures to natural catastrophes, climate change is not just limited to a single region or country but has become a phenomenon that has been affecting everyone in the world. It leads the issue to become one of the top complex global policy dilemmas. The impact of global warming and climate change are yet to be fully understood and observed, but the most adverse effects would be witnessed by the generations to come. Scientists working in different fields tend to accuse the gradual increase in temperature, the intensity of natural disasters and their strong impact on climate change (Field et al. 2012). It is not limited to domestic issue; for instance, if any country operationalizes an industrial process that affect the climate, it will have repercussions across the world. Therefore, climate change is undoubtedly a crucial international problem in the context of international relations and must be addressed in urgency. Although scientists and global thinkers attribute this problem to the highly industrialized countries while the lower class of the society will be most affected by its consequential impacts, the states including the developed ones hardly pay serious attention in resolving this international problem.

1. “THEORIES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”
Student’s name
Course
Date

2. 1
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges that the world faces today. From ever-
rising temperatures to natural catastrophes, climate change is not just limited to a single region or
country but has become a phenomenon that has been affecting everyone in the world. It leads the
issue to become one of the top complex global policy dilemmas. The impact of global warming
and climate change are yet to be fully understood and observed, but the most adverse effects
would be witnessed by the generations to come. Scientists working in different fields tend to
accuse the gradual increase in temperature, the intensity of natural disasters and their strong
impact on climate change (Field et al. 2012). It is not limited to domestic issue; for instance, if
any country operationalizes an industrial process that affect the climate, it will have
repercussions across the world. Therefore, climate change is undoubtedly a crucial international
problem in the context of international relations and must be addressed in urgency. Although
scientists and global thinkers attribute this problem to the highly industrialized countries while
the lower class of the society will be most affected by its consequential impacts, the states
including the developed ones hardly pay serious attention in resolving this international problem.
Background and Complexity of the Issue – Climate Diplomacy
The aspects of adaptation, as deeply inspected in the henceforth analysis, are complex.
Climate change does not limit itself geographically because of its cause and effect across the
borders. The problem is collective and the effects need to be addressed with strong international
cooperation. There have been different accords by different states and continents to mitigate the
adverse effects of climate change; however, there have been a large number of disagreements
over the acceptance of responsibility and bearing the costs that come with it (Gardiner 2011). A
‘perfect moral storm’ is how the author has termed the dilemma of climate change and its
international repercussions. Climate change problem is global since current and upcoming

3. 2
generations are bearing the consequences; therefore, each individual, entity, and enterprise
should share common goals for the betterment of the society as a whole. To further understand
the phenomenon of climate change, the international relationships should come into the picture
to addressing these problems while keeping all the key players in the cohort. Climate diplomacy,
as we witness throughout our observation of international interest, shows that the states all over
the world follow three principles or approaches to address climate change. These approaches are
Unilateralism, Inactivity, and Cooperation.
The Unilateralism theory suggests that states act on an independent doctrine or agenda
that proposes a one-sided action. It means that states who follow the principles of Unilateralism
when it is related to Climate change, they act as an independent player ignoring or sidelining the
interest and support of other states. Climate change has seen such accords where states have
either opted out of the accord or simply did not participate in making climate change as a global
initiative to deal with a much more complex aspect of its mitigation and progression. Inactivity,
on the other hand, suggests that states who follow the inactivity principle either do not opt for the
climate change initiatives and completely stay out of the picture. It creates difficulty in keeping
the perspective of a global phenomenon in place. Inactivity leads to demoralizing of the social
cause that has to be achieved by mutual cooperation of states all over the world. The cooperation
principle explains how state who are active in the climate change mitigation initiative opt for
cooperation in the global stage. This view presents us with the fact that all accords that are to be
held serve the purpose of climate change as a mutual cooperation among the states. Climate
change as being a Global phenomenon relates to international relations integrally; hence, the
following theories explain the climate change in the same context.

4. 3
Liberalism
Liberalism, in its literal sense, argues that with mutual cooperation and assistance, states
benefit through peace and harmony (Ryan 2008). It further suggests that the state is responsible
for the safety and security of its citizens and helps its people from harm by any means. It also
argues that liberalism also is a threat to the citizens of a state when the government itself
becomes a threat to the safety and liberty of its citizens. This presents us with the ever-known
notion of State protecting its citizens from harm by others. In this context, the harm could mean
the climate change that affects the citizens directly or indirectly. What governments must do is a
question of liberalism. By putting the interests of Capitalism on the top, states often tend to
ignore the mitigation of climate change in the wake of limited development. The consumerism
also poses a threat to the climate change initiative. Liberalism allows individual to live their lives
however they want to (Hamilton 2010). Meanwhile, it is also a classic case of liberalism
controlling the effects of climate change and its consequences by giving away the liberty to
every individual to exercise all his or her liberties.
Liberalism also dictates that countries who do not follow the accords will be less viable
as trading partners and key global players as they will be limited down to a role of inactive state
– doing nothing or too less for the climate. This further enhances the ability of people to migrate
to different countries which are less prone to climate change. The climate induced migration may
cause a global conflict as states all over the world already are facing an issue with migration due
to the wars in the Middle East. Climate migration will pose an daunting threat to countries
accepting migrants for the cause of ever rising temperatures and sky rocketing rise in CO2
emissions (Buob and Stephan 2011). It is further debated that the countries which have highly
industrialized industry and have a larger carbon footprint must adapt and contribute to the agenda

5. 4
of climate change and its mitigation. But liberalism poses a threat to different climate change
initiatives.
The current economic situation of countries which follow the idea of a laissez-faire
economic model, which essentially states that the governments must have a decreasing role in
the regulation and the control of markets. The markets are to freely work on their own, and
industrialization and consumerism blocks the idea of climate change which calls for the control
of greenhouse gases emissions and CO2 footprint (Barrett and Barrett 2005). The Kyoto Protocol
and UNFCCC called for a greater cut in the greenhouse gases emission and made countries cut it
to 7%. Featherstone (2013) explains that the neoliberalism has closed the case of protesting and
talking about climate change. The discussion of global warming is mired by different admirers of
a free market economy and the ever-present case of capitalism. The admirers of free market
economy base their discussion on how limiting the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases
restricts the growth of industry and consumerism. However, Matisoff (2008) argues that
liberalism or liberal citizens of any state or country tend to adopt different measures for climate
change control. Providing an optimistic view about the adaptation of climate change initiative,
the author explains that states who have a significantly larger liberal citizens or population,
higher per capita emissions, the capacity for more renewable potential, and have the industry
which is less carbon-intensive tend to be the ones who make more attempts in curbing down the
carbon emissions and controlling the climate change (Matisoff, 2008). The current generation
facing the climate change effects must take initiatives for controlling it; however, it puts up an
ethical phenomenon of cost, the cost of cutting the carbon emissions is higher and it gives less
benefit to the current generation which may seem to be unfair (Gardiner 2004). Also, concerning

6. 5
the poor nations who have less contribution to the carbon emissions, they see the costs of cutting
it down as counter-intuitive for them mainly due to adverse poverty and lack of opportunities.
In this context, the theory of liberalism or neoliberalism presents us with the dilemma of
our actions and their consequences. Liberalism addresses the free will of every human kind in
their exercise of rights (Antonio and Brulle 2011). Liberals or Neoliberals equate the democratic
freedom to the freedom of free economy and enterprise. The American political system has been
a strong advocate for Market Liberalism, it has advocated a free market economy with fewer
regulations and a stronger uninterrupted capitalism in the society. In a survey conducted by Pew
Research Centre, two countries, America and China, who have the highest carbon footprint, 58%
of their citizen believed that climate change is not such a serious problem. Both political
spectrums, Republicans and Democrats have been a strong lobby for unrelenting capitalism in
the society. The neoliberalism policies have always faced threats by the climate change anti-
regulatory policies. According to neoliberals, the idea of free economy and a strong capitalistic
nature of the economy is the basic idea of freedom in terms of consumer choice and rights that
are the basic needs of a free world. Neoliberals have at many occasions sought to attack the
environmental initiative and defended property rights (Anderson and Cawley 2006).
Dependency Theory
Dependency theory is defined by the interaction of states from the north and south parts of the
world. This theory explains how the southern states are reliant on the northern states of the globe
for economic aid, trade, and development. Viotti and Kauppi (1987) argue that these states and
their workers are often subjected to capitalistic exploitation. The first world countries of the
north and their capital owning classes are often seen exploiting the lower income and poor
classes of the south developing countries. The lack of development and hype in poverty in the

7. 6
low-income nations are often attributed to their social, economic, and political structures.
Dependency is a condition that formulates the economy of the world and that it favors some
countries at the expense of other countries (Dos Santos 2015).
History of North-South Divide
The role of history and, in particular, the role of colonialism in creating and maintaining the
positions of different countries within the global economy is one of the key elements of the
dependency theory. There is, however, a definite knowledge on “divide” which comprises of
multiple gaps in basic social and environmental data, as well as technological and infrastructural
systems in the two strata of the global economy. The effects of climate change are more likely to
have an adverse effect on the South – developing countries – which is not yet economically
radical so as to cause a huge amount of carbon emissions. Dependency theorists argue that the
global North has successfully extracted profits from the global South in the past and this trend is
in a continuous loop for more than two decades. Hence, the underdevelopment of countries in the
South can be comprehended by realizing the exploitations of the North (Parikh 1994). However,
the developed countries have slowed down the progress of undeveloped and developing
countries and are not focusing on a sustainable environment for the planet at large.
It is an eco-centric view that mankind as one of the intelligent species of the planet are
supposed to live in harmony because they share the entire environment including the oceans,
atmospheres, and so forth natural resources. The depleting resources of the planet is alarming for
all species and as a civilization, the stronger species protect the weaker ones (Parikh 1994). The
facts on grounds depict that the North is using much more environmental space than the rest.
Hence, if polluters pay for the carbon emissions they cause locally, they must also pay for global
pollution. However, that is not the case, in fact, the South will eventually undergo climate

8. 7
change for no fault of its own in the coming years. It is primarily because of delayed mitigation
activities by North and increase in damage costs, which include loss of livelihood from farming,
fishing and many other adaption costs. The effects of delay mitigation activities have impacted
largely on the developing countries in the South that are already finding it hard to create a stable
socio-economic infrastructure for its people. To further disrupt and cause problem in their
stability, the developed countries impose policies in their climate change mitigation agreements
and conferences that will further become a cause of hindrance to their growth (Parks and Roberts
2010). The South has its own valid reasons to not accept the terms and conditions of such
agreements.
The world has witnessed a tremendous change since 1945, the year when the current global
order was actually established. It is imperative to comprehend the old tradition of inequality
which has deep roots in countries like China and the East Asian countries even though their
socio-economic conditions have improved. On the other side of the globe, the partial decline in
the influence of economic powerhouses like Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc., has helped in
establishing the new formation, such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
Subsequently, the poverty line in the global South has significantly decreased, yet it is still home
to the largest poor countries as compared to the North. The reason for poverty in the South has
links with the colonial days and how the South has been exploited by the North in terms of socio-
economic resources. Even today, the North is following the tradition and is more or less
responsible for the slow growth of the poor countries in the South. There is inequality in the
South when it comes to the dependence on commodity products, trade, and even global policy
practices. Similarly, there is a disproportionate vulnerability to the effects of climate change
which is linked directly to the dependency theory.

9. 8
Climate Change and Policies
It has been predicted that the boreal forests will be severely impacted by climate change
within the next fifty to hundred years. Moreover, the adaptions to contemporary climate change
trends are unfortunately affected by non-climatic levied by human activities (Parks and Roberts
2010). The increase in the demand for wood is the reason why the pace of global warming has
substantially increased. Likewise, an increase in sea level, changes in temperature and intrusion
of sea water can and will reduce agricultural incomes around the globe. In South, particularly in
Bangladesh for instance, the share of GDP due to agriculture has decreased from 38 percent in
1992 to 13.1 percent in 2017 (World Bank 2017). Thus, the impact of global climate changes on
the poorer countries of the South is higher than that of the developed countries in the North.
Another effect of climate change in the North is the higher temperatures and heat stress. In
countries like India and Pakistan, death tolls and discomforts have increased due to heat stress in
the past decade (World Bank 2017).
According to Parks and Roberts (2010), one of the major problems and decisions pertaining
to climate change faced by all the countries of the world is the question that what level of carbon
emissions is acceptable and by how much these gases should be reduced. A collective-decision
making is the need of the house but because of the inequality in the world-system, the North and
South are divided when it comes to the mitigating challenges of climate change and global
warming effects. A holistic approach for the purpose of analyzing the world-system requires the
understanding of how the dynamics of the system-environment are affected by the climate which
has a deep-rooted link to the political states of the world-system. As the global economy sees an
increase from all directions in the North, it is important to accept that it does so at the expense of
an increased amount of dissipated energy in the global socio-political environment.

10. 9
Dialogues for climate change policies have surfaced quite a few times in the world. However,
there has always been a North-South divide in the development and implementation of global
climate change agreements. This is mostly because of global inequality as suggested by the
dependency theory. OECD and other high-income economies in the North have always set the
global climate change policy plan. Moreover, most of the policies developed under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are created in the global North. As a
result, the countries in the South doubt the credibility and legitimacy of such policies and thus,
their doubts influence a great deal on the acceptance of such climatic policies (Parks and Roberts
2010). In their defense, they believe that the global North produces more carbon emissions and
yet the policies favor richer countries and ironically, they are less vulnerable to climate change as
well.
In November 2016, a meeting of world leaders in Marrakech took place for the Conference
of the Parties to the UNFCCC. The main purpose of the meeting was to further implement the
2015 Paris Agreement. However, the North-South divide pertaining to the needs of a sustainable
global environment resulted in the southern countries doubting the scientific research of the
northern states and not accepting their policies. The northern domination of science in the
context of climate change policy has become a threat to the countries in the South which are now
establishing their own research work on the grounds of low emission development strategies,
national adaptation plans, and nationally appropriate mitigation actions.
The challenges of climate change and global warming are a global threat to the planet. It is a
phenomenon which is as real as the divide between the North and South. Whether the global
policy threatens the weaker countries in the South or the southern researcher are succumbed to
the skepticism of the northern researcher’s scientific research regarding climatic changes, the

11. 10
threat will eventually harm all the countries (Parks and Roberts 2010). Hence, it is pertinent to
rule out the problems between the two strata in at-least the next decade.
Conclusion and View on Best Theory
Despite a greater number of warnings from scientists all over the world, the global
climate change accords from the northern and southern states have rarely reached any
conclusion. The agreements that have been made in the past have sidelined or misguided one
party or another while coming to very feeble and half agreed upon agreements. Therefore,
misrepresentation and misguidance on the part of the developed world has made the developing
world compromise on their progress and development. It has been mainly because of that fact
that the developing world has seen the progress not so long ago, they have worked hard and
made sure that the development is made; and it keeps on going by burning cheaper fossil fuels
and the convergence of forests into agricultural land. Meanwhile, the developed world which has
the resources and the ability to mitigate the effects of climate change tend to show non
seriousness on the issue of global warming. Countries like the USA, Australia and Canada have
made promises to contribute in lessening the effects of climate change but there have been no
solid steps taken for it in the light of control. Meanwhile the world is continuing to face adverse
climate change effects and draughts. The north and south divide has been evident due to lack of
trust and dependency of south on the northern states.
The Dependence theory explains how, even when the world is facing one of its highest
temperature rises and catastrophic changes, the divide has been sufficient enough to call a divide,
non-agreement or mistrust among the developed and underdeveloped world. With the rise of the
southern countries in their GDP’s and economic development, the world has many economic
giants from the southern states but the dependency has been significant even then.

12. 11
On the other hand, the Neo liberalism policies and stances have many times posed a
threat to the global warming accords. This has been a matter of serious intervention needed by
different civil society members and cater to all the serious requirements that global warming
demands from the world. The principles followed for the liberalism all that every person is
interdependent on each other including other forms of human life and they all depend on the
earth natural process that govern the universe. Secondly, it is the fundamental duty of all citizens
of the world living in a constructed society by different rules and norms to take care of their
environment. Thirdly, in caring for life, all person must respect and adhere to what makes life
possible on earth. It is also imperative to realize that the world must be reimagined. The life on
earth is slowly and steadily becoming miserable, the sea levels are rising, the agricultural lands
have been flooded, there are intense floods all over the world and those who are already starving
for food find it more difficult now as famine and draughts take place consistently. How the
responsible liberty is to be explained and how humans can find it are the most complex
challenges the democratic world has ever faced.
The neoliberalism word against the climate change must be met with a challenge and
sheer determination. The initiation of state intervention is the need of time. Liberty must be
redefined with arrangements of a more balanced and equal approach towards global warming.
Alternative growth parameters must be constructed on the ideas of equality and sustained
growth. The most pressing issue is to bring everyone on the same table on the issue of climate
change and formulate strategies that will ensure the dissemination of ever rising temperatures
and global warming in general (Antonio and Brulle 2011). Neo liberalism may pose a threat the
initiatives of global warming, but it is also to be redefined in every social spectrum so the
liberties do not harm others in the wake of liberalization of the world. Conservatives, on the

13. 12
other hand, also provoke the governments to intervene everywhere, limit the consumer choice
and abolish property rights. It may also seem a threat to the personal liberty too. A mutual focal
point must be met to work against the menace of global warming. To cope with all the ecological
issues the world is facing, the collective initiation and determination will ultimately set the
course of a better climate for the current generation and the generations to come.

14. 13
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry L., and R. McGreggor Cawley. 2006. “Federal Land, Western Anger: The
Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics.” The Western Historical Quarterly 25 (4):
529. https://doi.org/10.2307/970375.
Antonio, Robert J., and Robert J. Brulle. 2011. “The Unbearable Lightness of Politics: Climate
Change Denial and Political Polarization.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2): 195–202.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01199.x.
Barrett, Scott, and Scott Barrett. 2005. “Global Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.” In
Environment and Statecraft. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199286094.003.0015.
Buob, Seraina, and Gunter Stephan. 2011. “To Mitigate or to Adapt: How to Confront Global
Climate Change.” European Journal of Political Economy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.05.001.
Featherstone, David. 2013. “The Contested Politics of Climate Change and the Crisis of Neo-
Liberalism.” ACME 12 (1): 44–64. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/63606/http://eprints.gla.ac.uk.
Field, Christopher B., Vicente Barros, Thomas F. Stocker, Qin Dahe, David Jon Dokken, Kristie
L. Ebi, Michael D. Mastrandrea, et al. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge Univerity Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2004. “Ethics and Global Climate Change.” Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1086/382247.
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. A

15. 14
Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001.
Hamilton, Clive. 2010. “Consumerism, Self-Creation and Prospects for a New Ecological
Consciousness.” Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.013.
Matisoff, Daniel C. 2008. “The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable
Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants?” Review of Policy
Research 25 (6): 527–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00360.x.
Parikh, Jyoti. 1994. “North-South Issues for Climate Change.” Economic and Political Weekly
29 (45–46): 2940–43.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4402003.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aae16096ceb84e6123f
db304e04bd968f.
Parks, Bradley C, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2010. “Climate Change, Social Theory and Justice.”
Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2): 134–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409359018.
Ryan, Alan. 2008. “Liberalism.” In A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405177245.ch14.
Santos, Theotonio dos. 2015. “The Structure of Dependence.” In International Political
Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24443-0_12.
Viotti, Paul.R, and Mark.V Kauppi. 1987. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism,
Globalism. Estudios Internacionales.
World Bank. 2017. “World Bank: Country and Lending Groups.” World Bank Data Website.
2017.

16. 15