The Recognition of Nature in International Relations

Kavalski, Emilian; Zolkos, Magdalena

doi:10.7765/9781526101037.00014

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some extend rights and properties normally considered only to apply to humans to animals (e.g. wolves) and other organisms (microbes) on the basis of either their similarity to humans in terms of creating borders or territories (Du Plessis, 2018;Youatt, 2014) or mutual vulnerability between humans and those life-forms (Kavalski & Zolkos, 2016). Audra Mitchell advances the idea of 'worlds' as the objects of struggles over security, encompassing animal, geographical, technical, cultural as well as human elements (2014).…”

Section: The Matter Of the Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature and the international: towards a materialist understanding of societal multiplicity

Corry

2019

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global environmental crisis requires a grasp of how human society interacts with nature, but also, simultaneously, how the world is divided into multiple societies. International Relations has a weak grasp of nature treating it as external to the internationalan 'environment' to be managedwhile environmentalism has a planetary epistemology that occludes the significance of the international. How to break this impasse? While neither Geopolitics nor 'new materialism' capture the complex conjuncture of socionatural and inter-societal dynamics, I argue that Justin Rosenberg's theorization of the international as 'the consequences of societal multiplicity' provides a theoretical opening. If a materialist notion of societal is adopted, 'societal multiplicity' allows human-natural and international dynamics to be grasped together. Thus, climate change is not a problem arising exogenously to the international, but something emerging through international dynamics, reciprocally affecting the units, structure and processes of the international system itself.

show abstract

Section: The Matter Of the Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature and the international: towards a materialist understanding of societal multiplicity

Corry

2019

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognition concept has been previously applied to discuss the particularities of organizational actors (Pless & Maak, 2004;Alamgir and Alakavuklar, 2020) and embodied corporeality (Hancock, 2008). In environmental ethics, recognition has also been extended to the study of human-nonhuman relations (Hailwood, 2015;Kavalski and Zolkos, 2016;Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Schlosberg, 2007Schlosberg, , 2014. Building on these insights, we develop new ways to approach nonhuman nature in stakeholder research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach

Kortetmäki¹,

Heikkinen

Jokinen

2022

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder theory has grown into one of the most frequent approaches to organizational sustainability. Stakeholder research has provided considerable insight on organization–nature relations, and advanced approaches that consider the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature. However, nonhuman nature is typically approached as an ambiguous, unified entity. Taking nonhumans adequately into account requires greater detail for both grounding the status of nonhumans and particularizing nonhuman entities as a set of potential organizational stakeholders with different characteristics, vulnerabilities, and needs. We utilize the philosophical concept of ‘recognition’ to provide a normative underpinning for stakeholder theorizing on nonhuman nature in both universal and difference-sensitive terms. We discuss how the status model of recognition helps identify relevant nonhumans as organizational stakeholders, establish respect, and particularize nonhumans in their distinctiveness and in partner-like ways. The implications of the recognition approach for stakeholder research are explicated with an illustrative case that exemplifies the recognition and particularization of nonhuman nature. We contribute to stakeholder research on nonhuman nature by suggesting that recognition provides a conceptual tool for theorizing the stakeholder status and particularization of nonhuman nature. Thereby, this article reduces anthropocentric bias and increases the capacity of stakeholder theorizing to confront the challenges of the ecological crisis.

show abstract

“…Global-warming, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, ecosystem destruction and the sixth mass extinction phenomenon all render the inseparability and interdependence of human societies and non-human life undeniably clear. These processes of rapid global change directly challenge the Cartesian dualism that arose in Europe during the Enlightenment period (Merchant, 1980) and that views humanity as separate from and in control of nature -a belief which has been central to IR and its study of world politics ever since the development of the modern-states system and of the capitalist world economy (Kavalski and Zolkos, 2016;Tickner, 1993). The lack of timely, concerted and robust responses to these interweaving crises and all of their ecological, social, economic and political impacts is not indissociable from the pervasive anthropocentrism that perceives human beings as the central point of reference in world processes; and of the dominant economic system associated with it which conceives of non-human nature as a passive object for endless human exploitation and consumption (Pereira and Saramago, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights of Nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Houart¹

2022

JANUS NET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the present context of the climate and environmental crises and how these fundamentally challenge the inherently anthropocentric norms, conceptions and practices of international politics and IR. I argue that, in order to confront the hegemonic, anthropocentric mode of relationship with non-human nature that has led to these crises, alternative frameworks need to be developed that might lead to a gradual transformation of modern political communities. Departing from Critical IR Theory, I suggest that Andrew Linklater's and Robyn Eckersley's critiques of Westphalia and proposals for its transformation might be useful to understand how the emergent Rights of Nature movement may promote such transformation. I look at two paradigmatic cases from the Rights of Nature movementthe Whanganui River case in Aotearoa New Zealand, on a local level; and Ecuador's 2008 Constitution, on a national level -to briefly reflect on the alternative understandings of concepts such as community, subjecthood, agency, voice, rights, participation and representation that they encourage. By expanding these concepts as to include the morethan-human world, these RoN frameworks invite a transformation of modern systems of thought and practice, and -to a certain extent -constitute a potential for the transformation of modern political communities in ways that might enable a better response to the global climate and environmental crises.

show abstract

The Recognition of Nature in International Relations

Abstract: We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Nature and the international: towards a materialist understanding of societal multiplicity

Nature and the international: towards a materialist understanding of societal multiplicity

Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach

Rights of Nature as a potential framework for the transformation of modern political communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About