Cox eschewed the implicitly ahistorical positivism of the many mainstream International Relations theories that are more adept at explaining stability than change (Finnemore &
Sikkink, 1998). His early training as a historian and his ontological perspective (discussed above) informed his belief in the necessity and efficacy of analysing world order as a series of historical structures – historical structures that he posited were more “modes” than “givens” and that were made transformable by human action since they were the result of collective human action (Cox, 1987). Divorcing particular forces from any historical structure by making them ahistorical precludes the possibility of change in those forces and thus also in that structure. For instance, conceptualising states as enduring entities of world order – as realists do – does not allow for these states to be co-created by the historical milieu in which they exist, thereby precluding the possibility of change (Cox, 1985). Historical processes, he averred, “frame, shape and promote or impede civilizational change” and in so doing produce historical structures and human agency and – most importantly for the purposes of this dissertation – “explain transformations from one structure to another” (Cox, 1985: 244). This ability to explain transformation renders Cox’s theory a useful tool of analysis during periods of apparent flux.
The centrality of Cox’s belief in the possibility of change in the world order renders his theory particularly useful as a framework for trying to understand how the role of India within the UNFCCC is changing as it is buffeted by – and potentially also creating or influencing – changes in the world order. The architecture of the UNFCCC itself is also in flux, with the Durban Platform negotiations in the post-2010 period centring on the redistribution of CO2 emission mitigation responsibilities and the way forward in the “post-Kyoto Protocol” / post-2020 era. To quote Cox in a 2009 article, a critical theoretical approach is useful if the purpose of the enquiry is to uncover what “kind of future … might be latent within the present”, while a problem-
solving approach would be more useful as “a guide towards managing the present” (Cox, 2009:
317).
Cox was clear, however, that at a time of apparent imminent change – when the existing framework or knowledge no longer appears to fit the observable reality – a different kind of knowledge would need to be sought (Cox & Schechter, 2002). The existing framework of annexes that underpins the differentiation within the UNFCCC regime no longer fits the observable reality, given the geopolitical and economic changes since 1992, especially if historical contribution (to GHG emission stocks) is not taken into account. It is at these times of instability and change that members of civil society and the state become more receptive to theories or knowledge that challenge the status quo (Sinclair, 1996) and that are “directed towards an appraisal of the very framework for action, or problematic, which problem-solving theory accepts as its parameters” (Cox, 1981: 129). This dissertation defines the status quo of the UNFCCC negotiations as the differentiation between Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 country Parties encoded in the Convention. The flux or instability of the regime invites a critical approach.
Cox proposed that the characteristic features of different types of theory or knowledge- generation lay in how they conceptualised the purpose of theory (Cox, 1981). From this starting point he sought to distinguish between theories or knowledge that he termed problem-solving and those he termed critical – a rubric under which he situated his own theory.
Problem-solving theory, Cox posited, is constructed as a guide to solving problems while embedded in a particular perspective, i.e. the existing structure (Schouten, 2009). Accordingly, in mainstream International Relations theory, problems are most frequently conceptualised as problems between states. This type of theory accepts the status quo; it considers the prevailing configuration of social, political and economic forces – without question – as the parameters within which the theory must address the identified problem. This prevailing configuration Cox termed a “framework for action” (Cox, 1981). Problem-solving theories are suited to addressing specific problems within well-defined parameters by paring down and isolating variables for close scrutiny. This is reductionism at its finest, playing to its strengths. At times of relative stability in the world order, Cox held that problem-solving work would likely be most relevant (Cox, 1981), as the explanations offered by this type of theories would likely fit with the prevailing view of the world held by most people (Sinclair, 1996); this type of theory would also be more consistent in providing legislators and politicians with policy recommendations (Schouten, 2009).
_________________________________________________ Chapter 2. Robert Cox’s configuration of forces theory
In the course of its application, critical theory, like problem-solving theory, starts with a focus on a particular issue but then “takes a step back” in order to formulate a view of the whole, rather than disaggregating the problem to its constituent parts or zooming in to focus on an aspect of an problem (Cox, 1981). The overarching issue for analysis therefore is the slow progress of state action to reduce CO2 emissions through the UNFCCC process. Emissions remain high despite over twenty years of international negotiations, near-certainty among scientists on the anthropogenic origins of the changing climate, and increasing clarity on the quantification of the deep cuts in emissions required to prevent a more than 2°C global-temperature rise from temperatures in the pre-industrial era (IPCC, 2014).
Writers implicitly informed by problem-solving theories such as neo-realism or neo-liberal- institutionalism might, for instance, tend to focus on restructuring specific aspects of the architecture of the UNFCCC itself (Aldy, Barrett & Stavins, 2003; Evans & Steven, 2009;
Keohane & Raustiala, 2010; Werksman, 2010) or correcting flaws in the design of the market mechanisms under Kyoto Protocol (Michaelowa, Butzengeiger & Jung, 2005; Wettestad, 2009) or problems of climate finance (Roberts, Stadelmann & Huq, 2010; Saran, 2010; Schalatek, Bird
& Brown, 2010). In contrast, writers of a more critical theoretical inclination are more likely to question instead the underlying issue of consumption that drives production, trade and the associated emissions (Newell & Paterson, 1998; Dauvergne, 2010; Harris & Symons, 2013) or the very nature of the relationship between humans and the environment (Wapner, 2008; Antal &
Hukkinen, 2010; Khor, 2010), for instance.
There is also a strongly normative, emancipatory facet of Cox’s critical theory – a characteristic it has in common with other critical theory. For this reason it was selected as a theory that could help explicate India’s insistence on equity in the negotiations. India’s belief that the North- South divide continues to pervade the climate negotiations informs its insistence on the operationalisation of equity in the regime. The North has developed and industrialised through its historical contribution to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. In other words, developed countries are responsible for creating the current climate crisis through the exploitation of the shared atmospheric space. From this perspective, an equitable negotiated outcome includes an opportunity for developing countries to develop and so to be freed from the burdens of underdevelopment. Differentiation between the responsibilities of developed and developing countries is therefore a key component of that emancipation. This differentiation is a source of dissatisfaction for some developed countries – the United States of America forwarded this as one of the reasons it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 –
but is seen as crucial by developing countries for facilitating their poverty-alleviating development.
Critical theory allows for the possibility that actors might decide in favour of, and act to bring about, a social, economic or political alternative to the prevailing order. Change in this sense is not inevitable, but dependent on human agency (Leysens, 2008). This alternative order, however, is likewise bound by the exigencies of historical processes and in acknowledging these constraints, critical theory “must reject improbable alternatives just as it rejects the permanency of the existing order” (Cox, 1981: 130); neither the permanent order, nor the unachievable utopian order, would be considered a viable alternative order. Thus India’s
“emancipatory ideal” of a differentiated climate regime must still operate within the bounds of the possible.
The following chapter expands upon the research design chosen for the analysis of India’s role in the climate change negotiations.
___________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 3. Research Design