Ethics, Interests and American Foreign Policy
| Author | Paul G. Harris |
| Published date | 01 December 1995 |
| Date | 01 December 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711789501200603 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
53
ETHICS,
INTERESTS
AND
AMERICAN
FOREIGN
POLICY:
THE
CASE
OF
OZONE
DEPLETION*
Paul
G.
Harris
The
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
La),er.
was
an
innovative
agreement
designed
to
protect
the
global
environment.
The
United
States
government
under
Ronald
Reagan
and
George
Bush
played
an
impor-
tant
role
in
international
deliberations
on
the
Protocol.
At
times
the
United
States
was
a
leader,
persuading
other
countries
to
take
more
action
to
protect
the
stratospheric
ozone
layer.
At
other
times
the
United
States
was
pulled
by
other
countries
and
by
various
forces
to
sign
treaty
provisions
it
disagreed
with.
Throughout
this
process,
US
diplomats
and
policy
makers
were
influenced
in
part
by
ethical
or
’moral’
forces.
International
moral
norms
helped
shape
US
policy
and
new,
stronger
norms
have
resulted
from
the
ozone
treaties.
Though
it
did
not
determine
the
US
position
on
ozone
depletion,
morality
had
an
important
and
demonstrable
impact
on
US
policy
and
the
ozone
treaties
to
which
it
contributed.
This
article
is
an
effort
to
illuminate
the
subtle
yet
significant
ethical
aspects
of
US
foreign
policy
on
stratospheric
ozone
depletion.
It
is
not
an
effort
to
prove
that
morality
determined
all
policy,
but
rather
it
seeks
to
highlight
the
interesting
role
that
morality
played
in
US
ozone
policy.
The
first
section
lays
out
briefly
the
research
methods
that
have been
used.
Section
two
examines
the
degree
to
which
morality
plays
a
role
in
US
foreign
policy.
The
third
section
provides
a
brief
description
of the
international
agreements
that
address
the
problem
of
stratospheric
ozone
depletion.
Section
four
addresses
the
morality
of
US
foreign
policy
on
ozone
depletion
and
some
potential
pathways
by
which
morality
could
find
its
way
into
that
policy.
The
last
section
draws
some
conclusions
about
the
role
of
morality
in
US
ozone
policy
and
the
effect
this
may
have
on
US
foreign
policy
generally.
Methodology
Illuminating
the
role
of
morality
in
US
policy
on
ozone
depletion -
and
some
of
the
pathways
by
which
morality
may
have
been
influential
in
that
policy -
can
contribute
to
our
knowledge
of
ethics
in
international
affairs
and
US
foreign
policy
in
general
and
the
role
of
morality
in
US
foreign
environmental
policy
in
particular.
For
the
purposes
of
this
article,
’morality’
exists
when
policy
makers
in
the
United
States
have
considered
the
effects
of
US
actions
or
policies
on
the
welfare
of
people
or
future
generations
in
other
countries
..
A
shorter
version
of
this
article
appeared
in
International,journal
on
World
Peace,
vol.
XII
no.
2,
June
1995.
54
and/or
a
concern
for
protection
of
the
environment
for
its
own
sake.’
Policy
choices
which
have
been
constrained
to
some
degree
by
moral
considerations
but
which
are
still
based
largely
on
self-interest
fit
this
definition.’
If
self-
interest
is
compromised
in
some
fashion
in
order
to
improve
the
welfare
of
others,
then
morality
can
be
said
to
have
had
an
impact.
If
policy
makers
are
pressured
by
individuals
or
interest
groups
to
take
a
more
moral
position,
then
we
can
acknowledge
that
morality
has
found
its
way
into
the
process.
Ideally
the
moral
picture
will
include
beneficial
effects;
identifying
moral
sentiments
is
interesting
and
useful,
but
showing
that
US
policy
has
(or
is
likely
to)
con-
tributed
directly
or
indirectly
to
the actual
welfare
of
people
in
other
countries
is
most
rewarding.
More
specifically,
these
are
the
types
of
questions
that
this
article
addresses:
~
To
what
extent
and
how
have
moral
considerations
influenced
US
foreign
policy
on
preventing
depletion
of the
stratospheric
ozone
layer?
What
are
some
of
the
pathways
by
which
morality
may
have
had
a
chance
to
be
influential?
~
To
what
extent
and
how
have
global
equity
considerations
influenced
US
ozone
policy,
especially
as
policy
relates
to
financial
aid
and
technology
transfers,
to
assist
developing
countries
in
undertaking
steps
to
protect
the
ozone
layer?
A
review
of
the
literature
provides
a
complex
mix
of
information
regarding
these
questions.
Many
writers
have
given
their
own
normative
views
on
this
subject,
but
fewer
have
valuable
insights
concerning
the
moral
component
of
the
policy
formulation
process.
There
is
evidence
indicating
that
morality
was
at
least
a
factor
for
discussion
and,
more
important,
that
the
Reagan
and
Bush
administrations
were
compelled
to
consider
the
concerns
of
various
interest
groups
that
have
an
altruistic
view
of
the
ozone
problem.
Subjects
of
this
study
have been
individuals
involved
in
the
US
foreign
policy-making
process,
including
White
House
staff,
members
of
Congress
and
their
staff,
senior
officials
of
relevant
agencies
and
influential
individuals
and
organizations
outside
government.
Sources
used
for
this
article
have
included
manuscripts
and
books
by
various
scholars,
US
government
and
United
Nations
documents,
Congressional
testimony,
personal
accounts
of
diplomatic
efforts,
correspondence
with
executive
branch
personnel
involved
in
international
environmental
agreements,
and
newspaper
accounts
of
the
ozone
treaty-making
process.
Historical/comparative
analysis
has
formed
the
1
Cf.
Robert
McElroy,
Morality
and
American
Foreign
Policy
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
1992),
p.
31,
where
McElroy
defines
a
moral
norm
as
involving
’a
consideration
of
the
effects
of
the
actor’s
action
on
others,
not
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
actor’s
own
interests,
but
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
others’
interests.’
2
In
the
view
of
Charles
Beitz,
’the
moral
point
of
view
requires
us
to
regard
the
world
from
the
perspective
of
one
person
among
many
rather
than
from
that
of
a
particular
self
with
particular
interests,
and
to
choose
courses
of
action,
policies,
rules,
and
institutions
on
grounds
that
would
be
acceptable
to
any
agent
who
was
impartial
among
the
competing
interests
involved.
Of
course,
this
is
not
to
say
that
interests
are
irrelevant
to
moral
choice.
The
question
is
how
interests
come
into
the
justification
of such
choices.
From
the
point
of view
of
self-interest,
one
chooses
that
action
or
policy
that
best
serves
one’s
own
interest,
all
things
considered.
From
the
moral
point
of
view,
on
the
other
hand,
one
views
one’s
interest
as
one
set
of
interest
among
many
and
weighs
the
entire
range
of
interests
according
to
some
impartial
scheme.’
Charles
R.
Beitz,
Political
Theory
and
International
Relations
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
1979),
p.
58.
To continue reading
Request your trial