Is there an environmental version of the Kantian peace? Insights from water pollution in Europe
| Author | Thomas Bernauer,Patrick M. Kuhn |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109344662 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Corresponding author:
Thomas Bernauer, ETH Zurich, Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) and Institute for
Environmental Decisions (IED), Seilergraben 49, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: thbe0520@ethz.ch
Is there an environmental
version of the Kantian peace?
Insights from water pollution
in Europe
Thomas Bernauer
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Patrick M. Kuhn
University of Rochester, USA
Abstract
We examine whether there is an environmental version of the Kantian peace; that
is, whether democracies that trade and are bound by international treaties are less
likely to harm each other environmentally. Specifically, we study five factors that are
likely to help in reducing beggar-thy-neighbour behaviour in terms of transboundary
pollution: democracy, supranational institutions, trade relations, stringency of domestic
environmental policy and international environmental commitment. The empirical
focus is on upstream–downstream water pollution in Europe in 1970–2003. The
observed effects of the five variables differ considerably across forms of pollution
and definitions of beggar-thy-neighbour behaviour. Some of our explanatory variables
contribute to reducing beggar-thy-neighbour behaviour. Hence there is some empirical
support for the environmental Kantian argument. Nonetheless, state behaviour in this
area remains characterized by free-riding incentives; the forces of democracy, trade
and national and international regulation and institutions do not easily produce decent
international behaviour.
Keywords
democracy, Europe, environment, globalization, international cooperation, pollution,
trade, water
European Journal of
International Relations
16(1) 77–102
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066109344662
ejt.sagepub.com
78 European Journal of International Relations 16(1)
Introduction
The existing literature on the Kantian peace concentrates almost exclusively on how
democracy, trade and international institutions affect the probability of armed conflict. It is
obvious, however, that states can also harm each other by means other than guns and bombs.
In this article we are interested in environmental harm. We examine whether there is an
environmental version of the Kantian peace; that is, whether democracies that trade and are
bound by international treaties are less likely to harm each other environmentally.
Existing research on the causes of variation in domestic environmental quality — i.e.,
provision levels of an important public good — across countries and time conveys a
rather optimistic view on the effects of democracy, trade (or globalization more generally)
and environmental policy. That is, many authors (e.g., Antweiler et al., 2001; Barrett and
Graddy, 2000; Copeland and Taylor, 2003; Neumayer, 2002b; Prakash and Potoski, 2006;
Vogel, 1995, 1999; Ward, 2006) have argued that democracy and economic openness tend
to promote stricter environmental standards and higher environmental quality.
Some researchers (e.g., Baettig and Bernauer 2009; Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006;
Neumayer, 2002a; Roberts et al., 2004; Von Stein, 2008) have explored whether these driving
forces also have a ‘Kantian’ effect in the sense of producing environmentally less harmful
behaviour at the international level as well. The latter type of work has thus far focused
almost exclusively on international environmental treaty commitments and events data, that
is, policy-outputs rather than policy-outcomes (e.g., pollution). We are interested in comple-
menting the work on international environmental policy-outputs with research on interna-
tional environmental outcomes (i.e., transboundary harm). Specifically, we are interested in
whether more democratic, economically more open and environmentally more committed
countries are (if so) de facto greener not only at home, but also vis-a-vis their neighbours.
International river systems offer a unique opportunity for addressing this question, and
for developing and testing explanations of success or failure in international problem
solving. In practical terms, surface waters, such as rivers and lakes, which are the most
accessible sources for human consumption and use, constitute only a tiny fraction of water
on Earth. Only 2.5% of global water (1365 × 106 km3) is freshwater (i.e., 35 × 106 km3).
Of those 2.5%, 0.3% is stored in rivers and lakes, 30.8% in groundwater and 68.9% in
glaciers and permanent snow cover (most of it in inaccessible places, such as Antarctica).
Of the approximately 110,000 km3 of precipitation over land, around 42,000 km3 is river
run-off.1 Pollution of international rivers is, therefore, widely regarded as one of the most
important environmental problems worldwide. Most forms of water pollution have direct
implications for human health, ecosystems and socio-economic development as a whole
(Cech, 2004: 119–136; Gleick et al., 2006; Meybeck et al., 1989). From an analytical per-
spective, international river systems are amenable to systematic comparison. They are
shared by relatively small groups of countries. The natural resource and the problems
associated with it are, in most cases, clearly defined, and there are many such water sys-
tems around the globe that can be compared.
The existing literature on international cooperation relating to rivers offers contradic-
tory empirical evidence. Large-N quantitative studies by Durth (1996), Wolf et al. (1999,
2005), Brochmann and Gleditsch (2006), Conca and Wu (2006), Dombrowsky (2007) and
some other authors show that cooperative water-related events are more frequent than
To continue reading
Request your trial