The Ends of the World: International Relations and the Anthropocene
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829816638745 |
| Published date | 01 June 2016 |
| Author | Cameron Harrington |
| Date | 01 June 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Conference Articles |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2016, Vol. 44(3) 478 –498
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829816638745
mil.sagepub.com
The Ends of the World:
International Relations and
the Anthropocene
Cameron Harrington
University of Montreal, Canada and University of Cape Town, South Africa
Abstract
The concept of the Anthropocene – the geological epoch defined by human action – has so
far remained largely absent from International Relations (IR) analyses. This is perplexing given
the monumental stakes involved in dealing with planetary change and the discipline’s overriding
focus on crisis. This silence may exist, however, because contemporary studies of international
relations are troubled by the Anthropocene, which shifts basic assumptions about how humans
live in the midst of perpetual danger, harm, and risk. It also presents us with the prospect of
failure in existential terms, if indeed we are living in (and causing) ‘the sixth mass extinction’. The
focus of this article, therefore, is threefold. First, to consider the challenges to environmental IR
that the Anthropocene concept presents; second, to probe what it means for IR to respond to
the end of nature; and third, what is required of IR to deal with the prospect of mass extinction. It
is argued that Earth system changes wrought by human action require the discipline to demystify
its own ontological, epistemological, and ethical approaches that are culpable in ushering in the
Anthropocene. Doing so may allow IR to provide necessary insight into the contemporary and
historical effects of the state system as an enabler of planetary change, and the future possibilities
for global politics within the Anthropocene.
Keywords
anthropocene, environment, security
Corresponding author:
Cameron Harrington, Global Risk Governance Programme, Institute for Humanities in Africa (HUMA),
Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town, Room 4.15, Neville Alexander Building, Rondebosch, 7700 Cape
Town, South Africa.
Email: cameron.harrington@uct.ac.za
638745MIL0010.1177/0305829816638745Millennium: Journal of International StudiesHarrington
research-article2016
Conference Article
Harrington 479
1. Andrew J. Hoffman and P. Jennings Deveraux, ‘Institutional Theory and the Natural
Environment: Research In (And On) the Anthropocene’, Organization and Environment 28,
no. 1 (2015): 8–31.
Introduction
Since the end of World War II and the dawning of the Cold War, dramatic human-driven
shifts in the functioning of the Earth system have occurred. A variety of measureable
trends show how the structure and makeup of the system are now being altered to the
extent that they no longer resemble anything seen in tens of thousands (and in some cases
millions) of years. As a result of human action, we are observing remarkable develop-
ments, including the precipitous warming of the oceans and of surface temperatures,
atmospheric increases of nitrous oxide, acidification of the oceans, land use loss to agri-
culture, and a massive decline in biodiversity. Together, these trends point to a new era
in the history of the Earth.
The dawning of the age of the human – the Anthropocene – has generated intense,
sustained debate over the last decade. From disciplines as seemingly varied as climatol-
ogy, geology, philosophy, and visual arts, scholars have taken up the task of thinking
through the new Anthropocene age. This has meant pursuing multiple pathways of meas-
urement, critique, and reflection on the origins of the Anthropocene, its current character,
and what types of futures it foretells. While the geological evidence remains under debate
for officially declaring the existence of the Anthropocene, a remarkable volume of schol-
arship has recently emerged that accepts its general premise – that humans are geological
agents – and tries to figure out how and why it matters. For as much as the Anthropocene
teaches us about the science of the Earth, it also reflects attention back to the human. At
a fundamental level, it troubles the intellectual and psychological conceptions of who we
are as humans and how we relate to the world around us.1 Even in the study of deep time
and geological shifts, we cannot escape ourselves.
What then can the discipline of International Relations (IR) contribute to our under-
standing of the Anthropocene? And conversely, what does the Anthropocene mean for the
study and practice of global politics? Such large questions cannot be adequately answered
in one article, but it is possible to probe the implications for greater detail, and encourage
further study and reflection. This article, therefore, offers a preliminary assessment of the
Anthropocene from the perspective of IR. Its central argument is two-fold: First,
International Relations has largely failed to engage the Anthropocene challenge. Second,
given the wealth of information emerging that shows the scale and types of impacts that
humans have on the world, this is no longer sustainable. That is, IR must reconsider some
of its core understandings – particularly the relationships between the normative catego-
ries of humanity, the international system of states based on sovereignty and non-interfer-
ence, and the natural world. It must abandon its atomistic theories of the international, and
begin thinking much more deeply about ideas of human entanglements with the larger
world within which we exist.
Such a move can be accomplished without abandoning IR’s central foci, which we
might faithfully limit to war, security, and the effects of an anarchical international society
on states. Each is significantly impacted by the cumulative effects of environmental
To continue reading
Request your trial