Citation

Soroos MS. J. Peace Res. 1994; 31(3): 317-332.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1994, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343394031003006

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Environmental problems, including the recent concern with the 'global change' problematique, now occupy a prominent position on international agendas and are recognized as a legitimate concern of peace research. Numerous scholars, policy-makers, and activists have proposed broadening use of the concept security beyond its traditional geopolitical and military focus to take into account environmental threats that seriously jeopardize human well-being. This article examines arguments that have been made both for and against use of the concept 'environmental security'. To assess the utility of this approach, the core concept 'security' is defined in terms of threats and vulnerabilities. Strategies for enhancing security are distinguished on the basis of whether they are designed (a) to reduce threats or vulnerabilities and (b) to be carried out unilaterally or collectively. Parallels are drawn between the options available to achieve military and environmental security with reference to the Prisoner's Dilemma game, which has been used widely to explain why states seek military security through counterproductive arms buildups rather than through a potentially much less costly strategy of mutual arms reductions. While the logic of the Prisoner's Dilemma did not prevail in the successful negotiations on protecting the ozone layer, it may become a significant factor in international efforts to address the problem of climate change. The larger question for peace research is whether the pursuit of environmental security can be channeled into cooperative arrangements that promote sustainable development rather than self-serving, nationalistic ventures that will heighten international conflict and perpetuate international injustices.