The EU and climate security: a case of successful norm entrepreneurship?

Abstract

This article analyses the development of the European Union (EU) as a global actor in the area of climate security. Building on this, it explicitly draws on constructivist concepts such as norm entrepreneurship and epistemic communities. To this end, it adopts the framework of epistemic communities, as developed by Peter Haas, in order to suggest that there is a group of EU officials, EU member states and think-tank activists, who drive the climate security agenda of the EU. Thus, it examines the precise actors involved in this EU epistemic community for climate security. This group promotes a reason for action at the global level, resulting in the attempt to diffuse this norm: climate change has consequences for international security; thus, it requires the development of appropriate policies and capabilities within the EU and globally. This article suggests that the epistemic community on climate security has been effective at diffusing this norm at both levels, albeit with differences.

Keywords:

• environmental security
• EU institutions
• European foreign and security policy
• climate security
• epistemic community
• norm entrepreneurship

Acknowledgements

The findings of this article are partially based on research interviews conducted in Brussels in 2009. They were generously supported financially by the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES). In particular, we would like to thank Sarah Leonard, and the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. In addition, we would like to thank the University of Salford for their generous financial contribution to this work. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

1. Even though the debates on climate change and climate security accelerated in the USA in 2009, some discussions developed before the Obama administration arrived in the White House. For example, in 2008, the US Climate Change Science Programme (USCCSP) published a comprehensive report titled ‘Abrupt Climate Change’ (USCCSP 2008).

2. Sindico (2007) recognised that countries opposing the UNSC to discuss climate change can be grouped into three categories. Firstly, there is a group of countries which believe that bringing climate change to the UNSC is a strategy by developed countries to interfere with the competences of other UN bodies. They also believe that climate change is a global issue and the UNSC does not have legitimacy to tackle it. In addition, they fear that developed countries attempt to promote the principle of a ‘shared responsibility’, increasing the burden on developing states. Secondly, there are countries such as Mexico and Singapore, which agree that climate change may have security consequences, but they argue that the UNGA is a more appropriate UN body to address the issue. Thirdly, petroleum exporting countries led by Venezuela argue that energy is a matter of national sovereignty, thus other countries should not interfere.