According to Dunne, et al.,what consequences do Green Thoery and ecological concern have for the current concept of sovereignty, and the role of state?(2) what is the core criticisms made by the 1st w

Green Theory
Candidate’s Name
Institution’s Name
Consequences of Green Theory and Ecological Concern on Sovereignty and State’s Role
The green theory has resulted in fresh local, international, deterritorialized understanding of ecological justice, democratic system, nationality, as well as green nations (Dunne et al., 2016). It has also molded a separate green stem of Normative International Relations (IR) concept dealing with global ecological justice. As per these theorists, ecological injustice occurs if irresponsible public agents (government) “externalize” the ecological repercussions of their judgments as well as practices to blameless third parties (Dunne et al., 2016). Therefore, green theorists demand that states must play a role in recognizing the extended moral society which is impacted by the ecological dangers (that is, every citizen, people, coming generations, as well as non-human groups) (Dunne et al., 2016). The states should also allow contribution and serious discussions by nationals as well as the agents of the greater society at danger in every ecological decision-making and states should adopt a precautionary method to guarantee reduction of dangers. Further, Dunne et al. (2016) explain that the states must guarantee just allocation of the dangers which are tolerable via democratic practices which consider the views of every impacted party as well as community interest support organizations. Lastly, the states should remedy and pay damages to parties that endure the impacts of environmental challenges.

The concept of sovereignty denotes that states are independent actors without control from anybody or another state. This implies that states are autonomous and handle their issues individually. Indeed, states have traditionally dealt domestically with various issues facing them such as security. However, green theorists aver that with the emergence of climate change and other environmental issues that may be produced in one state but affects another state, nations have seen the need for cooperation in handling these ecological concerns (Dunne et al., 2016). They, therefore, make environmental treaties that affect their domestic laws and; thus, challenges the traditional concept of sovereignty. Further, green theorists have formed a fresh intricate as well as layered image of international ecological power which acknowledges new, mixed, and networked models of authority which straddle nations’ jurisdictional borders or, in some cases, circumvent the conventional hierarchical modes of authority normal of nations (Dunne et al., 2016). Therefore, these theorists have self-deliberately aspired to rise above the nation-centric structure of conventional IR theories to provide a novel analytic as well as normative insight into global ecological transformation as demonstrated by issues of climate change.
Core Criticisms by the Green Theory against Other Theories
The green theorists have criticized the traditional IR theories in various ways. Firstly, they assert that neoliberalists have considered the environment simply to be another ‘issue area’ or political issue instead of a recent theoretical challenge (Dunne et al., 2016). Further, the green theorists have focused their concentration on the normative objectives that the rationalist theories (neorealism and neoliberalism) serve. The green theorists undertake this criticism through revealing the problematical ecological suppositions as well as moral principles which are implied in neorealism and neoliberalism theories. Neorealism is condemned for “normalizing” instead of confronting the ecologically abusive practices done by nations (Dunne et al., 2016). The neorealist holds that the anarchic nature of the countries is unavoidable and it is imprudent for governments to pursue collaboration on ecological issues which do not give comparative benefits. However, green theorists contend that neorealists do not support ecological misuse but are unreflective on the political objectives performed by their hypothesis. Green theorists have as well confronted the restraining comprehension of state security which has subjugated realist theories. The green theorists advocate for a very wide-ranging structure of understanding state security which considers human welfare as well as environment integrity, instead of only the nations, as the primary point of reference.
Moreover, neoliberals aim to establish global systems which optimize the “rational misuse” of ecology in manners which increase the menu of nation growth (Dunne et al., 2016). However, this rational preference structure impliedly permits an active direction to non-human globe leaving very minimal space for comprehending or advancing substitute “green identities” of distinct nations.
Even though neoliberals provide a reasonable explanation of the development of global ecological collaboration, their analysis structure is incapable of offering an adequate explanation of the normative features of environmental systems (Slaughter, 2011). Rather, they normally lower environmental systems to the result of a collection of negotiations conducted by nations and founded on the states’ interests. However, the green theorists aver that ecological regimes exemplify ethical standards which cannot be lowered to the nations’ interests (Dunne et al., 2016).
Lastly, the green theorists criticize the industrialism of Marxism theory which supposes that the world’s natural resource can support uncontrolled economic development (Slaughter, 2011). Marxists contend that rising economic, as well as technological development, are needed and unavoidable. However, the green theorists emphasize the environmental, communal, as well as mental impacts of the industrialization process (Dunne et al., 2016). They condemn Marxists to be increasingly active in dealing with non-human nature, plus suppressing the native peoples as well as several conventional modes of agriculture.
References
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2016). International relations theories: Discipline and Diversity. (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slaughter, A. M. (2011). International relations, principal theories. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 129. https://www.homeworkmarket.com/sites/default/files/qx/15/08/30/06/slaughter_principal_theories.pdf