The purpose of this article is to introduce English School (ES) theory to the study of global environmental politics (GEP). The ES is an established theoretical tradition in the discipline of international relations (IR) but is not widely known, let alone used, in GEP. My aim is to overcome this state of neglect and suggest ways in which ES theory can enrich the study of international environmental affairs. I argue that ES theory makes at least two major contributions to the study of global environmental politics: first, it helps counterbalance the presentist focus in GEP scholarship, shifting our attention toward long-term historical patterns of normative change, and second, by distinguishing between different levels of international change, it opens up an analytical focus on environmentalism as a part of the international normative structure. In doing so, ES theory directs our attention to the interaction and mutual shaping between environmentalism and other fundamental norms of international society.

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are set to transform the global industrial landscape, but the debate on how to regulate environmental, health and safety risks is lagging behind technological innovation. Current regulatory efforts are primarily focused on the national and regional level, while the international dimensions of nanotechnology governance are still poorly understood and rarely feature on the international agenda. However, with the ongoing globalization of nanosciences and the rapid expansion of international trade in nanomaterials, demand for international coordination and harmonization of regulatory approaches is set to increase. Yet, uncertainty about nanotechnology risk poses a profound dilemma for regulators and policy-makers. Uncertainty both creates demand for and stands in the way of greater international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches. This article reviews the emerging debate on nanotechnology risk and regulatory approaches, investigates the current state of international cooperation and outlines the critical contribution that a global governance approach can make to the safe development of nanotechnologies.

This paper analyzes how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a global regime governing trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is influencing agricultural biotechnology policy choices in developing countries/emerging economies. Through empirical analysis of Mexico, China and South Africa, we examine whether discursive and/or institutional change has followed the negotiation and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in these countries. We find that, although trade and market competitiveness concerns are driving biotechnology policy choices in all three cases, a precautionary biosafety discourse has gained greater legitimacy as a result of the Cartagena Protocol, empowering those domestically who voice such concerns. Related to that, debates and/or decisionmaking processes in this controversial area have become more inclusive in all three countries—an important influence of the Cartagena Protocol.We also find persisting regulatory diversity rather than harmonization of biosafety regulatory frameworks in our three countries, with international trade linkages and domestic politics playing an important mediating role in determining Protocol influence.

This article discusses private environmental governance at the global level. It is widely acknowledged that corporations play an increasing role in global environmental politics, not only as lobbyists in international negotiations or agents of implementation, but also as actors creating private institutional arrangements that perform environmental governance functions. The rise of such private forms of global governance raises a number of questions for the study of global environmental politics: How does private governance interact with state-centric governance? In what ways are the roles/capacities of states and nonstate actors affected by private governance? Does the rise of private governance signify a shift in the ideological underpinnings of global environmental governance? This article explores these questions, seeking a better understanding of the significance of private environmental governance for International Relations.