Obstacles and non-state actors | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Sep 29
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 60 minutes
Obstacles and non-state actors A-Level Politics revision examines why agreement over environmental problems remains difficult even when states broadly recognise the need for action. Edexcel requires you to consider sovereignty, divisions between developed and developing states, and disagreements over responsibility and how emissions should be measured. You must also assess whether global civil society, non-state actors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can overcome some of these weaknesses. This develops your understanding of international climate agreements [Environmental approaches and international agreements] and wider global environmental institutions [Global environmental governance].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain why state sovereignty can obstruct international environmental co-operation.
Analyse divisions between economically developed and economically developing states.
Compare different arguments about historical and current responsibility for environmental degradation.
Explain why different methods of measuring emissions can produce disagreements between states.
Explain the role of non-state actors and NGOs within global civil society.
Evaluate how far NGOs and other non-state actors can contribute to addressing environmental problems.
Revision Notes đź“š
Obstacles and non-state actors A-Level Politics revision: the key debate
Edexcel identifies three closely connected obstacles to effective global environmental governance:
sovereignty
the developed versus developing world division
disagreement over responsibility and measurement.
The specification also requires the role and significance of global civil society and non-state actors, including NGOs, in addressing global issues.
The central political problem is that environmental degradation requires international co-operation, but environmental decisions continue to be made largely within a system of sovereign states.
States may agree that climate change requires action while disagreeing over:
who should act
how much each state should do
who should pay
whose emissions should be reduced most
how responsibility should be measured.
These disagreements help explain why recognising a global problem is easier than agreeing upon a global solution.
Sovereignty as an obstacle to environmental co-operation
Edexcel defines sovereignty as absolute and unlimited power and authority. In the context of the nation-state, national sovereignty means the state's authority over its citizens and subjects.
Environmental governance can challenge this principle because international agreements ask governments to accept restrictions or commitments that may affect domestic policies.
This connects directly to national sovereignty [The state: nation-state and national sovereignty].
Environmental organisations depend on sovereign states
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operate within an international system in which states remain central actors.
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme describes these environmental bodies as intergovernmental rather than supranational and highlights their limited ability to enforce actions upon states.
This distinction is essential.
Intergovernmental organisation:Â states co-operate but retain significant control.
Supranational authority:Â decisions can have authority above individual states.
Global environmental governance largely follows the first model.
Therefore:
international agreement
↓
state accepts a commitment
↓
state remains responsible for implementation
If a government does not take sufficient action, international environmental bodies have limited ability to compel it.
Governments can prioritise national interests
Sovereign governments are accountable primarily within their own political systems.
They may therefore prioritise:
economic growth
employment
industrial development
energy security
domestic political support
over stronger international environmental commitments.
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme links slow progress partly to the continued desire of states for economic growth and their tendency to protect national economic interests within international institutions.
This creates a direct obstacle to co-operation.
A policy that might benefit the global environment may impose short-term economic costs upon an individual state.
The state may therefore decide that its national interest takes priority.
Sovereignty and the tragedy of the commons
Sovereignty links closely to the tragedy of the commons [Environmental approaches and international agreements].
The tragedy of the commons occurs when actors rationally pursue their own interests but collectively deplete a shared resource.
Applied to states:
each state wants environmental degradation to decrease
reducing emissions may carry economic costs
each state benefits if other governments bear more of those costs
states therefore have incentives to protect their own economic interests
collective environmental action becomes difficult.
Sovereignty allows states to continue making these calculations independently.
The absence of an overarching global authority therefore makes environmental co-operation dependent upon voluntary agreement and reciprocal behaviour.
Sovereignty can also enable environmental action
Sovereignty should not automatically be treated as entirely negative.
States possess the political authority needed to implement environmental policies domestically.
A government that decides to pursue environmental objectives can use its sovereign powers to change national policy.
The deeper problem is therefore not simply that states are sovereign.
It is that sovereign states do not necessarily agree about what action should be taken.
This distinction produces stronger evaluation.
Developed versus developing world divisions
The specification explicitly identifies the division between the developed and developing world as an obstacle to international environmental agreement.
The basic disagreement concerns fairness.
Developing states may argue that economically developed states became wealthy through industrialisation that produced substantial environmental damage.
Developed states may respond that rapidly developing economies now account for very significant current emissions and therefore must also accept substantial responsibility.
This produces conflict over both past responsibility and present responsibility.
Historical responsibility
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme identifies the argument that historically developed economies, including the USA and UK, produced a large share of carbon emissions during their economic growth and development.
From this perspective, developed states have already enjoyed the economic benefits of carbon-intensive industrialisation.
Developing states can therefore argue:
developed states industrialised first
↓
developed states produced substantial historical emissions
↓
their economic development benefited from those emissions
↓
they should carry a larger share of the cost of environmental action
This creates an argument based upon historical responsibility.
The developing-world argument
Developing states may resist environmental obligations that appear to restrict their economic development.
The argument is essentially one of fairness.
If developed states were permitted to industrialise and raise living standards through carbon-intensive growth, developing states may question why their own development should now be restricted.
This connects with wider debates about the North-South divide [Global economic governance and poverty].
Environmental politics and development politics are therefore closely connected.
Environmental restrictions may be seen not merely as ecological policies but also as decisions about:
development
wealth
inequality
economic opportunity.
Developed-world counter-arguments
The developed-versus-developing distinction is not straightforward.
Pearson's 2022 indicative material uses China as an example of a rapidly developing economy whose current emissions have become extremely significant.
This creates a counter-argument:
historical emissions may have come disproportionately from developed economies
but
current emissions may increasingly come from rapidly developing economies
Therefore, developed states may argue that climate change cannot be addressed effectively if major contemporary emitters are exempted from meaningful reductions.
The disagreement is not necessarily over whether climate change requires action.
It is over how responsibility should be distributed.
Economic inequality between states
Developing states may have fewer economic resources available to finance environmental transition.
Changing:
energy systems
industrial production
infrastructure
patterns of consumption
can require significant resources.
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme identifies arguments that developing states expected economic assistance from richer states and that disputes over whether sufficient promised support had been delivered contributed to tensions.
The political issue is clear:
developing states may accept that environmental change is necessary
but
argue that developed states should provide financial support because they possess greater resources and greater historical responsibility.
If that support is considered inadequate, developing states may be less willing to accept costly environmental commitments.
Inequality within states
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme also recognises inequalities within countries, not simply between them.
Not all citizens in a developed country possess equal wealth, and not all citizens can absorb the costs of environmental policies equally.
This matters because governments may face domestic opposition to environmental measures that increase costs or require major changes in behaviour.
The obstacle therefore operates at two levels:
international inequality, between developed and developing states
domestic inequality, between groups within individual states.
Both can slow environmental action.
Common but differentiated responsibility
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme identifies common but differentiated responsibility as an important argument used by developing states.
The principle combines two ideas.
Common responsibility
Environmental degradation is a shared global problem.
All states have some responsibility for tackling it.
Differentiated responsibility
Not every state should necessarily bear the same responsibility.
Differences can be justified according to factors such as:
historical emissions
levels of development
present emissions
capacity to pay.
This attempts to reconcile global environmental responsibility with international inequality.
However, agreeing that responsibility should be differentiated creates a further political question:
How should the differences be calculated?
That leads directly to disputes about measurement.
Disagreement over responsibility
States can agree that emissions must fall but disagree sharply over which governments should make the largest reductions.
There are several competing approaches.
1. Historical responsibility
This asks:
Which states have contributed most to environmental degradation over time?
This tends to strengthen the case that developed industrial economies should shoulder a larger burden.
2. Current responsibility
This asks:
Which states currently produce the greatest emissions?
This can strengthen demands for rapidly developing economies with large contemporary emissions to take substantial action.
3. Responsibility based upon capacity
This focuses upon which states possess sufficient wealth and resources to make the transition towards lower emissions.
Developing states may argue that wealthier developed states should therefore provide greater financial assistance.
Each approach can produce a different answer to the question:
Who should do the most?
This disagreement itself delays international co-operation.
Disagreement over measurement
Edexcel specifically requires students to understand disagreement over environmental measurement.
One important dispute concerns the difference between:
total national emissions
emissions per person, or per capita.
Total emissions
A total-emissions approach measures the overall emissions produced by a state.
This can make highly populated and rapidly industrialising states appear to carry a large share of responsibility.
Developed states may therefore argue that large contemporary emitters cannot avoid significant obligations simply because they are still described as developing.
Per-capita emissions
A per-capita approach considers emissions in relation to population.
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme identifies the argument from economically developing states that responsibility should be measured on a per-capita basis, which can reduce their apparent responsibility compared with assessments based solely on total national emissions.
This matters because countries with very large populations can have:
high total emissions
much lower emissions for each individual citizen.
The same country can therefore look more or less responsible depending upon which measurement is used.
Production and consumption
Pearson's 2022 indicative material also recognises arguments concerning production undertaken for overseas consumption.
This adds another complication.
If emissions occur in a developing state because goods are produced there for consumers in wealthier countries, who is responsible?
Possible answers include:
the state in which the emissions physically occur
the consumers benefiting from the production
both.
This demonstrates why apparently technical questions about measuring emissions quickly become political arguments about fairness.
Why measurement matters politically
Measurement is not simply a statistical issue.
The measurement chosen affects:
which states appear most responsible
which governments are expected to cut emissions most
who may be expected to finance environmental action
how fair an agreement appears.
A strong examination answer therefore develops the chain:
different measurement
↓
different allocation of responsibility
↓
different expectations of states
↓
disagreement over fairness
↓
slower international agreement
Responsibility and measurement compared
Approach | Question asked | Political implication |
Historical emissions | Who contributed most over time? | Greater responsibility may fall on long-industrialised developed states |
Current total emissions | Who produces the most now? | Rapidly developing large emitters may face greater pressure |
Per-capita emissions | How much is produced relative to population? | Some developing states may appear less responsible |
Capacity to act | Who has the resources to finance change? | Wealthier states may be expected to contribute more |
Production and consumption | Who is responsible where production serves overseas consumers? | Responsibility may be disputed between producing and consuming economies |
đź“Ś Exam tip:Â Do not say that one method of measurement is automatically "correct". The exam value lies in showing how different measurements support different political arguments.
Why responsibility disagreements obstruct international agreements
International agreements require enough states to regard their obligations as legitimate and reasonably fair.
If a state believes that:
it is being asked to make disproportionate reductions
other states are avoiding responsibility
historical emissions are being ignored
current emissions are being ignored
financial commitments are unfair
it may become less willing to co-operate.
The developed-versus-developing-world divide is therefore not separate from sovereignty.
The two reinforce each other:
states disagree about fairness
↓
sovereign governments defend their national interests
↓
international commitments become weaker or harder to negotiate
↓
progress slows
This is one reason your knowledge of international environmental agreements [Environmental approaches and international agreements] should be connected to the obstacles covered here.
Political institutions can also be an obstacle
Do not assume that developed-versus-developing inequality is the only explanation for weak environmental progress.
Pearson's 2022 mark scheme gives several alternative explanations.
These include:
vague international commitments
long timescales
limited enforcement powers
disagreements over adaptation versus mitigation
changing political leadership
state economic interests.
This is crucial for evaluation.
A good essay distinguishes:
inequality as an obstacle
from
weaknesses in environmental institutions themselves.
Adaptation versus mitigation
Pearson's 2022 material also identifies disagreement over whether climate change should be addressed through adaptation or mitigation.
For examination purposes, the political significance is the key point.
States can disagree not only about who is responsible, but also about the type and scale of response that should be prioritised.
This creates another barrier to finding the common ground necessary for effective global governance.
Non-state actors
Edexcel defines non-state actors as:
Participants in international relations with significant power and influence that are not states.
This is important because global politics is not conducted exclusively by governments.
The growth of globalisation and interconnectedness allows actors outside the state to influence international political debates.
This links directly to interconnectedness and globalisation [The process of globalisation].
Non-governmental organisations
A non-governmental organisation (NGO)Â is defined by Edexcel as a non-profit, voluntary citizens' group organised at a local, national or international level.
The specification states that NGOs can:
perform service and humanitarian functions
bring citizens' concerns to governments
advocate policies
monitor policies
encourage political participation by providing information.
These functions provide a useful framework for assessing their environmental significance.
Global civil society
The specification requires students to study the role and significance of global civil society and non-state actors, including NGOs, in addressing global problems.
In this topic, focus on the way organisations and movements outside governments contribute to environmental politics.
They can attempt to influence:
public opinion
governments
international institutions
environmental policy
participation in environmental campaigns.
The important point is that states are not the only actors attempting to shape environmental governance.
How NGOs contribute to environmental governance
1. Bringing environmental concerns to governments
The Edexcel NGO definition explicitly identifies bringing citizens' concerns to governments as a function of NGOs.
Environmental organisations can therefore connect public environmental concerns with political decision-makers.
This matters because governments may change their priorities when environmental issues become politically significant.
2. Advocacy
NGOs can advocate environmental policies.
Advocacy means attempting to persuade political actors to adopt particular positions or actions.
This can contribute to environmental governance by keeping pressure on governments even when state leaders might otherwise prioritise economic or other interests.
3. Monitoring policy
Edexcel also identifies policy monitoring as an NGO function.
This is significant because signing an international agreement is not the same as implementing it.
Non-state actors can scrutinise whether governments' behaviour matches their stated environmental commitments.
This may increase political pressure for compliance.
4. Providing information
NGOs can encourage participation through the provision of information.
Environmental issues can therefore become part of wider public debate rather than being confined to negotiations among governments.
Information can increase awareness and mobilise people around environmental concerns.
5. Encouraging participation
NGOs and social movements can increase political participation.
Pearson's 2021 examiner report identifies the growth of environmental NGOs and social movements as evidence of increased public concern about environmental issues. Examples used in the report include:
Friends of the Earth
Extinction Rebellion
the global Schools' climate strike in early 2019.
These examples can be used to demonstrate that environmental politics extends beyond state institutions.
NGOs and changing environmental attitudes
The significance of NGOs is not limited to whether they can directly force a government to change policy.
They can also contribute to changes in the political agenda.
Pearson's 2021 material argues that the growth of national, regional and international environmental organisations can be interpreted as evidence of a major shift in attitudes towards environmental concerns.
This means an NGO can be influential even without formal legal authority.
It may help to:
raise awareness
↓
increase participation
↓
increase political pressure
↓
encourage governments to give environmental issues greater priority
This is a form of influence rather than direct state power.
Strengths of NGOs and global civil society
They can act across borders
Environmental problems are transnational.
Non-state actors organised internationally are therefore well placed to treat environmental problems as global rather than purely national issues.
They can maintain pressure on governments
Government priorities change.
NGOs can continue campaigning even when particular political leaders place less emphasis on the environment.
They can mobilise citizens
States and international institutions often operate through formal diplomatic processes.
Civil-society groups can engage citizens more directly and encourage wider political participation.
They can challenge state-centred politics
The growth of NGOs supports the argument that global politics is no longer exclusively about sovereign states.
Pearson's material contrasts a realist view, in which states remain predominant, with a liberal view that gives greater significance to international organisations and non-state actors.
Limits of NGOs and global civil society
NGOs also face important limitations.
The specification requires their role and significance, so your assessment should not assume that they have replaced governments.
NGOs are not sovereign states
NGOs do not possess the same formal powers as governments.
They cannot normally:
pass national laws
impose taxation
determine national energy policy
sign international treaties as sovereign states
directly enforce international environmental agreements.
They therefore remain heavily dependent upon persuading states or influencing public opinion.
Influence is not the same as authority
An NGO may successfully:
raise awareness
organise a campaign
monitor a government
advocate change
without securing the policy it wants.
The distinction is:
NGOs can influence political decision-making
but
governments normally retain the authority to make and implement state policy.
This provides an important counterweight to claims that global civil society has replaced the state.
Governments still dominate international agreements
International environmental treaties such as those developed through the UNFCCC are negotiated primarily by states.
NGOs may influence debates surrounding these negotiations, but sovereign governments remain central to formal commitments and implementation.
This reinforces the state-centred approach [Realism].
Realist interpretation
Realists emphasise that states are the key actors in global politics and that sovereignty remains central.
Applied to environmental governance, a realist may argue:
states pursue their national interests
economic priorities can outweigh collective environmental goals
governments decide whether to accept environmental commitments
NGOs can pressure states but cannot replace sovereign authority
international environmental institutions lack an overarching enforcement power.
The developed-versus-developing disagreement therefore fits the realist expectation that states will bargain according to their own interests.
Liberal interpretation
Liberals are more optimistic about:
complex interdependence
global governance
international organisations
the growing role of non-state actors.
A liberal can argue that environmental governance demonstrates that states are capable of co-operating because climate change affects them all.
NGOs and global civil society further expand the range of actors involved in solving global problems.
The growth of environmental organisations can therefore be used to support liberal arguments about global governance [Liberalism].
Realism and liberalism compared
Realist interpretation | Liberal interpretation |
Sovereign states remain the key actors | Global politics increasingly includes states, international institutions and non-state actors |
States prioritise national interests | Interdependence can encourage co-operation |
Developed and developing states bargain over costs | Institutions can help create agreements and norms |
NGOs lack formal state power | NGOs can shape agendas, information and participation |
Environmental co-operation remains fragile | Environmental governance demonstrates possibilities for collective action |
This comparison can add useful synoptic depth to 30-mark questions.
How far can NGOs overcome state sovereignty?
NGOs can weaken a completely state-centred model of global politics because they influence debates across national boundaries.
However, they do not eliminate sovereignty.
A useful judgement is:
NGOs can affect what governments want to do, but governments usually retain the formal authority to decide what they will do.
This is why NGOs are significant without necessarily being dominant.
How the obstacles interact
The strongest revision approach is to see the obstacles as connected rather than separate.
Sovereignty
States retain the final authority over much environmental policy.
Economic inequality
States have different levels of development and capacity.
Historical responsibility
Governments disagree about who caused the environmental problem.
Current responsibility
Major contemporary emitters face pressure to contribute more.
Measurement
Different measures produce different assessments of responsibility.
International institutions
Bodies such as the UNFCCC can facilitate agreement but have limited enforcement power.
NGOs and global civil society
Non-state actors can increase pressure, information and participation but cannot independently impose environmental policy.
Environmental governance is therefore a multi-actor system that still depends heavily upon states.
Which obstacle is most significant?
There is no single answer that must always be used.
A strong evaluation can distinguish between underlying and immediate causes.
Sovereignty may be the underlying obstacle because states possess the authority to accept or reject environmental action.
Developed-versus-developing divisions may be the major bargaining obstacle because states cannot agree on a fair distribution of costs.
Measurement and responsibility may deepen those divisions by producing competing definitions of fairness.
Weak enforcement by international institutions may explain why agreements do not translate reliably into action.
A high-level answer should compare these explanations rather than assume one automatically dominates.
Overall assessment of NGOs and global civil society
NGOs make a meaningful contribution to environmental governance because they can:
raise public awareness
provide information
advocate policies
monitor governments
mobilise citizens
bring environmental concerns to political leaders
keep environmental issues on the global agenda.
Pearson examiner material uses the growth of organisations and movements such as Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and the Schools' climate strike as evidence of increased attention to environmental problems.
However, their contribution remains primarily one of influence rather than sovereign authority.
States continue to control many of the mechanisms needed to turn pressure into binding environmental action.
The best conclusion is therefore not that NGOs are either powerful or powerless.
They are significant parts of global environmental governance, but their effectiveness is often mediated through the decisions of sovereign states.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Sovereignty | Absolute and unlimited power and authority. | Use when explaining why governments retain control over whether international environmental commitments are implemented. |
Non-state actor | A participant in international relations with significant power and influence that is not a state. | Use when analysing how global environmental politics extends beyond governments. |
NGO | A non-profit, voluntary citizens' group organised locally, nationally or internationally. | Use when assessing advocacy, monitoring, information and participation in environmental governance. |
Common but differentiated responsibility | The argument that environmental responsibility is shared but should differ according to factors such as development and responsibility for emissions. | Use when analysing disputes between developed and developing states. |
Global governance | The broad and complex process of decision making at a global level. | Use when assessing how states, international institutions and non-state actors collectively address environmental problems. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint: Treat the developed-versus-developing debate as an argument about responsibility, not simply a description of richer and poorer states. Pearson's 2022 materials reward analysis of historical emissions, contemporary emissions, per-capita measurement and economic support because these explain why states struggle to agree.
Examiner hint:Â Measurement can be a powerful analytical point. The 2022 examiner report highlighted a strong response that used China, India and the United States while explicitly discussing the disagreement over measuring emissions per capita.
Examiner hint:Â Use the different parts of the specification together. Stronger 2022 responses connected developed-versus-developing inequality with Rio, Copenhagen and Paris, shallow and deep ecology, realism, liberal complex interdependence and institutional weaknesses.
Examiner hint:Â NGOs should be used as evidence in an argument, not merely listed. The 2021 report praised stronger candidates who used the growth of environmental NGOs and movements, including Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and the Schools' climate strike, to demonstrate increased global attention to environmental concerns.
Examiner hint:Â In a 30-mark essay, do not leave AO3 until the final paragraph. Pearson's 2022 report specifically advises that AO1, AO2 and AO3 should ideally appear throughout the response.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying developing states do not accept responsibility for climate change
Why this is incorrect: The disagreement is more complex. Developing states may accept that climate change requires action while arguing that responsibility should be differentiated according to historical emissions, development, per-capita emissions or ability to pay.
How to improve: Write about different allocations of responsibility, not a simple divide between states that care and states that do not.
Mistake: Treating "developed" and "developing" as fixed positions with identical interests
Why this is incorrect: Pearson's materials show why the distinction can be complicated by rapidly developing major emitters such as China.
How to improve: Compare historical and contemporary responsibility rather than assuming every developed state or every developing state has the same position.
Mistake: Confusing total emissions with per-capita emissions
Why this is incorrect: A highly populated country can have very high total emissions while its emissions per person are lower.
How to improve: State clearly which measurement your argument is using and explain why that measurement affects perceived responsibility.
Mistake: Treating measurement as a purely technical issue
Why this is incorrect: Different measurements affect which states are expected to reduce emissions or bear financial costs.
How to improve: Always link measurement to political responsibility and fairness.
Mistake: Saying sovereignty makes international environmental agreements impossible
Why this is incorrect: Sovereign states have repeatedly reached environmental agreements.
The weakness is that states retain substantial authority over acceptance and implementation.
How to improve: Use a qualified argument:
sovereignty limits enforcement and consistency rather than preventing all co-operation.
Mistake: Assuming NGOs have formal power over governments
Why this is incorrect: NGOs can advocate, monitor, inform and mobilise, but they generally lack the formal authority possessed by sovereign states.
How to improve: Distinguish influence from decision-making authority.
Mistake: Simply listing Friends of the Earth or Extinction Rebellion
Why this is incorrect: An example earns more analytical value when you explain what it demonstrates.
How to improve: Use a chain such as:
growth of environmental movements → greater citizen participation → increased pressure on political leaders → environmental issues gain greater political attention.
Mistake: Explaining only economic inequality in a broad 30-mark question
Why this is incorrect: Pearson's 2022 examination required candidates to weigh economic inequalities against the actions of states and political institutions.
How to improve: Consider competing explanations, including:
sovereignty
institutional enforcement
national economic interests
political leadership
developed-versus-developing divisions.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define a non-state actor. (1)
Answer:
A participant in international relations with significant power and influence that is not a state. (1 mark)
Question 2
Identify one function performed by NGOs. (1)
Answer:
Any one of:
bringing citizens' concerns to governments
advocating policies
monitoring policies
providing information
encouraging political participation
performing service or humanitarian functions.
(1 mark)
Question 3
Explain two ways in which state sovereignty can obstruct international environmental co-operation. (4)
Indicative answer:
Sovereign governments retain substantial control over domestic environmental policy, so international institutions cannot automatically force them to implement commitments. (2 marks)
Governments may prioritise national economic interests over global environmental objectives, making agreement on demanding international commitments harder to achieve. (2 marks)
Question 4
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
State A has industrialised for more than a century and has high historical emissions. State B industrialised more recently and now produces greater total annual emissions, but has a much larger population and lower emissions per person.
Explain why State A and State B may disagree about responsibility for environmental action. (6)
Indicative answer:
State B could argue that historical responsibility matters because State A benefited from decades of carbon-intensive industrialisation. It could also argue for a per-capita measure, which would reduce its apparent responsibility because its population is larger. State A could instead emphasise State B's current total emissions and argue that climate change cannot be tackled unless major contemporary emitters accept substantial reductions. The disagreement therefore depends upon how responsibility is defined and measured.
Question 5
Explain why economic divisions between developed and developing states can slow international environmental action. (6)
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit developed explanation including:
developed states have produced a large share of historical emissions
developing states may argue that developed economies should therefore bear a larger burden
developing states may prioritise economic development
poorer states may require financial support to make environmental changes
developed states may demand action from large contemporary developing-world emitters
disagreements over fairness make collective commitments harder to negotiate.
Question 6
Examine why disagreements over responsibility and measurement create obstacles to global environmental governance. (12)
Indicative mark scheme:
AO1: Knowledge and understanding
Students may explain:
developed states have contributed significantly to historical emissions
current emissions patterns can differ from historical patterns
rapidly developing economies can have high total emissions
developing states may favour per-capita measurement
responsibility may also be linked to capacity to pay
emissions connected with production for overseas consumers further complicate responsibility
common but differentiated responsibility recognises shared but unequal obligations.
AO2: Analysis
Students may analyse that:
historical measures strengthen the argument for greater developed-world responsibility
current total emissions strengthen demands for action by major developing economies
per-capita figures can alter which states appear most responsible
disagreement about measurement creates disagreement about fairness
if states regard obligations as unfair, sovereign governments are less likely to co-operate
measurement disputes therefore directly obstruct international agreement rather than merely creating statistical disagreements.
Question 7
Examine the role and significance of NGOs in addressing environmental issues. (12)
Indicative mark scheme:
AO1: Knowledge and understanding
Students may explain that NGOs can:
bring citizens' concerns to governments
advocate environmental policies
monitor policies
provide information
encourage political participation
operate at local, national and international levels.
Relevant examples supported by Pearson materials include:
Friends of the Earth
Extinction Rebellion
the global Schools' climate strike as a wider social movement.
AO2: Analysis
Students may explain that:
advocacy can increase political pressure upon governments
monitoring can highlight gaps between international commitments and state behaviour
information provision can increase public awareness
participation can make environmental issues more politically significant
cross-border organisation demonstrates the growth of global civil society
however, NGOs lack sovereign authority and generally cannot impose binding environmental policies
their effectiveness therefore often depends upon influencing states rather than replacing them.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that state sovereignty is the main obstacle to effective international environmental co-operation. (30)
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should assess sovereignty against alternative obstacles.
Arguments supporting the view may include:
states retain control over domestic implementation
international environmental institutions have limited enforcement powers
governments may prioritise national economic interests
changing political leadership can alter commitment
sovereign states can resist demanding international targets
intergovernmental governance depends upon voluntary co-operation
the tragedy of the commons encourages governments to allow others to bear more of the costs.
Arguments challenging the view may include:
economically developed and developing states disagree over historical responsibility
large contemporary emitters complicate the traditional developed-versus-developing division
states disagree over total versus per-capita measurement
economic inequalities restrict the ability of some states to act
disputes over financial assistance reduce trust
vague commitments and weak institutional design may be independent causes of slow progress
NGOs and non-state actors can pressure sovereign governments towards greater action.
AO3 evaluation:
A strong answer should distinguish an underlying political obstacle from more immediate bargaining problems.
Sovereignty may be the most fundamental obstacle because it allows states to decide whether they will implement international commitments. However, disagreements over fairness, economic inequality and responsibility often explain why sovereign states choose not to co-operate fully.
Question 9
Evaluate the view that divisions between developed and developing states are the main reason for slow progress on environmental issues. (30)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
historical emissions create arguments for greater developed-world responsibility
developing states can argue that they should retain opportunities for economic development
per-capita measurement can produce different conclusions from total emissions
developing states may demand economic assistance
disputes over common but differentiated responsibility create difficulties in allocating costs
contemporary emissions from rapidly developing states make agreement about responsibility more complicated.
Arguments challenging the view may include:
state sovereignty independently restricts enforcement
international institutions remain intergovernmental
environmental agreements can contain vague or long-term commitments
changing political leaders can alter state policy
states disagree over the type of environmental response required
national economic interests can obstruct action within both developed and developing states
inequalities within states can also generate political resistance.
Overall judgement:
Developed-versus-developing divisions are highly significant because they turn climate change into a dispute about global economic fairness as well as environmental protection.
However, the division becomes an obstacle largely because sovereign states remain able to defend their individual interests. Sovereignty and inequality therefore reinforce one another.
Question 10
Evaluate the view that NGOs and global civil society are now more important than states in addressing environmental problems. (30)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
environmental NGOs operate across national borders
NGOs bring citizens' concerns to governments
they advocate and monitor environmental policies
they provide information and encourage political participation
environmental movements have increased the political visibility of climate concerns
Pearson examiner material identifies substantial growth in environmental NGOs and social movements
their growth supports liberal arguments that non-state actors have become increasingly important in global politics.
Arguments challenging the view may include:
states retain sovereignty
governments pass and implement national environmental policy
states negotiate international environmental agreements
states control many of the financial and regulatory tools required for environmental change
NGOs cannot normally compel governments to act
international environmental institutions themselves depend heavily upon states
realist analysis therefore continues to regard governments as the dominant actors.
AO3 evaluation:
A strong judgement should distinguish agenda-setting influence from formal political authority.
NGOs and global civil society can be highly significant in changing public attitudes, mobilising participation and pressuring governments. However, states remain more important when effectiveness is measured by the power to make, finance and enforce environmental policy.
The strongest conclusion is therefore that non-state actors have broadened global environmental governance without replacing sovereign states.
Comments