Rethinking International Relations in the Age of the Anthropocene |
In recent years, the concept of the Anthropocene has received significant attention within International Relations (IR). The term denotes a geological epoch in which human activity has become a primary force shaping the Earth’s systems (Crutzen, 2002). For many scholars, the Anthropocene challenges established approaches in IR by raising questions that transcend state borders and position humanity’s relationship with the planet at the centre of global politics. However, this article argues that the Anthropocene does not constitute a complete rupture within the discipline of IR. Rather than replacing existing theoretical frameworks, Anthropocene scholarship expands and refines approaches already present in the field, particularly within constructivist and critical traditions. Interpreting recent developments as improvements to existing frameworks avoids the wholesale rejection of traditional IR approaches and preserves the analytical foundations necessary for responding to emerging global challenges.
This analysis questions claims that the Anthropocene signals either a revolutionary transformation of IR or the end of the discipline altogether (Agathangelou, 2016; Cudworth and Hobden, 2013). Several existing approaches within IR have already questioned state-centric and anthropocentric understandings of global politics, particularly within Constructivism, Feminism, and Postcolonial traditions. In this context, Anthropocene scholarship continues a critical engagement with the assumptions and boundaries of the discipline rather than introducing an entirely new mode of analysis. The novelty introduced by the Anthropocene lies primarily in the planetary and ecological focus that IR now addresses, rather than in the critical methodologies used for analysis. Consequently, the Anthropocene encourages the discipline to reconsider human-centred and state-centred assumptions while adapting existing theoretical frameworks to address emerging planetary concerns.
This discussion first defines the Anthropocene and outlines its consequences for IR. It then examines how Anthropocene scholarship draws on constructivist and critical approaches to reexamine traditional understandings of security, agency, and global politics. Ultimately, the Anthropocene should be understood as an evolution and expansion of existing IR debates, rather than a fundamental overturning of the discipline.
The Anthropocene in International Relations
To assess how the Anthropocene transforms IR, it is necessary to explain what it is and its consequences. The term Anthropocene was first introduced by Crutzen (2002, p. 23), who defined it as a “human-dominated” geological era emerging after the Holocene. The Anthropocene is marked by the significant and unprecedented influence of human activities on Earth’s geological and ecological systems. As Chakrabarty (2009, p. 206) states, “Humans now wield a geological force”: they substantially impact Earth’s geology and ecosystems, shaping natural processes such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and land use alteration. In the Anthropocene era,
humans […] are not only the dominant species on the planet, but they also collectively constitute […] a geological force that determines the climate of the planet much to the detriment of civilization itself (Chakrabarty, 2012, p.15).
humans […] are not only the dominant species on the planet, but they also collectively constitute […] a geological force that determines the climate of the planet much to the detriment of civilization itself (Chakrabarty, 2012, p.15).
This implies the Anthropocene has brought many planetary challenges, profoundly altered Earth’s ecosystems, and worsened environmental crises. From climate change to biodiversity loss, pollution, deforestation, and resource depletion, the consequences of human activity have reached unprecedented levels (Chakrabarty, 2012).
Recent scholarship on the Anthropocene seeks to redefine modernity by examining the mechanisms of exclusion embedded within both IR and modern Western science. In doing so, scholars advocate for greater ontological inclusivity and plurality within the discipline. Rather than focusing exclusively on epistemological questions — questions concerning how knowledge is produced — Anthropocene literature argues that IR must also engage more deeply with ontological questions concerning the nature of being and reality itself. From this perspective, modernist approaches in IR recognise the existence of different perspectives and interpretations, while still assuming that these perspectives refer to the same underlying reality. Indeed, scholars such as Law (2015) argue that liberal modernity tends to produce dominant systems of knowledge that marginalise or erase realities that do not conform to this “one-world world.” An ontological approach, in contrast, would recognise difference as irreducible and accept the coexistence of multiple realities rather than multiple perspectives on the same reality. Within Anthropocene scholarship, this emphasis on ontological difference challenges the tendency of traditional IR to universalise Western assumptions and apply them to non-Western contexts. To address this limitation, Stengers (2005) proposes a cosmopolitical project in which the cosmos is understood as a pluriverse composed of multiple and divergent worlds. This perspective extends recognition beyond the human and treats different forms of existence and belonging as equally valid. The Anthropocene, therefore, encourages IR scholars to move beyond strictly human-centred understandings of reality and to engage more seriously with ontological plurality, including forms of being that exist outside conventional Western and anthropocentric frameworks.
Engaging with ontological questions in IR involves recognising multiple realities and forms of being as equally legitimate. This perspective challenges the human–nature divide on which liberal modernity has traditionally been based. Chakrabarty (2018) argues that the Anthropocene disrupts conventional understandings of modernity and human exceptionalism by highlighting the interconnectedness between human activity and environmental change. Similarly, Serres (1995) argues that modernity has treated nature as an external, objective entity existing independently of human influence. However, the Anthropocene shows that planetary transformations are increasingly shaped by human activity. Humans have become central agents in altering Earth’s systems, creating a relationship of mutual influence between humanity and the environment (Yusoff, 2013). Building on this argument, Latour (2014) contends that the Earth can no longer be understood as a passive background to human politics. Instead, it has regained agency and subjectivity, challenging assumptions of human exceptionalism and reinforcing the interconnectedness between human and non-human worlds.
Moreover, embracing ontological questions means transitioning from the modernist notion of the “global” to the idea of the “planetary.” Chakrabarty (2018) argues that while “global” often conveys universality and control rooted in modernist thinking, “planetary” suggests a more complex and interconnected understanding of human-environment relations. The concept of the Anthropocene requires IR to shift from a global to a planetary perspective, acknowledging the entanglement of human activities with planetary systems and processes. This distinction challenges traditional ideas of human mastery over the globe. It highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to international affairs that includes non-human elements. As humanity faces planetary-scale challenges, their interconnectedness requires thinking beyond traditional state borders. In the Anthropocene, recognising........