Abstract

International Relations has approached environmental issues primarily through a regime theoretical framework. It has been argued that this leads to a situation where IR provides little, if any, critical analysis of environmental issues. It treats environmental issues much like any other question of international governance, and does not consider the possibility that the study of environmental issues may require a reconsideration of the its theoretical frameworks. There are fundamental theoretical differences between the intellectual branch of radical environmentalism, and regime theory, and these can to a significant degree help to explain the lack of critical analysis of environmental issues in IR. The possibility of regime theory adopting a more critical approach to environmental issues is virtually excluded by the fact that it relies on a positivist‐inspired approach to social science. The notion of a value‐free science, dominated by instrumental rationality and an uncritical orientation towards intersubjective meanings, excludes, or at least makes difficult, serious engagement with the issues that are central to ecological thought. Considerable post‐positivistic theoretical developments have taken place within IR during the last two decades. However, theoretical IR approaches that do not rely on positivistic epistemological assumptions of regime theory are not automatically compatible with ecological thought. Here lies a substantial challenge for IR theory.