Международное сотрудничество, сталкивающееся с новыми угрозами безопасности: теоретическое объяснение

“Climate change is the defining issue of our time – and we are at a defining moment”.
Antonio Guterres delivers his speech on 10 September 2018
Modern-day emerging threats are complex. We are in the time of human competition, discord, and conflicts where cooperation seems vital but unachievable. The challenges have global scope and impact and do not belong to one specific area. Historically, all civilizations faced the problems without knowing or being aware of it. However, the problems that we are going to face have some indications and as Mr. Taalas argues “we are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it” (WMO 2018). According to the WEF (2018) report, the main problems that have both impact and likelihood, are going to be climate change and climate-related problems that will cause additional global challenges.
In the topic of the thesis, I used the word “new” security challenges because of the upcoming problems that the world is going to face. Sometimes these new challenges are called as “unknown-unknowns” (Van der Berg & Hutten n.d.) and I have also indicated it in Figure 1.1. Although, these challenges are climate change related, their uniqueness let us interpret it as “new” challenges. For example, SRMER (2017) explains that rising temperature can cause deformation of train rails which is going to be a new challenge for all.
Moreover, we cannot take traditional ways of thinking in terms of security because it can be biased and as Williams (2008, p. 4) denotes “neither neutral nor natural”. For so many years, states defined security in an “excessively narrow way” which can create “false image” (Ullman 1983, p. 129-133). As Ullman (1983, p. 132) asks when state squanders money on the military but cannot provide workplaces, clean water, weather, cannot provide justice system, can we talk about security?! Concomitantly, I should explain why I chose security over safety. According to Maurice et al. (2001, p. 238), they differ in the source of the problem. The word “safety” means that source of harm or danger derives from non-human, in other words, non-intentional processes, such as earthquakes and hurricanes and being kept from these dangers. Albrecht (2017) calls theses safety challenges as “natural disaster” and explains that non-human related problems, such as, earthquakes, volcanos happened before human beings which were “hazards”. On the other hand, the definition of security is related to danger or challenge that is intentionally created, or socially constructed and requires to tackle them. There are some accidents that can be added to both categories, such as, Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, Chernobyl disaster and so on. These catastrophes cover manufacture and external risks which urges cooperation in order to be able to tackle problems because they are becoming complex and tangled. If we see the rise of sea level, we cannot directly label it as safety challenge because it can also happen with an increase of gas emission to the atmosphere which leads to global warming and as a result it creates the rise of the ocean level because of the ice melting. So, we should address both safety and security challenges because they are “complex” issues as Van der Berg & Hutten (n.d., p. 7) argues. Therefore, I chose security as a word that comprises both sides and indicates the complex nature of the problems. Additionally, Dewulf (2007) argues that “collaboration” is the most precise definition of the condition. However, Gray (1989) explains that collaboration is somewhere between cooperation and coordination and inclined to versatility, i.e. to the changes. According to the Cambridge and Oxford Dictionary, collaboration means working of two or more people together which is similar to cooperation. Moreover, Gray (1989) indicates cooperation as a more formal working system, and in this term, we should think the collaborative ways that also comprise formality. Therefore, cooperation also encompasses collaboration but in a formal way. Although I will argue the role of individuals in IR with a new explanation, my main argument is to reach formal decision making and cooperation in high politics.
This study has been initiated with two main hypothesizes:
H1. Human action causes global warming which leads to future security challenges
H2. Theories of International Relations explain the ongoing problems but not the future.
These hypothesizes emerged through my educational years and motivated me to embark on this research. I have taken these hypothesizes as guidance which then deepened by asking three main questions that will be explained in the Research Questions section.
When it comes to the new challenges that are happening or will happen, are sequentially tied to each other. The melting of ice sheets causes a rise in the sea level which at the same time threatens cities below the sea level. Moreover, the rise of temperature makes the weather more changing and disrupts the time period of the weather creating longer drought seasons, more precipitations and so on. Concomitantly, it causes the change of the pattern of how flora and fauna inhabited. When there are longer droughts it harms some plants and vice versa. Lastly, when there is a high temperature, there is going to be more smog in the air because of “ozone particles” (National Geographic 2017) and causes additional health problems which results in a short lifetime. This chain of problems continues disrupting the equilibrium of the world system which is mainly related to IR (Pereira 2017). Environmental degradation, global warming, ozone depletion, etc. and their role in the emergence of new types of problems are global in impact and scale. However, these problems emerge from different locals, i.e. states which becomes global, therefore, the problems in this study are “Glocal” in character as Roudometof (2005) indicates.
These problems require a possible explanation from IR Theories in order to understand how they think cooperation can happen and more concrete, how do they perceive the future of the world system. Finding these explanations requires assessment tasks of the main theories of IR, namely, Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism and Green Theory. Walt (1998) explains that the diversity of theories is better for explaining international politics. Therefore, not one but using several perspectives from different theories and comparing them can reveal us the explanations of the major theories of IR. They can also help us to find predictive descriptions about upcoming challenges and climate change. However, logical assessment of these explanations is also vital which delivers us to the new findings and explanations.
Moreover, theories try to maximize themselves because of the flaws that emerge compared to other theories and all of their weak spots which create chances for the “intellectuals” to adopt a new way of thinking (Walt 1998). Crawford (2016, cited in Pereira 2017) argues that IR should be updated with a new way of thinking and methods. Also, Pereira (2017, p. 16) claims that seeing the future in IR can be possible if it avoids the “archaic” way of theorizing and embraces new ways of thinking. By assessing the traditional theories and finding their gaps, I will try to better explain the upcoming challenges and cooperative behavior. A new approach that will be explained in the last chapter (see Chapter III) will possess futuristic and predictive ideas which can be related to “problem-solving” perspective that is different from the critical theories (Baylis, Smith & Owens 2014, p. 236). Taking critical view against all theories and showing their missing points also crucial. First of all, this approach will help to deliver predictability tool to IR that other traditional theories lack according to Walt (1998). Pereira (2017) argues that an explanation of interstate relations is vital for IR, but environmental problems require something much more. This theory does not mean to stipulate prophecies or narrate ideas in that way. We can see several writings from Buzan (1991), Huntington (1996), and Kaplan (1994) where they gave some hints about the future but without its method. Therefore, there is also a need for being able to acquire predictive tools that can help us to explain the future. Moreover, taking IR as a natural process is needed for expressing a new approach that is bonded to the processes which are happening per se. Without accepting this “naturality”, the approach cannot use the positivist method as Fierke (2013, p. 194) explains. Secondly, this approach will help to visualize international politics from up above helping to provide a big picture of international politics.
I will illustrate a quick guide to the thesis structure: Thesis is based on three questions that are divided by three chapters respectively. This way of classification of the thesis is also related to three approaches of security studies: explore, understand, and do. The chapter starts with Tree of Challenges (1.1), then continues to, Source of the problems (1.2), Actors (1.3), Globalization (1.4), and Necessity of Cooperation (1.5). The first chapter is based on searching challenges that make the cooperation vital. In order to grasp the idea of challenges, I am going to illustrate them in the shape of a tree named as “Tree of Challenges” (see Figure 1.1), pointing the roots of future challenges, and the emergence of future problems itself by visualizing them as branches that disperses from global warming. In order to explain upcoming challenges and prove its possibility, I will use scientific investigations, i.e. reports (see Literature Review). Subsequently, I will examine the source of problems, and lastly, figure out why cooperation is necessary. In the Actors section, I will indicate the role of five major states and companies (using NAZCA) in releasing GhG globally by using different tools. The globalization section is about investigating its role in world affairs and its effect on IR with upcoming challenges. Here I mention “Glocality” of problems where global and local levels gave birth to this phenomenon (Roudometof 2005, p. 123). Last section (see 1.5) will explain why cooperation is necessary by examining official papers and reports of organizations and governments.
In chapter two, I am going to assess the theories of IR about future problems and cooperation. The main aim is to find out how these theories explain cooperation, what are their future predictions and visions, and how they explain climate-related problems. Assessment of the theories serves as understanding their narration about the future, cooperation, and climate change. I will first start to examine Realist theory (see section 2.1) and its different schools. Then, I will assess another theory – Liberalism (see section 2.2) and its different parts, namely, Institutionalism (see section 2.2.1) and Regime theory (see section 2.2.2). Moreover, another major theory, Constructivism (see section 2.3) has been analyzed in order to find an answer to the above-stated factors. Lastly, Green Theory (see section 2.4) has been added as a new theory with related explanations that cover climate change and cooperative actions.
In the last chapter, I will try to explain my own approach by evaluating the main theories of IR. The chapter starts with Dilemmas and Dichotomies (see section 3.1) where dilemmas and paradoxes will be indicated using white/blue papers and actual behaviors of states, errors of blue papers, and paradoxes in scientific findings. Finding these dilemmas is also followed by digging out the gaps (see Loopholes 3.2) of traditional theories that will lead us to suggest new explanation in Phases section (see 3.3) together with Responsibilities (see section 3.3.1). The approach itself is dialectic which means it is constructed by merging criticism and acceptance of different theories of international relations. Phases are divided into several phases according to the time period and start from 1648 as a start of the Westphalian system. Modernization phase will cover the Industrial Revolution and the transition to ideological phase happens with the clash of Marxism during the 19th century. Ideological phase itself is divided into two subphases: capitalist and democratic phases. Moreover, the eco phase is the entrance to the cooperative system of IR states and the word eco means ecological. Apo-tech phase can happen if cooperation in eco-phase will not work out and the word apo-tech means “apocalyptic & technological”. Also, the exodus phase is the last stage that will entail moving to outer space. Moreover, the Responsibility section (see 3.3.1) will explain who can be responsible for building cooperation that can tackle upcoming challenges. Lastly, in the Next Step (see section 3.4), I will provide recommendations concerning cooperation achievement between “bottom and up”.

Aims
As I explained in the Introduction (see section I), new challenges are threatening the world and security of people globally. These challenges should be tackled by states with cooperative relations, whereas, recent processes indicate its absence in IR. Moreover, theoretical pundits hail for new explanations and theories that can explain these problems and help us to anticipate problems and create a contingency explanation for them. To achieve an intended explanation, we need clear and classified aims.
My main aim is to clarify that climate change and related new challenges are at stake and find an explanation for building cooperation to tackle them.
This aim requires to find and reveal upcoming challenges using scientific reports and data of governments and organizations, the encompass credibility and reliability in their information. Assessment of the ongoing problems is crucial because the creation of predictive theory and “conceivable solutions” require a detailed description of the problems (Rittel & Weber, 1973, p. 136). According to Felix Creutzig (2017), the world will face cultivable soil issues which will dwindle to the size of China. So, we need to define the upcoming challenges first. The first part of the thesis helps to know that there are problems are available and it requires cooperation in order to be able to confront it.
Moreover, in order to reach the aim, I need to identify how theories explain cooperation in the advent of upcoming and what predictions they provide about the future of IR. Safety and security problems demand immediate collective response by states but cooperation is in the doldrums per se which requires explanation. Lastly, revealing the gaps in the theories of IR that explains the cooperation and form a new approach by eliminating these gaps presented in the previous literature.

Research questions
• What are the new security challenges that make international cooperation necessary?
Getting information about the future challenges begs the question why are these problems happening, who creates them, and how to tackle them? Aiming to answer these questions, concurrently, requires tasks to be implemented. My main task to answer this question will be to explore the data from reports about climate change and upcoming challenges. In this case, I will shed light on the emerging security problems and their source of emergency and required cooperative actions.
• To what extent do the theories of International Relations explain security cooperation against future challenges?
In order to find out explanations about these problems and conflictual behaviors, I think we need probe and asses theories of IR. This can help us to achieve our intended goals. First of all, it will provide us information about why states defect and cooperate. Secondly, searching for predictive information can help us to understand how these problems will be solved. The main task for this question will be a literature review of theories of IR.
• What are the methods of international cooperation against future challenges and which actors should be responsible for its formation?
The main task in this question is to compare those theories and identify the gaps and explain them. After the discussion, construct ideas and a new approach that will avoid those flaws. Rittel & Weber (1973) argued that being able to predict future problems, demands questions and solutions. This question can help to find the right object of the study and answer the challenges that block cooperative actions.

Literature Review
The literature review is divided into two sections, namely, primary and secondary sources. In the primary section, I will review the documents and reports from governments and organizations pointing their similarities and differences that result in dichotomies. These reports are based on historical analysis and comparison of frequencies using scientific researches within the given time period and these reports are released by international organization, countries, NGOs and so on. Similarly, I will review the secondary literature by exploring their main points.

Primary sources
To start with the first resolution, it is stated that “changes in climate have an impact on development” and can be solved from “global framework” that includes “all mankind” (GAR 1988, para. 7; para. 11). The same resolution classifies the climate change as “a common concern of mankind” and “urges and encourages” states to approach to the issue seriously with all available means that can also inform “international community” with up to date information. Moreover, the resolution number 201 (GAR 2006, para. 2-7) calls climate change as a global issue and states that the UN is worried about all countries but especially about the developing or least developed countries and the “small island states” that experiences problems which derive from climate change.
Also, “gender” role in the face of “women”, mentioned as a key factor in sustainable development and in addressing upcoming issues (GAR 2008, para. 18). In another resolution, we can see the statement such as “deeply concerned” which is related to the climate change that “have possible security implications” (GAR 2009, para. 9).
Lastly, the UN resolutions (GAR 2000; 2006, para. 2; 2008, para. 20) indicates “principle of common but differentiated responsibilities” and aiming to achieve “ultimate objective” under UNFCC. The same resolution (GAR 2008, para. 2) also indicates that joining the cooperative initiative should be backed by actions not only with the adoption of it.
There are several reports available that try to take the attention of policymakers and ordinary people to climate change, global warming, and upcoming challenges. IPCC (2014) panel consists of 195 worldwide members and they are informing all the actors of IR with up-to-date scientific reports with “objectivity and transparency” (although having some mistakes – see section 3.1). IPCC (2014; SMP 2018) report does not only provides scientific assessment but also explains the possible problems to politicians with a summary of the report. The report (IPCC 2014, p.76-102) indicates that cooperation can be possible when “tangible and equitable” results are available. Moreover, the report argues that there is no single option to tackle the problem but “effective implementation” requires cooperation of stakeholders, connection of aims and targets which is also indicated by ESPAS (2015, p. 8) and categorizes cooperation in “international, regional, national and sub-national” levels (IPCC 2014, p. 94-102). The report also mentions institutions and explains that their improvement can help to regulate cooperation (IPCC 2014, p. 94) because states are not capable enough to avoid future challenges that we are going to face which will extinguish our health, environment, and etc. (USGCRP 2018). ESPAS (2015, p. 12-13) also indicates the role of “people power” that will “affect” other actors and can happen with “empowerment of ordinary people” with “mobility and connectivity”. Moreover, technological development with common support and share, also, financial support can have a remarkable effect in achieving targets (IPCC 2014, p. 102).
Dzaugis et al. (2018, p. 1493) and IPCC (2014, p. 56- 77) argue that reduction in the amount of the emission of GhG will help to reduce the danger of climate change related problems. Without the reduction of GhG and “adaptation efforts” we cannot achieve “long-term” solutions (USGCRP 2018, p. 27). It may not happen during one or two decades but as the report argues, it will lower slowly. Problems deriving from climate change will grow without any plans to tackle it and our future depends on today’s decisions which “will either broaden or limit options” to lower the possible future effects of climate change (Jay et al., 2018, p. 34). Because not acting fast makes it costlier and takes more time to solve climate-related problems that may bring additional “technological, economic, social and institutional” problems (IPCC 2014, p. v). Human-caused climate change “will persist for decades to millennia” and it’s “[s]elf-reinforcing cycles” will quicken anthropogenic shifts changing the ecosystem of the earth that will be different from the recent past experiences. According to USGCRP (2018) report, it is stated that models that provide information about climate change “may be more likely to underestimate than to overestimate” the climate-related changes (Hayhoe et al. 2018, p. 74-102). It means that “decisions made today” will predict the future of the world tomorrow (USGCRP 2018, p. 26). Also, balancing global temperature will not happen in parallel everywhere because of “intrinsic” nature the world (IPCC 2014, p. 16).
DoD report (2019, p. 2-16) that is released in January of 2019 stated the implications of climate change as “national security issue” that affects all military infrastructure. The future is defined with 20 years in DoD report (2019), whereas, this number is defined by ESPAS (2015, p. 8) as 15 years believing the advent of “new game changers”. According to the ESPAS report (2015, p. 13), the “people power” will show itself in the governments and in the business spheres putting more limits and control over it. Additionally, the transformation of the attitudes and behaviors will stimulate a “bottom-up” approach, whereas, without “global citizenship”. They (ESPAS 2015, p. 13) explain that the emergence of intelligent individuals can have its future consequences too but the European continent is the best place “for intelligent responses to new expectations”.
Moreover, SRMER (2009) also indicates climate-related challenges arguing that it affects “global, regional, subregional [sic] and national levels”. Although the report explains global problems, it particularly focuses on Russian territory. They mention heat-related death and health problems, air pollution in major Russian cities, water contamination, etc. Additionally, the report mentions the future might be challenges that will derive from extreme warming.
Secondary sources
Müller (2013) focuses on security between states and talks about it as “organized instruments of force”. Williams (2008) in his book takes an explanatory way to yield an overview of challenges and institutions of the security field. According to Paul Williams (2008), the meaning of security is elastic and “there can be no consensus as to its meaning”.
Kaplan (1994) anticipated the future in terms of environmental problems arguing that wars and conflicts will happen that will surpass the national level which will make regulation of these conflicts hard for states. Kaplan (1994, p. 11) argued a quarter century ago saying that in order to project the problems of the “next fifty years, … one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war” – especially indicating the roles of the last two that is the center of “doughnut”.“[F]uture wars” will start from environmental scarcities because “we’re degrading earth’s best soil” (Creutzig 2017; Kaplan 1994). Creutzig (2017) argues that the overuse of lands leads to a more dangerous future. Therefore, useable lands that should be doubled in the future in order to support livelihoods. Moreover, the cleaning atmosphere will require implanted trees in huge lands equal to the size of India. GhG emission affects all humanity not immediately but over time (Sachs 2015; IPCC 2014, p. 102), therefore, noticing it can be hard for people. As Sachs (2015) explains, climate change is like a frog is thrown into slowly boiling water. Trap like the situation will kill frog unlikely from hot water that frog reflects with a shock effect. These problems are the main concern of IR because they disrupt its equilibrium (Pereira 2017).
Scholars especially indicate the flaws of IR theories in explaining ongoing problems and predicting the future (Terhalle & Depledge 2013; Pereira 2017; Walt 1998). All theories have a weak spot that they cannot explain how states “develop interests and perceptions” about security cooperation (Müller 2013; Pereira 2017; Walt 1998). Terhalle & Depledge (2013) explain the deficits of IR Theories that could not explain and see the ongoing processes. Pereira (2017, p. 16) claims that seeing the future in IR can be possible if it avoids the “archaic” way of theorizing and embraces the new ways of thinking. Theories of IR have some difficulties in explaining the future problems as Rosenberg (2016, cited in Pereira 2017, p. 3) articulates it “prison in [political science]” and we need to free it from this trap by a new way of thinking. Projecting the future exactly can be a naïve assumption, whereas, trying to build a new approach for it is my main aim. Moreover, another argument is that theories are “one way” for the constantly changing world (Pereira 2017). Walt (1998) also compares theories by indicating their “flaws” arguing that diversity is good in order to see these gaps. Oddly, Rittel & Webber (1973, p. 135-136) argued that “theory is inadequate for decent forecasting” and “social problems” are repetitive and cannot be solved which was also indicated by realist proponents.
Moreover, scholars also indicate the role of comparison that can help us to better understand the problems and categorization (Renn 1992; Walt 1998). As Pereira (2017) argues, IR should not be a closed system that eliminates contributions from other subjects. Because it explains the world interaction system that comprises in itself a plethora of actors, ideas, actions, etc., therefore, it requires a timely update with new approaches. Therefore, new approaches in a comparative manner can deliver new insights to IR.
The urgency of cooperation is indicated by scholars that can help to tackle upcoming challenges (Williams 2008; Dewulf 2007; Van den Berg & Hutten n.d.; Ullman 1983). Dewulf (2007) add interest and “domain factor” to this relationship that can help to unite all the different stakeholders. de Coninck (2018, p. 353) mentions the “transboundary” effect of future challenges and argues that this kind of problem requires also global conformation. Dewulf (2007) explains “multi-actor domain” where a single actor became weak in front of “wicked” problems and this kind of situation requires the collaboration of different stakeholders. Ullman (1983) also explained center and periphery relation and mentioned the role of cooperation that can eliminate this gap. Dewulf (2007, p. 1-6) argues that collaboration derives from interdependence where they share “interests and needs” and it is “only viable response” because stakeholders can only solve small “portion of the problem”. As Williams (2008, p. 9) argues, the providers of security can be in “many shapes and sizes” and the states are not the one and only “important” player in the security field (Williams, 2008, p. 4). Limiting emission of CO2 and keeping the world temperature around 1.5°C requires rapid changes in the “next 10–20 years” (Coninck 2018, p. 392) and this fast transition require “people’s support, public-sector interventions, and private-sector cooperation” (Coninck 2018, p. 392).
Moreover, Dewulf (2007, p. 3) also explains that every actor should “appreciate” cooperation and should open ways for its implementation, However, Müller (2013) defines the hardships of cooperation among the hostile states. He (Müller, 2013, p. 608) mentions three challenges of globalization that made cooperation harder: the emergence of new actors, the role of failed states, and lastly, the advent of new issues. However, he points out that these problems that derive from globalization do not avoid the need for cooperation. Creutzig (2017) then turns to explain common land assumption, explaining that taxing can be the option for protecting lands and this requires global regulation. Chester et al. (2011) clarify the “collective conflict management” role in addressing world problems and assisting in peacebuilding. They explain “CCM” as a voluntary organization without rules where cooperation depends on the severity of the problem which involves private and public spheres. However, they argue that “CCM” can be effective when leader countries or organizations take the lead that is also mentioned by (Dewulf 2007, p. 8-9) which can eliminate “uncertainties and ambiguities”.
The role of the states is crucial from internal and external sides and citizens rely on it (Ullman 1983, 130). According to the “social contract,” theory people left their “state of nature” where people lived as they wanted to be in order to get security from the government. The one who provided the security became sovereign where people relied on it (Chandler 2009, p. 126). This argument is also backed by Rittberger et. al. where they state that states are keeping their “primacy” and have not surrendered (2010, cited in Müller 2013, p. 620). Moreover, the role of local government also indicated by de Connick (2018, p. 354).
Additionally, Müller (2013, p. 608) explains the rise of new actors because of globalization, where, he explains that their relations do not mean that it will rest on hard means. New relations, such as, “accommodated and being accommodated” will be at stake. These relations explained by Terhalle & Depledge (2013) mentioning how emerging powers showed their assertiveness in power relations that ignored “enmeshed” institutions, organizations, and regimes. Terhalle & Depledge (2013) also point out why “post-Westphalian” order did not happen by pointing out the role of China and the US in the system. Terhalle & Depledge (2013) also argue that assertive states are interested in revisionist attempts in IR and explained that “enmeshment” can help to avoid this problem. Also, because of globalization, “failed” states will become a “burden” in IR according to Müller (2013). Globalization is not a “deus ex machina” that will affect either positive or negatively to IR Müller (2013).
The role of states and ruling system have a big hand on upcoming challenges. Question is can we leave these problems to this small circle of people? Williams (2018, p. 11) explains that “security is simply too important and too complex”, therefore, it cannot be left to some group of people. Rittel & Weber (1973) also argue that control should be taken from small groups (Rittel & Weber 1973). I will argue that the regulation of problems can be countered by individuals by giving them communication channels. Hill (2003) argues that people need voice channels to spread their intentions and problems. Providing communication tools to people can help to achieve development. She takes democracy as the main factor for the change in the world which can lead to development. However, any change is hard because it alters the situation and can be perceived by actors differently, such as slapping businessman or religious person will result differently. However, Hill (2003) points the crucial role of need and interest within capabilities that is the main game changers. I will argue that the main need and interest will rest on the survival instinct of ordinary people that will happen from tangible results, i.e. disasters.
Hardin (1968) explains that interest driven people should have morality because technical solutions are not sufficient. However, Taipale (2004) counters this argument arguing that “wicked problems” circled by the actors with different benefits and in order to solve the future challenges, we should have “technology”, “information” and “resource limitations”. Hardin (1968) explanation is relevant to the prisoner’s dilemma and a zero-sum game that overuse of land leads the “tragedy of commons”. This process creates a vicious cycle and requires other actors to enter and impose regulations, such as the government. Hardin (1968) mentioned post-Freudian responsibility that can be met bylaws and rules. De Connick (2018) argues that “transition to 1.5°C” counters “tragedy of the commons” idea, whereas, reify such project stuck with some difficulties. Moreover, Hardin (1968) then goes on to explain that some people are able to see the future and initiate cooperative negotiations, whereas, others fail to see it and face tragedies. Ostrom (1990) argues that in this case, scholars should help people to find ways to collaborate together. Creutzig (2017) rightly argues that in the time of power rivalry, experts should spread information to the “public”.

Methodologies
I have divided the thesis into three chapters. The first chapter is about finding and collecting quantitative data by using qualitative methods. I have assessed documents, reports, and resolutions in order to answer the first question. I have used qualitative data collection in the first section (see 1.1) in order to be able to visualize “Tree of Challenges”. After that, I needed to collect data from reports in order to find out the main source of these problems. Moreover, in order to find out the main emitter states, I have used tools, namely, Gap Minder, GEP, OurWorldinData, and NAZCA, in order to prove which countries are the most common ones.
When it comes to the second chapter, I mainly used discourse analysis in order to find out relevant information from the theories of IR. I have used books and journals in discourse analysis. Tools such as Talk to Books and Google Scholar were the main search engines.
Lastly, in the third chapter, I have used collected data from the second chapter where I used discourse analysis and used the method of alternatives in order to compare and mutually criticize theories. Moreover, after analyzing the collected qualitative data, I started to generalize them to create a new approach that can explain future problems.
In order to accomplish my thesis, I have used “qualitative research strategy” that starts with collecting and evaluating specific facts, then the theoretical analysis that leads to developing a new approach.

Figure 1. 1, Tree of Challenges
Roots: human influence and overpopulation; trunk: GHG emission; dispersion spot: G.W. – global warming; branches: a – ice melt, a1-rise of sea level, a2 – lost cities, b – water problems, c – marine heatwaves (MHW), d – wildfire, d1- erosion and mudslide, e-resource scarcity, e1 – conflicts, e2 – undernourishment, f – urban problems, g- migration, h – societal problems, i- economy, j – extreme weather, k – shifts, l – finding other worlds, m – rainfalls, n – inequality, o – infectious diseases, p – air pollution, q – health and death problems, u-u – unknown-unknowns.