Global Citizenship: Towards a Concept for Participatory Environmental Protection

ABSTRACT

The global environmental crisis demands urgent attention and comprehensive action. While governments must prioritise environmental protection and climate change mitigation, the continued depletion of natural resources calls for innovative approaches. One such approach is the Environmental Global Citizenship theory, which offers a perspective on participatory environmental governance while emphasising cultural diversity. The article argues that the idea of global environmental citizenship can help address the challenges associated to the global environmental crisis, outlining a vast theoretical framework to this notion, grounded in a thorough literature review and legal examination of global environmental agreements. Environmental Global Citizenship is presented as a critical, yet non-exclusive strategy for global environmental stewardship, simultaneously advocating for a model of global integration that is rooted in cultural diversity. The manuscript underscores that the concept of Environmental Global Citizenship should form one necessary aspect of a more extensive environmental protection global strategy.

KEYWORDS:

• Citizenship
• environment
• goods
• community
• governance

1. Introduction

The many current global environmental crises, including loss of natural resources, water scarcity, air pollution, and climate change associated problems, represent enormous challenges faced by humanity (OECD 2008). While governments are expected to utilise all available resources to protect the environment and address climate change, the continued degradation of natural resources has led to a consideration that global citizenship principles driving local environmental actions and initiatives, such as community-led conservation, can contribute to global efforts, creating a feedback loop of environmental action between global and local levels.

However, interpretations differ. Neoliberal global citizenship, which prioritises market profits and individual freedoms while often overlooking the natural environment (Klein 2015; Maniates 2001; Peck and Tickell 2002; Stiglitz 2017), contrasts with environmental global citizenship. Environmental global citizenship transcends national boundaries and emphasises global interconnectivity, but requires a deep appreciation for local communities and cultural diversity (Kymlicka 2008), underscoring the significance of the natural environment’s health as a shared imperative for all individuals and communities worldwide (Steffen 2011).

Cultural perspectives enhance our comprehension of global issues by offering an adjusted perspective on local responses to the global crises. Engaging in dialogues that uphold the right of all cultures to preserve their distinct identities and values can cultivate empathy, mutual understanding, and inclusivity. In our globalising world, respecting cultural diversity is essential for fostering a harmonious global community.

It is widely agreed that achieving environmental sustainability requires globally coordinated policies that involve active participation from local communities (Agyeman 2005). Recent efforts to integrate discussions on environmental sustainability and global citizenship have led to the creation of new categories such as “sustainable citizenship” (Micheletti and Stolle 2012) and “environmental citizenship” (Dobson 2007).

As noted in Section 2.1, there is a broad legal and theoretical consensus on the value of environmental commons, such as clean air, water, and ecosystems, and the importance of mitigating climate change to protect these resources for future generations. This consensus for global participatory environmental governance is reflected in numerous international treaties, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, or the Convention on Biological Diversity, among many others.

This article largely relies on the legal principles, norms, and guidelines that are set forth in the international agreements, providing a solid foundation for the position being advanced in the paper. The article is therefore structured as a six-part argument, with each section representing a premise of Toulmin’s general model of argument, as outlined in Section 1.

After critically characterising the existing legal ground, Sections 2.2 and 2.3 discuss how the concept of cosmopolitanism has led to the notion that local communities should participate in solving major global issues, a view that characterises current efforts to foster modern global integration (Archibugi 2008; Caney 2016). The resulting global community paradigm empowers local communities while framing their actions within the context of global environmental protection (Roka 2019). Local communities and cultures form the foundation of global citizenship in this framework (Parekh 2003).

In Section 2.4, the concept of global environmental citizenship is proposed as a feasible solution to overcome the collective action problems that stem from state sovereignty, issues that green states may not be able to resolve per se. Section 2.5 serves to qualify the concept of ecological global citizenship by delineating its connection to the green state, thereby paving the way for the general claim of this argument, as presented in Section 2.6. The case for environmental global citizenship contributes to the philosophical understanding of cosmopolitanism and advances international politics towards the development of environmental participatory governance.

2. Methods and materials

This article comprehensively explores the interconnectedness of global citizenship and environmental protection in contemporary literature. It demonstrates that global citizenship can serve as a framework for effectively safeguarding the global commons. Utilising an interpretative approach to analyze the cosmopolitan discourse, the paper examines categories derived from bibliographic data, following the methodology proposed by Hernández Sampieri, Fernández Collado and Baptista Lucio (2018). Qualitative data collection methods, free from numerical measurements, can corroborate interpretations, offering valuable insights to construct persuasive arguments.

The article advocates for environmental global citizenship, employing Stephen Toulmin’s argument model (Toulmin 2003). Toulmin’s model enjoys increasing recognition across various disciplines (Kneupper 1978; Yang 2022) and has been adapted for analyzing professional literature (Shpit and Kurovskii 2020) and reviews (Karbach 1987; Polacsek et al. 2018; van Eemeren et al. 2013). This chosen formalisation method assists in substantiating the assertion by deconstructing the argument’s various components. Breaking the literature into distinct analytical components of the argument simplifies the evaluation of the reasoning process and empowers readers to formulate additional cosmopolitan claims based on the presented arguments.

In Section 2.1, we recognise the importance humanity places on common environmental resources and the existing legal consensus regarding global participatory environmental management. Nonetheless, current international environmental governance frameworks often restrict community involvement in decision-making. Moving to Section 2.2, we delve into the concept of environmental global citizenship as a potential remedy to enhance participation in environmental protection. Section 2.3 then investigates the potential of communitarian eco-cosmopolitanism to serve as a theoretical framework for environmental global citizenship.

In Section 3.4, the paper underscores that although the concept of the “green state” represents a significant advancement in environmental governance, it alone is insufficient for addressing global environmental challenges. In Section 3.5, it integrates the concept of global citizenship into a holistic model encompassing both the green state and a green international society. Finally, in Section 3.6, the article proposes that the promotion of environmental global citizenship holds the potential to enhance engagement in ecosystem protection and cultivate a more sustainable global society.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Environmental global commons

International environmental agreements, aimed at fostering global cooperation for environmental protection, can unintentionally widen the gap between wealthy and poor nations. Rich countries often have more resources and capacity to comply with these agreements (Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009). The system of carbon offsetting and trading may result in the transfer of pollution from richer to poorer nations (Lohmann 2009). Monitoring and enforcing compliance with these agreements can be challenging for less developed nations (Mitchell 2010). These restrictions may disproportionately affect developing countries that rely on industries with adverse environmental impacts (Gallagher 2005). Barriers such as intellectual property rights can hinder the transfer of green technology from rich to poor nations, exacerbating disparities (Ockwell et al. 2008).

Water, air, and other shared global resources are essential for communities at the local, global, and regional levels. These resources, including water, air, biodiversity, and the ocean, are acknowledged as global common assets by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Falkenmark and Rockstrom 2004; Smith 2003). This recognition highlights their crucial role in preserving the global ecological balance (Vargas-Chaves and Dermer-Wodnicky 2022).

The natural water cycle, where water circulates through the atmosphere without regard to borders, depends on a consistent supply and release of water resources over long periods. Various factors, both local and global, affect the health and movement of water in rivers, oceans, and on land. To protect the balance of this water cycle for the benefit of the global environment, a comprehensive approach to environmental conservation is needed. This requires collaborative efforts involving both global and local stakeholders (Falkenmark and Rockstrom 2004; Oki 2005; Oki and Kanae 2006).

The impacts of human activities on the climate system are most noticeable in the air and water-related disasters (WMO 2022). Communities in small islands are particularly vulnerable to these human-induced pressures. According to the Akerboom and Craig (2022), the global reduction in ice sheets and glaciers is primarily due to the rapid melting and retreat of outlet and tidewater glaciers. This has led to a decrease in snow cover depth, extent, and duration in almost all high mountain regions. Additionally, the extent of Arctic June snow cover on land has shrunk, resulting in the loss of approximately 2.5 million square kilometers, mainly due to rising surface air temperatures (IPCC 2019). These impacts have significant consequences for the global society.

The global environmental resources are vital for supporting human life, including at a psychological level, and are seen as values that go beyond cultures and traditions (UNESCO 2021). Water and air, in particular, are essential for human survival and are considered shared resources for all ways of life on Earth. Water is universally acknowledged as a value that is crucial for life and human existence, holding physical and spiritual significance across cultures (Narayan 2000).

Water holds significant meaning in all cultures, serving sometimes as a source of nourishment, purification, and religious transcendence (Descola 2013; Vetter 2022). Water is also a crucial cultural resource, influencing social relationships and cultural traditions through its management and distribution. International conflicts, particularly in areas with uneven access, have arisen due to water access and disputes over its use and commercialisation. There is a growing need for increased oversight of water extraction, sustainable water management, and the recognition of the right to water in all legal frameworks.

To ensure equitable access and secure the availability of local water resources and their distribution, measures need to be implemented as advocated by Elhance (1999). The significance of water and air as values that transcend cultural boundaries is readily apparent, owing to their profound physical and spiritual importance to humanity. Its cultural and societal importance extends beyond geographical borders, shaping traditions, and social connections. Water and air are essential for human existence, impacting human health, climate, and ecosystems. Recognising and addressing the universal value of these resources is not only crucial for preserving ecological balance but also for fostering cross-cultural understanding and cooperation.

3.1.1. The participatory right to a healthy environment

In the pursuit of a healthy, sustainable environment, the vital role of public participation in environmental governance has been a recurrent theme throughout the evolution of international law and policy (Table 1). This chapter, “The Participatory Right to a Healthy Environment”, traces the journey of this concept, highlighting key international resolutions, conventions, and agreements that underscore the importance of this participatory right. Beginning with the interpretation of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, through the landmark “Our Common Future” report in 1987, to the most recent Human Rights Council resolution in 2022, the evolution of this idea has been consistent and influential. This narrative weaves together multiple threads from the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, conventions such as the Ramsar Convention and Montreal Protocol, declarations like the Stockholm and Rio Declarations, and numerous others. The chronicle of this participatory right is not just a historical account, but a testament to the interconnectedness of human rights, environmental health, and community participation.

Table 1. International agreements supporting participatory environmental governance.

International agreement	Year
HRC Resolution 45/7	2022
UNGA Resolution 48/13	2021
Escazú Agreement	2018
UNGA Resolution 64/292	2010
Bali Guidelines	2010
Sofia Guidelines	2005
Responsible Fishing Practices Code	2001
Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities	2001
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety	2000
United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes	1999
Aarhus Convention	1998
Law on the Use of Non-Navigational International Waterways	1997
Convention to Combat Desertification	1994
Convention on Biological Diversity	1992
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change	1992
World Commission on Environment and Development	1987
Montreal Protocol	1987
Rio Declaration	1982
Stockholm Conference	1972
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands	1971

Sources: United Nations (2023), Horne, Tigre, and Gerrard (2023), Berges-Álvarez et al. (2022), Zeidan (2012).

Resolution 48/13, enacted in 2021, correlates environmental health with human rights, underscoring the need for public participation in environmental decisions, crucial for both global and local protective actions (Boyle 2020; Neves 2022). In 2022, the Human Rights Council Resolution 45/7 accentuated the significant role of local communities in upholding human rights and progressing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), advocating for their participation irrespective of governmental support.

Originating at the 1972 Stockholm Conference, the participatory right to a healthy environment is interrelated with the right to life and other human rights. This perspective is embedded in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, underscoring environmental sustainability’s centrality. Promoting environmental health, the World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasises public participation, along with the Ramsar Convention (1971), and the Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1982) Declarations, all of which endorse participation for sustainable and inclusive development.

The seminal “Our Common Future” report (1987) champions participatory governance for environmental protection. The Johannesburg Declaration (1992) and Rio + 20 Conference (2012) further bolster the notion of citizen involvement, advocating for the inclusivity of women, indigenous peoples, and the youth in environmental protection efforts.

Starting in 1987, the Montreal Protocol led international efforts to protect the ozone layer, underscoring the significance of public participation. This principle was further embraced in the 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification and the 1997 Jakarta Mandate, both promoting environmental governance along with community involvement. The Law on the Use of Non-Navigational International Waterways, enacted in 1997, also emphasises public consultation and cooperation.

Continuing this trend, the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and Aichi Targets (2010) both stress public involvement in biodiversity conservation. Similarly, the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and 2002 Nagoya Protocol engage the public in decisions on genetically modified organisms and genetic resources, respectively.

Climate change agreements, such as the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, highlight public participation in decision-making and information access. The United Nations Convention on Transboundary Watercourses (1999) and the Responsible Fishing Practices Code (2001) echo this sentiment, emphasising public participation in resource management.

Furthermore, the 2010 “Bali Guidelines” and 2001 Draft Articles both emphasise public participation in environmental decision-making. The “Sofia Guidelines” (2005) and the Aarhus Convention (1998) similarly champion public involvement. Last but not least, the 2018 Escazú Agreement stands out for promoting participatory rights in environmental matters and protecting human rights defenders.

3.1.2. Challenges and criticisms

While these documents emphasise the importance of involving citizens in environmental decision-making, criticisms have been raised about their effectiveness. One such criticism is that citizen participation may be tokenistic and not taken seriously by decision-makers, which could lead to limited impact on decision-making processes (Arnstein 1969). The limited access and participation of marginalised communities and indigenous peoples in environmental decision-making, as well as the influence of (neo)coloniality and problematic Northern forms of “solutions”, exposes systemic discrimination and power imbalances. It emphasises the need to critically examine the impact of (neo)coloniality and explore alternative strategies that prioritise local and indigenous knowledge, rights, and participation in environmental protection. This recognition is essential for addressing structural inequalities and achieving sustainable solutions.

Historically, discussions on environmental rights, sustainability, and resilience have often marginalised structural, regional, and societal nuances. Indigenous knowledge and wisdom remain overshadowed by dominant discourses propagated by national and transnational interests. This dominant narrative frequently prioritises knowledge propagated by major scientific corporations over insights derived from cultural wisdom.

An examination of the trajectory of environmental challenges, particularly when approached from capitalist lenses, reveals an enduring colonialist overlay, as articulated by Tamayo-Álvarez (2023). Such perspectives have been tied to the political economy of capitalist modernity, interpreting planetary ecology through the lens of value production and maximal utility for human beings. It becomes evident that any transformative agenda must view environmental protection beyond the epistemic confines of capitalist modernity.

Historical colonial and modern perspectives have often treated nature solely as a resource for human use, leading to ecological degradation. These legacies still influence today’s environmental discussions, contributing to issues like environmental degradation and the disruption of indigenous sustainability practices. Contemporary neo-colonial practices, such as large-scale mining, continue these patterns. Solutions from the Global North sometimes overlook this history, creating challenges like land appropriation for carbon sequestration. While technology is promoted as a solution, it can distract from the need for systemic changes, such as addressing overconsumption in the Global North. To address these complexities, it’s crucial to recognise colonial legacies, advocate for environmental justice, respect indigenous knowledge, and amplify voices from the Global South. In this effort, inclusive citizen participation that represents diverse societies is vital for ensuring fair engagement opportunities (Cooke and Kothari 2001; Healey 1997).

Citizens’ participation in environmental protection has been a constant factor in the evolution of environmental policy and law (Akerboom and Craig 2022). This linkage makes it essential to identify the interdependence and mutual reinforcement of environmental protection and social participation (Boyle 2020). Recognising environmental participation as a fundamental human right can potentially enhance the effectiveness of environmental policies (Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans 2003).

The participatory right to a healthy environment is challenged by economic actors, which often have negative impacts on the environment, leading governments to prioritise economic growth over ecological protection. Resource allocation may be problematic, as environmental protection can be costly, and benefits may not be immediately apparent. Recognition of the participatory right to a clean environment may also require a fundamental shift in the perception of the relationship between humans and the environment, considering the long-term consequences of human actions on the natural environment (Boyd 2011).

According to Boyle (2020), the protection of sustainability and human rights globally is linked to the growing concern for the participation of local communities. While the right to a clean environment has been recognised by over 150 nations, effective implementation relies largely on local actions. While citizen participation is a vital element of environmental protection treaties, some argue that the level of participation afforded in these treaties is inadequate. For instance, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2013) criticise the CBD for its lack of specific measures to guarantee meaningful involvement of local communities in decision-making processes. Additionally, Bäckstrand and Lövbrand (2006) argue that public participation in the implementation of the UNFCCC has been insufficient, and more needs to be done to ensure that the voices of local communities and civil society are heard.

3.1.3. Local communities in environmental protection

Many countries have incorporated the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions, recognising the interconnection between human rights and environmental protection across cultures. However, merely enshrining environmental rights in law is insufficient, as governments must still implement these rights through local policies and actions. At the national level, environmental policies may be limited due to a variety of factors, such as poor environmental participation, complex regulatory structures, and the focus on economic growth. Moreover, the inadequate engagement of local communities in environmental governance is a significant factor. Despite being the most affected by environmental policies, local communities are often excluded from decision-making processes, resulting in ineffective policies that fail to promote sustainable development and environmental protection (Cashore et al. 2019; Kütting and Lipschutz 2009; Worthington, Rask, and Minna 2011).

The current state-centered international system seems incapable in addressing climate change and protecting natural ecosystems, despite the existence of various declarations and treaties aimed at promoting that protection. International environmental agreements often use language that seemingly promotes global cooperation and transformative change but may actually preserve existing power structures and hinder significant transformations. This can be observed in major agreements like the Paris Agreement, Rio Declaration, and Convention on Biological Diversity, where the wording reflects and reinforces power imbalances and inequalities between developed and developing countries. The absence of enforceable commitments and transformative terms limits the potential for impactful progress and systemic change in environmental governance. The reality of international environmental governance falls short of achieving its stated goals, and the Paris Agreement has been criticised for failing to chart a clear path towards preventing climate change, leading to a significant discrepancy between the formally adopted environmental objectives and the reality on the ground (Auer 2000; Morrison-Saunders and Retief 2012).

Grass-root participation mechanisms can offer a solution for promoting greater protection despite the shortcomings of the current international system. Ma et al. (2022) notes that nature declines at a slower pace in areas managed by local communities, underscoring the significance of citizen participation. Gwendolyn Blue suggests using Citizen’s Assemblies as a form of citizen participation that represents diverse voices and can integrate local perspectives into decision-making processes at all levels, from local to global. Global Citizen’s Assemblies can improve public awareness, education, and understanding of environmental issues and help advocate for local actions and priorities, thereby building trust between communities and governments and promoting resource mobilisation for sustainable development. This participatory approach to environmental governance can facilitate a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to the protection of environmental global commons (Blue 2017).

The dominance of Western or Northern epistemologies in environmental governance marginalises local and indigenous knowledge, leading to ineffective policies. Incorporating diverse knowledge systems, such as traditional ecological knowledge, enhances effectiveness and inclusivity. Recognising and respecting diverse knowledge empowers local communities and improves policy implementation. Critically examining power dynamics and institutional structures is necessary for meaningful integration of diverse knowledge in environmental governance. Traditional knowledge in environmental issues is critical for adaptive management as it offers deep insights into local ecosystems. The Convention on Biological Diversity acknowledges this, promoting the use and protection of indigenous knowledge. This recognition empowers indigenous communities, potentially enhancing biodiversity conservation on the ground.

Ecopedagogies play a pivotal role in enhancing environmental education and shaping global citizen learning. This approach, emphasising inclusive environmental development, also empowers communities. It resonates with the need to address historical claims and seek global acknowledgment of the Global South, particularly in the realms of environmental education and rights (Freire 2000; Misiaszek 2020; Misiaszek and González 2023; Misiaszek and Iftekhar 2022).

3.2. Environmental global citizenship

The concept of global citizenship draws from diverse philosophical traditions, including Western, Indigenous, and Southern philosophies. Stoicism’s notion of cosmopolitanism aligns with the idea of universal citizenship, while Indigenous cultures emphasise interdependence and respect for all life. African philosophy, such as Ubuntu, emphasises a universal bond of sharing. During the Enlightenment, global citizenship was considered primarily as an ethical community that required a common sphere of ethical concern. However, over the past century, the concept of global citizenship has become associated with global governance, with the belief that global citizenship has real practical power and meaning in the context of world politics (Christie and Griggs 2006). Furthermore, national borders are seen as porous social structures and there is a growing trend emphasising the importance of global citizenship in addressing ecological participatory governance (Dower 2000).

The concept of citizenship refers to an entitlement to participate in political decisions. The historical understanding of citizenship has been shaped by social and political struggles to define political rights and obligations (Hernández de Velazco 2007). Moreover, citizens must be allowed to contribute to the conservation and sustainability of environmental resources, which is a common context for the realisation of all human rights and improving well-being, as stated by Hernández García de Velazco, Ravina Ripoll, and Chumaceiro Hernández (2020). People should have a say in decisions that affect their basic public good. Although legal citizenship is bound by national borders, broader aspects of citizenship, including social, cultural, and political elements, transcend these limits. This can be seen in “transnational citizenship”, involving participation in multiple countries, and “global citizenship”, which stresses global responsibilities and rights. Thus, citizenship increasingly represents a global engagement beyond mere legal boundaries, particularly irrelevant to global environmental issues.

If citizenship includes the right to exercise some degree of influence over relevant decisions, what happens to citizenship when that influence needs to be exercised on a global scale? There is no denying that, from a democratic standpoint, the people of the world should be entitled to have some degree of influence over that kind of decisions (Caney 2005a). In the subsequent auxiliary between the nearest and farthest social circles, we acknowledge that a person has the right to influence decisions affecting their immediate community circle, and we believe that there is also a right to exert some influence over further social circles.

This argument accepts the view of subsequent auxiliary because it implicitly or explicitly acknowledges the existence of at least one communal circle that is morally relevant to humanity as a whole. This circle shares a common extension with what James Bohman calls the “human political community” (Bohman 2004, 343). The key issue here is to discuss the idea of the nearest community being an absolute priority, since it is not the most relevant circle for some issues (Carens 2000, 93). In globalisation, which increases interconnectivity and interdependence among nations, some issues, especially environmental ones, possess a global dimension. This perspective highlights that actions taken in one part of the world can significantly impact other areas due to the interconnected nature of ecosystems and the transboundary nature of environmental problems.

Global citizenship is a concept that is often criticised for its perceived lack of political and moral relevance. According to Tan (2006), opponents of global citizenship argue that citizenship is a concept based on common national membership rather than non-nation-based considerations. Furthermore, the absence of global political institutions capable of creating global citizenship would mean that the concept of a global citizen is little more than an abstraction outside the context of the nation-state (Sen 2002).

Even though, environmental global citizenship is considered as being morally and politically relevant as it emphasises the role of individuals and communities in promoting sustainable environmental practices and recognising their responsibilities towards the planet. This approach involves taking collective action to address environmental challenges and locally promoting environmental sustainability. As such, it seeks to expand the moral scope beyond national borders and recognise the interconnectedness of global ecological systems (Parra et al. 2020).

Caney (2005a) suggests that global citizenship is not incompatible with national citizenship, but rather complementary. As he notes, local and global citizenships are structurally compatible, as they both have claims of universal validity. A cosmopolitan approach that acknowledges the importance of local ties and shared moral values at a national level can create a foundation for a complementary relationship between national and global citizenship. Parametric universalism suggests that moral duties to family, country, and the planet are mutually reinforcing, but that universal premises can be based on different measures of time. This means that the process of building global citizenship can have multiple rhythms and speeds, achieved through different institutions and cultures.

The concept of environmental global citizenship proposes that people from diverse cultural backgrounds can come together and communicate around shared environmental concerns. This approach can institutionalise empowered communities that converge around ecological global issues while strengthening local identities and cultures. In the words of Alan Buchanan, taking the values of the environmental and global justice seriously compels us to incorporate these values within the framework of a global citizenship capable of enforcing these principles (Buchanan 2000).

Elijah Anderson’s description of jazz clubs highlights the potential for dynamic cultural exchanges in spaces where strangers can participate in collective artistic creation. Similarly, environmental global citizenship can provide discursive dynamics that allow communities to engage around common ethical concerns to the environmental commons. By linking global environmental justice values and goals to global citizenship rights, individuals and communities can better face insensitive global impositions (Houston 2013).

The idea of environmental global citizenship presented in the text is in line with communitarian eco-cosmopolitanism, which emphasises the importance of local communities and their knowledge in addressing ecological issues on a global scale. In environmental dialogues, power dynamics often lead to marginalised voices, such as indigenous communities, despite their ecological knowledge. Language barriers, resource limitations, and systemic biases can hinder their involvement. Further, decision-making often favours certain groups, perpetuating power imbalances. It’s vital to address these issues for fair participation. By prioritising the insights of local communities and highlighting the significance of global citizenship, a communitarian eco-cosmopolitan approach has the potential to tackle environmental problems through participatory governance (Isin and Nielsen 2008). Environmental global citizenship suggests that people from different cultures can communicate around shared environmental concerns and institutionalise empowered communities that converge around global ecological care (Dobson 2007).

3.3. Communitarian ecopolitanism

Ecopolitanism is a normative theory that prioritises ecological sustainability, equity, and justice, proposing a new form of politics and governance. It is argued by Deudney that the existing global order is unsustainable and unjust and that only through a politics based on ecopolitan principles can the ecological crisis and climate change be addressed. Wallerstein proposed the establishment of a global federation that replaces the current global order based on sovereign nation-states and capitalist markets. This federation would be ecologically responsible, democratic, and participatory, based on the principles of ecological sustainability, equity, and justice, and accountable to the global citizenry (Wallerstein 2011).

Linklater’s work, particularly “The Transformation of Political Community” (1998), serves as a noteworthy benchmark for ecocosmopolitanism, underscoring our mutual obligations due to shared environmental vulnerabilities. His work (2017) deepens the ethical implications of environmental issues, emphasising our collective moral duties to both the environment and each other.

Eco-cosmopolitanism seeks to address global ecological challenges by emphasising the interconnectedness of life on Earth. This perspective encourages to move beyond national and cultural boundaries and recognise such interdependence. At its core, eco-cosmopolitanism is concerned with reimagining the relationship of human societies with nature and developing a sense of shared responsibility for the planet by emphasising the importance of a shared planetary identity (Harvey 1996), where humans should be considered part of a broader community of life and that human interests should be aligned with those of nature and the planet (Dobson 2007).

The theory of ecological cosmopolitanism extends moral consideration to non-human entities, acknowledging their inherent worth (Robbins 2012). Ecological cosmopolitanism, as a theoretical approach, advocates for a broadened worldview that extends beyond human-focused perspectives and embraces a moral community inclusive of non-human entities. This framework challenges conventional anthropocentric outlooks that favour human interests over the natural world. Legal recognition of rivers and other ecosystems as entities possessing rights underscores the friction between anthropocentric and ecocentric interpretations of environmental law. The former approach views natural resources as utilities for human use, whereas the latter perceives the environment as a bearer of rights, implying an acknowledgment of its inherent worth and a commitment to its preservation.

The legal conceptualisation of the Rights of Nature introduces a transformative perspective on our interaction with nature. It characterises nature as an entity holding rights, such as the rights to exist, flourish, and be conserved. This outlook not only assigns legal standing to nature, enabling defense of its rights in courts, but also enforces human responsibilities to act as custodians or stewards of the natural world (Boyd 2011).

Recently, there has been a notable surge in the recognition of the Rights of Nature in laws and jurisdictions worldwide. These laws can be “universal”, acknowledging rights across all nature, or “specific”, recognising the legal personality of individual ecosystems, such as rivers (Boyd 2011). Rivers have become the central focus of the Rights of Nature due to the severe global pressures they are subjected to (Almond, Grooten, and Peterson 2020).

The Rights of Nature have gained substantial normative significance, reorienting the exploitative or destructive relationships between humans and nature. This shift is grounded in key jurisprudential developments based on indigenous concepts of “kaitiakitanga” or “guardianship”, which reframe humans as protectors rather than proprietors of the environment. The recognition of biocultural rights is rooted in the acknowledgment of a profound unity between humans and nature (Borrini, Kothari, and Oviedo 2004).

Advancements in law have facilitated the establishment of guardianship bodies tasked with safeguarding specific natural entities. These participatory groups, entrusted with protection, typically bear a legal responsibility to defend the rights recognised for rivers. Ecological cosmopolitanism fosters a global citizenship perspective, recognising the intricate web that binds local communities and the environment.

Karen Litfin highlights the significance of involving local communities and fostering ecological identity in environmental stewardship, which aligns with the emphasis of eco-cosmopolitanism. Similarly, Julian Agyeman highlights the interconnectedness of individuals and places and emphasises the importance of safeguarding the rights of all members of the global community, especially those who have been historically marginalised (Agyeman 2005).

The notion of individual and community identities as unified and coherent self-concepts is deemed illusory by eco-cosmopolitan literature. Local cultures are often composed of multiple and conflicting self-identities, and the fragmented nature of identity can provide a justification for transcending many “us’ and “other” distinctions (Lebow 2013). Ursula Heise, in her work on “eco-cosmopolitanism”, explores the relationship between a sense of global belonging and the ethical commitment to local environmental protection. She suggests that a deterritorialized environmental sense of belonging can broaden the geographically bounded human experience and incorporate the larger context of the global Anthropocene, calling for a “sense of planet” along with a “sense of place” (Heise 2008).

The concept of eco-cosmopolitanism, which emphasises openness to diverse cultural identities and epistemologies, can lead to a better understanding of how social and ecological systems function within larger global networks. By contextualising local experiences within a global context, people can develop a more comprehensive view of the planet and its environmental issues. This approach calls for a deterritorialization of the local bounds and a move towards a global consciousness that incorporates diverse forms of awareness. This also involves engaging with cosmopolitan inclusivity, exploring how indigenous knowledge and environmental representations can become a part of a global ecological knowledge that transcends national boundaries.

Eco-cosmopolitanism is, in fact, a community-based perspective, as it is founded on the belief that political solutions must start with local communities’ knowledge and participation, while also recognising the importance of global citizenship in addressing ecological issues. According to this perspective, global governance should be based on the participation of empowered communities that converge around ecological global issues while strengthening local identities and cultures. Nussbaum (1996) argues that cosmopolitans acknowledge the need for global cooperation to address ecological problems, and they believe that local virtues are enhanced by such cooperation. This approach suggests that individuals from different cultures can unite and address common environmental issues, which can establish a sense of global citizenship.

Communitarian eco-cosmopolitanism both recognises the importance of environmental challenges and the role of local communities in addressing it. Beitz (2009) asserts that addressing global environmental issues requires a theory of global citizenship that addresses questions of justice. David Held (1995) contends that ecological sustainability is grounded in locality, and that a system of global environmental governance can be created through community participation. By strengthening local communities and building a network of empowered citizens worldwide, this approach provides a framework for addressing ecological issues globally. Appiah (1996) suggests that communitarianism corrects the excesses of liberalism and individualism, while cosmopolitanism corrects the excesses of nationalism and parochialism.

Global environmental citizenship involves understanding the interplay between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. While traditionally seen as opposing ideologies, these perspectives can converge in a democratic and inclusive form of communitarianism that values local knowledge and participation, cultural diversity, and global interconnectedness. By actively involving local communities in the global environmental debate, we can bridge the gap between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism, fostering shared awareness and effective collaboration for sustainable solutions.

In light of these challenges, ecopedagogies emerge as a tool for reimagining environmental citizenship. As underscored by Misiaszek and González (2023), Misiaszek and Iftekhar (2022), and Misiaszek (2020), rooted in Freirean critical pedagogy (Freire 2000), ecopedagogies reinforce global environmental citizenship by emphasising transformative education, valuing local knowledge, and empowering communities. This approach prioritises inclusivity, champions localised solutions, and fosters a commitment to environmental stewardship. Integrating ecopedagogical principles can facilitate a dialogue encompassing shared cross-cultural environmental values, thereby fostering global collaboration and mutual respect.

Ecopedagogies, rooted in critical thinking, enhance global environmental citizenship by emphasising transformative education. It values local knowledge while also highlighting the importance of broader Southern and Indigenous perspectives. This approach recognises the rich diversity of cultures as essential in addressing environmental challenges. Drawing from both post-critical and post-humanistic ideas, ecopedagogies expand beyond traditional human-centered thinking. It integrates human-focused methods with a wider, interconnected perspective, promoting collective responsibility for the environment and non-human beings.

Central to ecopedagogies are the empowerment of communities. It ensures communities are not just recipients, but active participants, using their insights to shape solutions (Fals-Borda 1979; 1986). Thus, ecopedagogies underscore the need for diverse voices in the discourse of global citizenship and environmental care (Freire 2000; Misiaszek 2020).

The knowledge and practices of local communities can be utilised to effectively tackle present and future environmental challenges on a global scale. Additionally, initiating a global dialogue on environmental commons can promote cross-cultural integration and a rationale for shared awareness. It is therefore imperative that every community, irrespective of their cultural background, is given a platform to participate in the worldwide environmental discourse (Forman-Barzilai 2005).

As per the concept of communitarian cosmopolitanism, justice is recognised by acknowledging the specific identities present in local communities. This moves away from a solely distributive notion of justice and emphasises cultural and identity-based aspects. The recognition of cultural differences is achieved through dialogue, which is the basis of this form of communitarian cosmopolitanism, where that normative principles stem from historically and culturally situated subjects. However, these approaches also acknowledge that identities are not fixed and individuals who engage in global dialogue have the potential to reshape their own perspectives.

Many people view cosmopolitan endeavours as a form of cultural imperialism since they are heavily based on Western culture. However, the emerging global narrative might possess a “post-Western” character (McKeil 2017). It is worth it to make a distinction between colonial and decolonial cosmopolitan discourses. As per this perspective, colonial cosmopolitanism aims to enforce Western cultural values and norms onto other cultures, whereas decolonial cosmopolitanism acknowledges the historical injustices and power imbalances that contribute to Wertern’s imposition and endeavours to establish a more equitable global discourse.

Critics of cosmopolitanism contend that its purported “all-encompassing perspective” would inherently represent a particular interpretation of experience, which would consequently impose constraining discursive limits on the components it aims to incorporate. Critics have observed the cosmopolitan discourse concerning global culture as being damaging in the face of nationalism and patriotism, as it is seen to marginalise national identity and patriotism within a global cultural context (Sen 2002). In response to the claim that cosmopolitanism entails a particular version of experience, supporters of cosmopolitanism argue that its goal is not to create a uniform global viewpoint but rather to achieve cross-cultural agreement through dialogue and intercultural communication. According to Martha Nussbaum, cosmopolitanism does not necessitate uniformity, but instead necessitates a respect for diversity and a willingness to learn from it (Nussbaum 1996).

Cosmopolitanism involves fostering global dialogue, and in communitarian cosmopolitanism, this is achieved by building second-order global communities on the foundation of primary local communities, without compromising the unique values of the latter. As Charles Taylor (1989) notes, local cultures can establish a basic global ethical consensus by protecting and caring for their own highly valued goods. By reaching cross-cultural consensus on these highly valued goods, communities can enhance their local connections while also strengthening their ties to the global community. Rawls (1999) argues that global citizenship and global justice claims must be based on the idea of cultural self-esteem and do not enter in conflict with national or local cultures. In fact, the task of global citizenship is to create a scene where positive dialogue between local cultures can take place (Caney 2005a). Beitz (2000) notes that each culture is interested in the conditions that ensure their values and institutions can flourish, based on history and culture, and that each people insist on receiving proper respect and recognition of their equality from other peoples.

Rubiés (2023) rejects the dichotomy between strict globalism and localism and instead adopts a hermeneutic perspective on global experiences, which emphasises the importance of interpretive interactions at the local level for understanding and sharing values with others through cosmopolitan dialogue; a model of autonomous cosmopolitan communities that views the world as a community of self-governing communities. This model is based on the concept of cultural self-respect and forms the foundation of the ideal of public cosmopolitanism.

In the postdigital era, digital technology has become deeply embedded in all aspects of life, marking a shift from perceiving it as a disruptive force. Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), an example of virtual exchange, illustrates the interconnectedness facilitated by digital technologies. Through platforms like social media and virtual reality, diverse local cultures can interact, collaborate, and influence each other, transcending geographical boundaries. However, challenges such as the digital divide and potential reinforcement of hegemonies and biases should be addressed to ensure inclusivity and representation in these online collaborative spaces.

As long as culture refers to the common habits and abilities that people acquire as participants in social learning networks, then strengthening the interconnectedness of global communication would likely lead to global social learning networks, which would likely help build a globally integrated culture. As Best points out, technological interconnection is a matter of increasing shared visual consumption and new intensities emerging in our relationship with the digital environment (Best 2004). Mustapha Kamall Pasha sees this increased exchange of technology as an experience that can enhance and define the interconnectedness of global societies and cultures in ways that are not limited to markets. In this sense, he says, it would be a mistake to ignore new forms of social connections on a global scale, often caused by the expansion of global markets (Pasha 2002).

Even with the enhanced interconnectedness, critics point to two theoretical problems that would make global citizenship and national citizenship mutually exclusive. According to Young, if global citizenship is interpreted as requiring (a) moving beyond specific, contextualised viewpoints to achieve common, universal viewpoints, and (b) developing laws and policies that do not distinguish differences, then this is Choose A or B questions (Young 1989). According to Dominique Leydet, once universality is seen as a myth encompassing majority cultures, calls to transcend particularity often translate into imposing majority opinions on minorities. Enacting laws and policies that do not discriminate between differences may create more inequality because the neutrality of so-called difference-blind systems often masks implicit biases against the needs, interests, and identities of minority groups (Leydet 2006).

In the context of communitarian eco-cosmopolitanism, “citizenship spheres” or “citizenships” refer to various forms of citizenship beyond national boundaries. These include environmental, digital, and cultural citizenships, recognising individuals’ roles and responsibilities at local, regional, and global levels. This broadens the understanding of global citizenship, integrating local contexts and global interconnectedness. This integration would also foster diverse and complementary representations of belonging at the local and global levels. The idea here is that citizenship as a political practice can help generate a desired sense of identity, belonging and committed participation in environmental protection (Leydet 2006).

Global citizenship can serve as an important lever for integration. Exercising the global right of citizenship would likely be the relevant mechanism for reducing any “imperial temptation” claimed by universalism. It is worth noting that global citizenship needs to be accompanied by constitutional provisions that aim to eliminate the position of foreignness itself (Posnock 2000). Communitarian cosmopolitanism is adopting synthetic, holistic and “impure” combinations of different levels of citizenship that will coexist.

3.4. The green state and the necessity of environmental global citizenship

There is an ongoing debate regarding the necessity of ecological global citizenship in the context of the emergence of the green ecological state. It is arguable that the absence of a global state makes it pointless to discuss ecological global citizenship, as no state can enforce global rules. However, the green state theory asserts that the state has a critical role in promoting environmental protection and sustainability. According to Eckersley (2004), the state is able prioritise environmental concerns in its policies and decision-making processes, intervene to ensure environmental goals are achieved, and act as a facilitator to shape the behaviour of individuals, communities, and businesses towards sustainable practices. The greening of international society reflects a commitment to multilateral agreements on climate change and environmental protection (Falkner 2012).

Eckersley (2004) posits that the state plays a critical role in advancing environmental protection and sustainability. The author emphasises that the state is in a strategic position to prioritise environmental concerns by integrating them into its policies and decision-making processes. In addition, the state can intervene to ensure that environmental goals are met and act as a facilitator to encourage individuals, communities, and businesses to adopt sustainable practices. Eckersley highlights the significance of democratic participation in shaping environmental policies and holding the state accountable for its actions.

Strategies such as low-carbon, green-carbon, and blue-carbon production, demonstrate a growing interest of states in ecological modernisation (Christoff 2005; Mol 2000). However, achieving a green ecological state requires significant changes in public policy goals and instruments, as Machin (2020) notes. This includes transforming the nation-state to develop ecologically sensitive national policies that prioritise environmental concerns and promote sustainability. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink policymaking processes and adopt new approaches to enhance the capacity for green policy making.

The international society shows a growing recognition that environmental concerns are global in scope and require collective action and cooperation among states and other actors at the international level. Falkner (2003) examines the emergence of global environmental governance and the challenges and opportunities associated with it, arguing that the greening of international society represents a positive shift in international politics. He also emphasises the need for greater participation and engagement by civil society and other non-state actors in global environmental governance.

There is an emerging consensus that the preferred model for realising the green program is participative/deliberative democracy. According to Elstub (2009), the connection between normative sustainability principles and deliberative procedures justifies the use of deliberative principles and procedures from a green perspective. The concept of ecological citizenship and its relationship with the green state is being studied to determine whether the political system of an ideal ecological state could foster ecological participation and promote global responsibilities towards the planet.

The green state approach has been subject to criticisms (Dryzek 2005). While the green state has the potential to promote ecological citizenship, it remains uncertain whether the global deliberative dimension necessary for achieving global ecological protection exists (Eckersley 2004). Although the green state has the potential to encourage ecological citizenship, it is uncertain whether the necessary global collective action required for achieving global environmental protection could even exist in the current inter-state system (Eckersley 2004).

State-driven environmental governance has been found to be ineffective, and some advocate for the abolition of the state as an obstacle to environmental protection (Bookchin 1991a; 1991b). Sovereignty poses a challenge to the protection of global commons as the current international system is based on the sovereign power of individual states, creating a contradiction between national interests and global protection strategies (Christoff and Eckersley 2013). The dominance of sovereignty may limit the capacity of modern state-based international politics (Eckersley 2004).

The challenge of balancing national sovereignty with global environmental coordination and cooperation is a significant obstacle in addressing global environmental issues. Nation-states remain the primary political unit of organisation, even as environmental threats increase globally. This reality has lead to prioritisation of the “national interest” over broader environmental concerns (Homer-Dixon 1999). Sovereignty is incompatible with the demands of addressing global environmental problems, promoting narrow, short-term, and national interests at the expense of broader, long-term concerns.

Deudney (1990) suggests that sovereignty must be replaced by a more comprehensive approach, able to address the root causes of environmental problems. Cutler (2001) asserts that traditional ideas of sovereignty as absolute and indivisible are a hindrance to developing effective international environmental governance. To address global environmental issues, more flexible and dynamic conceptions of sovereignty are necessary to establish new forms of global governance (Cutler 2001). While national sovereignty remains essential in international politics, it is becoming increasingly clear that a more global approach is necessary to address environmental challenges (Deudney 1990).

Several authors criticise the state-based international system for its limitations and challenges in addressing global environmental issues through collective action. Caney argues that the state-centric approach is inadequate for effectively tackling these challenges in a globally unified manner (Caney 2005a; 2005b). Similarly, David Held views the nation-state system as an obstacle to implementing strategies that go beyond sovereign politics, raising doubts about the continued viability of territorially bounded sovereign nation-states in the face of global environmental crises (Held 2013). Tan also critiques the state-centric approach, pointing out its inability to achieve human development at the structural level (Tan 2006).

Callies (2017) has criticised the state-centricity of climate governance, arguing that it is inadequate in addressing the global nature of the climate crisis and the need for collective action. The interests of nation-states and their pursuit of economic growth have dominated the current global response to climate change, failing to adequately address the root causes.

Falk (1971) argues that the causes of environmental degradation are rooted in the political structures of society, particularly the sovereign state system, in pair with the capitalist production and consumption system. He contends that these structures prioritise short-term profit over long-term sustainability. According to Falk, environmental problems are not limited by national borders, and that they cannot be adequately addressed through national or regional efforts alone. Instead, he suggests developing new forms of global governance and cooperation that prioritise environmental sustainability and social justice.

The “green state” and “greening of international society” concepts involve environmental considerations but might not address root causes of environmental issues. They may continue resource over-exploitation and reflect inequality between nations. To overcome these issues, a transformative approach to environmental governance is required. This would involve critically examining and possibly altering the underlying political and economic structures and ideologies contributing to environmental degradation, rather than simply implementing “green” policies within existing frameworks.

3.5. A non-state-centric mechanism is still necessary

A non-state-centric mechanism is still necessary for effectively addressing environmental problems and enabling individuals to further participate in environmental governance. This perspective emphasises the significance of green ecological states in environmental protection but shifts the focus from the nation-state to local communities, within a cosmopolitan approach, which can empower communities to locally safeguard global commons and help to overcome the limitations of the sovereign state-centric approach to environmental governance (Held 2011; Tan 2006; Teune 2002).

There is a growing demand of new global mechanisms empowering people to protect local commons and participate in environmental governance beyond the exclusive channel of the state. Rather than relying solely on the state-centric approach, Burke, Lee-Koo, and McDonald (2019) suggests a more cosmopolitan and democratic form of climate governance that prioritises citizenship. This would require establishing new forms of global governance beyond the nation-state system, giving more decision-making power and responsibility to citizens.

The concept of environmental global citizenship aims to overcome the separation between people and the global biosphere by promoting participation and deliberation in the local protection of global environmental commons. Despite the limitations of the nation-state system, including structural shortcomings in environmental protection, it would be unnecessary to ignore the significant international legal development produced by this system and its tendency towards modernisation and ecological commitment. It is precisely the recognition of these steps forward in environmental protection that makes the green state a potential key ally of environmental global citizenship.

The green state prioritises environmental protection and sustainability in its policies and practices while recognising that environmental issues are global in scope and require local collective action and participation. This aligns with the sense of belonging and responsibility towards the global community and the planet that characterises participatory and deliberative environmental global citizenship.

Moreover, environmental global citizenship can fit into a broader vision of a green state and a green global society. A green state is one that incorporates environmental concerns into its policies and practices across all sectors of society. It recognises the interdependence of economic, social, and environmental systems and seeks to promote sustainability across all sectors. Environmental global citizenship can fit into this vision by providing a platform for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard in decision-making processes. By incorporating the voices and perspectives of local citizens, environmental policies and practices can be more responsive to the needs and concerns of communities.

A green global society is one that recognises the interconnectedness of environmental issues across the globe and the need for collective action to address them. Environmental global citizenship can fit into this vision by promoting global cooperation and collaboration to address environmental challenges. By fostering a sense of responsibility and solidarity among citizens across the globe, environmental global citizenship can contribute to building a shared commitment to environmental protection.

3.6. Environmental global citizenship: the claim

Claim: The idea of environmental global citizenship has the potential to increase people’s participation in environmental protection and can be integrated into a wider vision of a green state and green global society. This approach seeks to align environmental concerns with intercultural dialogue and democratic values, recognising the interconnectedness of environmental issues with other global challenges, and promoting a shared sense of global citizenship that is inclusive and equitable.

The argument presented in the claim is that the idea of environmental global citizenship should be integrated into a wider vision of a green state and green global society. This suggests that environmental global citizenship is seen as complementary to, rather than transcending or morally overriding, the concept of a green state and a green global society.

The proposed model of green global citizenship emphasises the need to align environmental concerns with social justice, human rights, and democratic values, and to recognise the interconnectedness of environmental issues with other global challenges. The idea is that by promoting a shared sense of environmental global citizenship that is grounded in these broader values and goals, can create a more sustainable and equitable global community.

In this sense, environmental global citizenship is not presented as something that is morally superior or underpins a green international society, but rather as an approach that complements and strengthens existing efforts to promote sustainability and environmental protection. The focus is on developing a more holistic and integrated approach to addressing environmental challenges that recognises the social and political dimensions of sustainability.

A version of environmental global citizenship that complements the concept of a green state and a green global society is needed. This version entails aligning environmental concerns with diverse values, beliefs, and practices among different communities. To promote this qualified version of environmental global citizenship, education and awareness-raising activities are essential to empower individuals to act on environmental issues and foster a sense of inclusive and equitable global citizenship, through collaboration and coordination among stakeholders, including governments, civil society and international organisations.

4. Conclusion

Addressing the global environmental crisis necessitates a synergistic approach, drawing upon the collective endeavours of both nation-state and local constituencies. While governmental interventions are paramount in large-scale environmental mitigation strategies, there is an indispensable requirement to integrate complementary mechanisms that bridge global imperatives with grassroots initiatives. Environmental or ecological global citizenship emerges as a pivotal paradigm in this discourse, emphasising the importance of engaging local stakeholders in transnational environmental deliberations and fostering avenues that include local agency in global policymaking.

Yet, it is evident that the prevailing modus operandi of environmental governance remains disjointed. There is an absence of a comprehensive framework, and a proclivity towards state-centric methodologies, often marginalising local citizenry. Advocacy for a more holistic and coordinated approach to global environmental governance is crucial, one that not only facilitates proactive measures but also accentuates grassroots participation and prioritises sustainable development trajectories over mere economic development.

Empowerment of local communities can be further actualised through civic engagement instruments, such as global citizens’ assemblies. These platforms, while underscoring the essence of cultural pluralism and particular values, can serve to fortify the basis of global citizenship. Moreover, they can engender a collective ethos towards environmental protection, thereby contributing to the edification of a sustainable and equitable global ecosystem.

From a sociopolitical perspective, citizenship should transcend mere civic responsibilities and adopt a broader ethos of global community affinity. This encompasses a robust commitment to societal welfare, an allegiance to the collective good, and an acknowledgment of individual obligations. Such a perspective resonates with communal belongingness and associative ties. This paradigm ensures inclusivity and diversity, promoting egalitarian participation whilst respecting cultural differences.

Integral to the success of environmental global citizenship is the construct of intercultural reciprocity. Predicated on discursive mutual recognition, this facilitates a robust exchange between diverse communities. By championing such mutual cultural practices, a robust infrastructure of ecological global citizenship can be cultivated – one that harmoniously amalgamates local cultural ethos with a goblal consensus on ecological preservation.

Another consideration is the role of states in promoting ecological global citizenship. While lay people and grass root communities are important actors in environmental protection, the state remains a central actor in governance and policy implementation. Therefore, this work acknowledges that the green state can be a key ally in advancing ecological global citizenship. Green states prioritise sustainability and environmental protection and can provide resources and support for initiatives aimed at promoting environmental global citizenship.

The role of the state should be balanced with the need for grassroots participation and community involvement. Environmental global citizenship should not be imposed from above, but rather should emerge from a bottom-up process of community engagement and participation. Therefore, any inter-state forum aimed at promoting ecological global citizenship should prioritise the participation of grassroots communities in decision-making processes and provide opportunities for them to share their knowledge and expertise.

Promoting ecological global citizenship should be part of a wider vision of creating a green global society. This means recognising the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic issues, and striving for a more holistic approach to sustainability. Such an approach would require collaboration between states, civil society, and the private sector, and a recognition of the importance of international cooperation in achieving common environmental goals.

The notion of environmental global citizenship is a promising one, but it requires careful consideration of the potential challenges and limitations. By prioritising grassroots participation, acknowledging the role of the green state, and promoting a wider vision of green global society, this theory can create opportunities for lay people and grassroots communities to participate in environmental protection and foster the creation of an ecological global community.

Addressing the lag in the emergence of environmental global citizenship, despite years of climate activism, requires a comprehensive understanding of the diverse obstacles that impede its progress. The global environmental policy landscape is fragmented, with state-centric and capitalist approaches still dominating the discourse. This fragmentation often leads to divergent strategies and priorities among nations, making it challenging to adopt a global citizen approach.

The persistent socio-economic disparities and power imbalances raises skepticism and impede a collective sense of global citizenship. Despite the rhetoric of global citizenship, real-world decisions are often dictated by capitalist interests and power politics, undermining collective action towards shared environmental goals.

The lack of an empowered institutional framework for environmental global citizenship has further slowed this process. Developing such a framework necessitates addressing complex questions of national sovereignty and cultural identity.

It is important to consider the role of education in promoting global environmental citizenship. Effective education strategies are essential to foster an understanding and acceptance of environmental global citizenship.

Ecopedagogies emerge here as an essential paradigm within the environmental discourse. It seamlessly integrates environmental education with the ethos of global citizenship, championing an inclusive approach that resonates with diverse identities. By weaving global diversities into its framework, ecopedagogies underscore the intersectionality of education and global environmental protection.

The prospect of environmental global citizenship is indeed promising, yet it’s not without its intricacies. Through the lens of ecopedagogies, we navigate these complexities with a nuanced understanding, emphasising both the unique identities across the globe and the global rights they encompass. As we delve deeper into environmental dialogues, the imperative of ecopedagogies become evident, urging a more comprehensive and inclusive approach.

While the concept of environmental global citizenship has been increasingly recognised, its realisation has been hampered by complex factors, including fragmented global inequalities, and gaps in education. Addressing these challenges will be crucial to advancing the concept and practice of environmental global citizenship.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to express deep appreciation to the Department of Law and Political Science for creating a supportive academic environment that greatly influenced the advancement of this research. We particularly value the discussions and academic interactions with the Public Law Group and the Law, Politics, and Society Group at the Universidad de la Costa, Colombia. Our deepest appreciation goes to the reviewers and editors, whose insightful feedback have served as a precious vehicle to increase the quality of this work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The financial support for this research was generously provided by two projects at Universidad de la Costa: The Sustainability and Democracy Index Project, and the Interdisciplinary Approach to Politics, Law and University Education Index Project. These funds have been instrumental in facilitating the successful completion of our research.