In recent years, the concept of the Anthropocene has received significant attention within International Relations (IR). The term denotes a geological epoch in which human activity has become a primary force shaping the Earth’s systems (Crutzen, 2002). For many scholars, the Anthropocene challenges established approaches in IR by raising questions that transcend state borders and position humanity’s relationship with the planet at the centre of global politics. However, this article argues that the Anthropocene does not constitute a complete rupture within the discipline of IR. Rather than replacing existing theoretical frameworks, Anthropocene scholarship expands and refines approaches already present in the field, particularly within constructivist and critical traditions. Interpreting recent developments as improvements to existing frameworks avoids the wholesale rejection of traditional IR approaches and preserves the analytical foundations necessary for responding to emerging global challenges.
This analysis questions claims that the Anthropocene signals either a revolutionary transformation of IR or the end of the discipline altogether (Agathangelou, 2016; Cudworth and Hobden, 2013). Several existing approaches within IR have already questioned state-centric and anthropocentric understandings of global politics, particularly within Constructivism, Feminism, and Postcolonial traditions. In this context, Anthropocene scholarship continues a critical engagement with the assumptions and boundaries of the discipline rather than introducing an entirely new mode of analysis. The novelty introduced by the Anthropocene lies primarily in the planetary and ecological focus that IR now addresses, rather than in the critical methodologies used for analysis. Consequently, the Anthropocene encourages the discipline to reconsider human-centred and state-centred assumptions while adapting existing theoretical frameworks to address emerging planetary concerns.
This discussion first defines the Anthropocene and outlines its consequences for IR. It then examines how Anthropocene scholarship draws on constructivist and critical approaches to reexamine traditional understandings of security, agency, and global politics. Ultimately, the Anthropocene should be understood as an evolution and expansion of existing IR debates, rather than a fundamental overturning of the discipline.
The Anthropocene in International Relations
To assess how the Anthropocene transforms IR, it is necessary to explain what it is and its consequences. The term Anthropocene was first introduced by Crutzen (2002, p. 23), who defined it as a “human-dominated” geological era emerging after the Holocene. The Anthropocene is marked by the significant and unprecedented influence of human activities on Earth’s geological and ecological systems. As Chakrabarty (2009, p. 206) states, “Humans now wield a geological force”: they substantially impact Earth’s geology and ecosystems, shaping natural processes such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and land use alteration. In the Anthropocene era,
humans […] are not only the dominant species on the planet, but they also collectively constitute […] a geological force that determines the climate of the planet much to the detriment of civilization itself (Chakrabarty, 2012, p.15).
This implies the Anthropocene has brought many planetary challenges, profoundly altered Earth’s ecosystems, and worsened environmental crises. From climate change to biodiversity loss, pollution, deforestation, and resource depletion, the consequences of human activity have reached unprecedented levels (Chakrabarty, 2012).
Recent scholarship on the Anthropocene seeks to redefine modernity by examining the mechanisms of exclusion embedded within both IR and modern Western science. In doing so, scholars advocate for greater ontological inclusivity and plurality within the discipline. Rather than focusing exclusively on epistemological questions — questions concerning how knowledge is produced — Anthropocene literature argues that IR must also engage more deeply with ontological questions concerning the nature of being and reality itself. From this perspective, modernist approaches in IR recognise the existence of different perspectives and interpretations, while still assuming that these perspectives refer to the same underlying reality. Indeed, scholars such as Law (2015) argue that liberal modernity tends to produce dominant systems of knowledge that marginalise or erase realities that do not conform to this “one-world world.” An ontological approach, in contrast, would recognise difference as irreducible and accept the coexistence of multiple realities rather than multiple perspectives on the same reality. Within Anthropocene scholarship, this emphasis on ontological difference challenges the tendency of traditional IR to universalise Western assumptions and apply them to non-Western contexts. To address this limitation, Stengers (2005) proposes a cosmopolitical project in which the cosmos is understood as a pluriverse composed of multiple and divergent worlds. This perspective extends recognition beyond the human and treats different forms of existence and belonging as equally valid. The Anthropocene, therefore, encourages IR scholars to move beyond strictly human-centred understandings of reality and to engage more seriously with ontological plurality, including forms of being that exist outside conventional Western and anthropocentric frameworks.
Engaging with ontological questions in IR involves recognising multiple realities and forms of being as equally legitimate. This perspective challenges the human–nature divide on which liberal modernity has traditionally been based. Chakrabarty (2018) argues that the Anthropocene disrupts conventional understandings of modernity and human exceptionalism by highlighting the interconnectedness between human activity and environmental change. Similarly, Serres (1995) argues that modernity has treated nature as an external, objective entity existing independently of human influence. However, the Anthropocene shows that planetary transformations are increasingly shaped by human activity. Humans have become central agents in altering Earth’s systems, creating a relationship of mutual influence between humanity and the environment (Yusoff, 2013). Building on this argument, Latour (2014) contends that the Earth can no longer be understood as a passive background to human politics. Instead, it has regained agency and subjectivity, challenging assumptions of human exceptionalism and reinforcing the interconnectedness between human and non-human worlds.
Moreover, embracing ontological questions means transitioning from the modernist notion of the “global” to the idea of the “planetary.” Chakrabarty (2018) argues that while “global” often conveys universality and control rooted in modernist thinking, “planetary” suggests a more complex and interconnected understanding of human-environment relations. The concept of the Anthropocene requires IR to shift from a global to a planetary perspective, acknowledging the entanglement of human activities with planetary systems and processes. This distinction challenges traditional ideas of human mastery over the globe. It highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to international affairs that includes non-human elements. As humanity faces planetary-scale challenges, their interconnectedness requires thinking beyond traditional state borders. In the Anthropocene, recognising the shared fate of all nations and ecosystems demands collaboration, innovation, and collective action to transcend geopolitical boundaries.
For instance, in the traditional IR framework, climate change is often seen primarily as a political or economic problem related to states, with discussions focused on human activities, such as carbon emissions, and international conventions, such as the Paris Agreement. From an Anthropocene perspective, climate change is a complex phenomenon involving not only human actions but also interactions between human societies and Earth’s natural systems. This approach considers non-human factors such as ecosystems, biodiversity, and geological processes in shaping climate patterns and responses. This broader perspective highlights the interconnectedness of human and non-human elements and underscores the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and holistic solutions to address planetary challenges such as climate change.
Security
In addition to the erosion of human-centric perspectives, the concept of security in IR is most profoundly enriched by the literature on the Anthropocene. Unlike the traditional focus on military and state-centric security, the Anthropocene introduces new approaches that encompass broader environmental and planetary challenges threatening human well-being and stability. This reconceptualisation aligns with a broader understanding of reality that encompasses diverse perspectives within and beyond humanity. The shift from the modernist concept of the “global” to the “planetary” in IR discourse acknowledges the interconnectedness of human activities with planetary systems and processes. By recognising the entanglement of human and non-human elements in shaping international affairs, the Anthropocene approach underscores the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and holistic solutions to address planetary-scale challenges such as climate change. Embracing ontological questions entails considering not only traditional state-based concerns but also the complex interactions between human societies and Earth’s natural systems in the Anthropocene, promising a more comprehensive understanding of security.
The traditional conceptualisation of security faced criticism before the emergence of Anthropocene thinking. Beck (2006) is not typically classified as a scholar of the Anthropocene. Nonetheless, his insights into security offer valuable groundwork that will be extensively drawn upon in later discussions within the literature on the Anthropocene. He criticises the excessive attention paid to security matters in the discipline of IR. He argues, “Modern society has become a risk society in the sense that it is increasingly occupied with debating, preventing and managing risks that it itself has produced” (Beck, 2006, p. 332). Unlike traditional societies, where risks are primarily linked to natural phenomena, modern societies produce risks through technological advancements, industrialisation, and globalisation. Beck denounces a shift in perception of key institutions of modernity, such as science, business, and politics, from trusted entities to being viewed with suspicion due to their perceived inability to manage planetary risks effectively. This transition from “trustee to suspect” (Beck, 2006, p. 336) reflects the recognition that traditional risk management mechanisms are no longer adequate in the face of global interdependence and uncertainty. Beck’s understanding is essential for the future development of the literature on the Anthropocene because he recognises the crisis of liberal modernity, in which humans are seen as rational agents capable of solving problems. Instead, for Beck, humans become the cause of newly emerging issues.
In this context, the literature on the Anthropocene expands the focus of traditional security frameworks within IR. Scholars of the Anthropocene argue that liberal modernity, as a socio-political paradigm, is deeply rooted in state-centric perspectives. The liberal system often sees the state as the primary actor responsible for upholding individual rights, maintaining order, and promoting societal progress. The state acts as the institutional mechanism through which citizens exercise their rights and freedoms. It is entrusted with ensuring justice, equality, and the rule of law. Liberal governance emphasises state sovereignty, in which states govern their territories and make decisions independently, without external interference. The literature on the Anthropocene views states as the root cause of human blindness to planetary challenges. Hence, they strongly suggest that “changes must be significant” (Cudworth and Hobden, 2013, p. 659). Fagan (2017) argues that conceptualising security as states defending their territory against external threats rests on separating humans from their environment. This separation prioritises human concerns over environmental ones, leading to an incomplete understanding of security that ignores the interconnectedness between human activities and the natural world. Beck (2006) claims that liberal governments no longer adequately safeguard individual rights or even limit freedoms in exchange for increased security. This argument is justified in light of Western governments’ efforts to expand state surveillance to counter terrorism (Jabri, 2006). These scholars propose rejecting traditional notions of security and transitioning towards posthuman security.
Posthumanism is a philosophical perspective that challenges the traditional human-centered view of the world. It argues that humans are not the only meaningful actors and that non-human entities, such as animals, ecosystems, technology, and spiritual entities, also have agency and significance. Posthumanism critiques the anthropocentric assumptions underlying many aspects of human thought and society, including politics and security. In security discourse, Posthumanism prompts a revaluation of what counts as security threats and who or what should be protected. As Mitchell (2017) discussed, posthuman security involves a broad interdisciplinary exploration beyond the traditional human-centered perspective. It challenges the idea that international security is only about protecting human lives and bodies, recognising the role of diverse beings beyond humans in security and insecurity. This approach explores the intersections of various beings, including humans, other organisms, machines, elemental forces, and materials, in shaping security dynamics. Posthuman security connects human and non-human vulnerabilities and challenges traditional state-centred understandings of security. This perspective emphasises the management of interconnected socio-ecological risks and the need for adaptive approaches to planetary insecurity.
Assessing the transformative power of the Anthropocene on the discipline: challenges in application.
Many scholars, including Chakrabarty (2018), suggest that the Anthropocene challenges modernist state-centric and human-centric frameworks and calls for reevaluating how we understand and address planetary crises. Some more radical scholars even predict the end of the discipline (Agathangelou, 2016). This article argues that the Anthropocene draws IR’s attention to new contents rather than catalysing a radical change of approach. Framings of the Anthropocene as a transformative force or as announcing the end of IR are contested here, advocating a more nuanced and less radical approach. Given the difficulty of implementing Anthropocene thinking in the discipline and policy-making, the Anthropocene does not necessarily promote a radical departure within IR.
The challenge of implementing Anthropocene thinking into policy-making does not arise solely from the discipline of IR’s innate shortcomings in addressing planetary issues. Instead, it stems from the difficulties of transcending human-centred viewpoints, moving beyond state-focused frameworks in global affairs, and confronting the constraints of our language, rooted in modernity and closely linked to its paradigms, in expressing planetary concerns.
Anthropocene thinking challenges a central assumption of modernity: the separation between humans and nature. Recognising this constructed divide within IR can enrich conventional approaches by acknowledging the active role of non-human life and environmental processes in global politics. Fully removing human centrality from policy-making remains nevertheless difficult because political institutions and policies are human creations within social systems. For this reason, a complete departure from human-centred perspectives in IR may be neither practical nor desirable. In spite of this, this articles concedes that attempts to move beyond strictly anthropocentric assumptions can encourage more critical reflections on humanity’s relationship with the environment and other non-human actors. This perspective can indeedunderstandings of planetary dynamics and invite reconsideration of traditional concepts of security, governance, and political responsibility. It may also promote greater cooperation between states and non-state actors to address the complex challenges of the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene thinking confronts state-centric perspectives, revealing them as products of liberal modernity and as socially constructed, with inherent human biases. This paper claims that the much-debated shift from traditional state-centric frameworks often excessively criminalises traditional IR approaches. This contribution defends a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the importance of states as actors on the global stage while recognising their role among many other human and non-human actors in security matters. Blindly dismissing state-centric perspectives, as sometimes advocated in the Anthropocene literature, may lead to an increase in anarchic behaviour. Without overarching accountability, it may lead to an increase in state responsibility, worsening the impacts of human activities on the planet.For example, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the continued importance of states in responding to planetary crises. While the pandemic highlighted the interconnectedness of global health and security, it also showed that states remained central actors in coordinating responses and managing collective risks. This suggests that addressing Anthropocene challenges requires institutional adaptation rather than the complete abandonment of state-centric frameworks.
Lastly, language as a social construct is deeply shaped by power relations and hierarchies within society. It does not merely describe reality but actively structures how the world is understood. These dynamics are especially visible in the linguistic construction of the human–nature divide challenged by Anthropocene scholarship. Human-centred assumptions in language often position nature as passive, external, and subordinate to humanity, reinforcing notions of human exceptionalism. Along these lines, Latour (2017) highlights linguistic difficulties in Anthropocene discourse, arguing that language reproduces a hierarchy in which culture is active and nature is passive. This limits scholars’ attempts to challenge modernist assumptions, because the language used to critique the human–nature divide remains shaped by the same conceptual structures it seeks to overcome. Attempts to subvert modernist thinking may inadvertently reproduce some biases they aim to deconstruct. Language remains the primary medium for articulating alternative forms of knowledge, yet its inherited assumptions can constrain the ability to fully communicate the complexity of planetary entanglements. Addressing these limitations requires not only changes in language use but also broader structural transformations that challenge the power relations and hierarchies embedded in modern knowledge systems.
These challenges demonstrate the difficulty of fully embracing non-human perspectives while remaining embedded within the assumptions of liberal modernity. Although Anthropocene scholarship encourages reconsidering human exceptionalism and the human–nature divide, humans continue to interpret the world through social, political, and linguistic structures shaped by modernity itself. Recognising these limitations does not necessarily rule out alternative ways of thinking beyond modernity. Rather, it highlights the difficulty — and perhaps the impossibility — of completely transcending modern frameworks while still operating from within them.
Assessing the transformative power of the Anthropocene on the discipline: continuity within International Relations theory
This article argues that the Anthropocene does not represent a revolutionary rupture within IR because many of its critical approaches and assumptions are already reflected in Constructivist and Critical theories. The transformative influence of the Anthropocene on IR varies depending on how the discipline’s “limits” are perceived. To fully grasp how the Anthropocene literature reshapes the discipline, it is essential to define precisely what IR entails and the approaches it includes. The term International Relations was coined at the end of the eighteenth century, but IR only emerged as a discipline after the First World War. Traditionally, IR is defined as the study of interactions, behaviours, and relationships among states in the international system. While rooted in political science, IR draws on insights and methods from history, economics, sociology, anthropology, geography, and law. Scholars generally consider intellectual diversity a key feature of an effective discipline (Maliniak et al., 2018). This interdisciplinary nature allows IR scholars to analyse complex global phenomena from multiple perspectives. However, defining which approaches fall within the discipline’s scope has become increasingly challenging. Numerous questions arise: Are Realism and Liberalism the foundational approaches of traditional (or perhaps original) IR? Is Constructivism also traditional, or a critical advancement? Where do critical theories like Feminist IR, Postcolonial Theory, and Post-structuralism fit? These questions show that defining the discipline’s borders and limits is very complicated. This difficulty has driven scholars to frame the Anthropocene as a radically transformative force in the discipline. Cudworth and Hobden (2013, p. 645) criticise IR for being “state-focused and territorially bounded” and struggling to engage with human relations to non-human nature. They argue that introducing non-human-centric perspectives would be “radically transgressive” (ibid.). While these critiques accurately describe the limitations of classical state-centric approaches such as Realism and Liberalism, they do not fully account for the broader intellectual diversity of the discipline.
Critical approaches in IR challenge the idea that knowledge can be entirely universal or neutral. They argue that understanding reality is always shaped by particular perspectives, assumptions, and power structures. Critique seeks to uncover aspects of political and social life that have been ignored, marginalised, or taken for granted. As Felski (2015, p. 1) explains, “the task of the social critic is now to expose hidden truths and draw out unflattering and counterintuitive meanings that others fail to see.” Both Critical Studies in IR and Anthropocene scholarship use similar critical methods because they reveal dimensions of reality that conventional IR approaches have overlooked. Feminist IR, for example, introduced women’s experiences and gendered power relations into the analysis of international politics, challenging assumptions long treated as universal. Similarly, Anthropocene scholarship questions human-centred understandings of global politics by emphasising the role and agency of non-human entities, including ecosystems, climate systems, and the Earth itself. The literature on the Anthropocene does not fundamentally differ from Critical Studies in how it produces new knowledge. The main difference lies in the targets of critique. While Critical approaches have traditionally focused on human-centred structures such as gender, race, colonialism, and power, Anthropocene scholarship expands this perspective to include planetary and non-human dimensions of political life. Both approaches contribute to IR by revealing aspects of reality that conventional theories have often neglected.
Overlooking the significance of approaches beyond Realism or Liberalism allows scholars to portray the Anthropocene as a radical influence on the discipline. Following this logic, the Anthropocene acts as a catalysing force that subverts traditional approaches and prompts significant evolution. Conversely, when IR includes perspectives like Constructivism, Feminist IR, and Postcolonial Studies, which challenge traditional understandings by deconstructing anarchy, gendered societal roles, and hierarchical power dynamics between Western and non-Western nations, the disruptive power of the Anthropocene seems more limited. With a broader understanding of the discipline’s theories, this analysis suggests that recent advancements in this new geological era represent a culmination of previously introduced practices. Therefore, the Anthropocene expands IR’s boundaries by focusing on how we understand and generate knowledge in the field rather than fundamentally altering its foundations or approaches.
Conclusion
The Anthropocene has expanded the scope of International Relations by drawing attention to global processes, ecological interdependence and the role of non-human actors in global politics. It challenges assumptions rooted in liberal modernity, especially the separation between humans and the natural world and the dominance of state-centric views of security and governance. Anthropocene scholarship encourages IR to engage more seriously with ontological questions, environmental crises and forms of agency beyond human.
This article argues that the Anthropocene should not be seen as a revolutionary rupture within the discipline. Many critical methods and assumptions linked to Anthropocene thinking were already present in Constructivist and Critical approaches to IR. Feminist, Postcolonial, and Post-structuralist traditions long questioned claims of universality, challenged dominant knowledge and power structures, and criticised anthropocentric and state-centric views of global politics before Anthropocene scholarship emerged. The novelty of the Anthropocene lies less in its methodology than in the planetary and ecological content it critiques.
Framing the Anthropocene as radically transformative often depends on a narrow view of IR, focused mainly on realist and liberal traditions. When the wider intellectual diversity of the discipline is acknowledged, the disruptive nature of the Anthropocene thinking seems more limited. Instead of replacing current approaches, the Anthropocene extends and adapts critical debates already underway within the discipline.
At the same time, difficulties in implementing Anthropocene thinking reveal the continuing influence of liberal modernity on political institutions, language, and knowledge production. Fully transcending human-centred and state-centric perspectives remains difficult because these frameworks still shape how humans understand and organise political life. Recognising these limitations does not reduce the importance of the Anthropocene scholarship. Instead, it points to the need for an equitable approach that incorporates planetary concerns and remains attentive to the continuing relevance of human agency, institutions, and present theoretical foundations within IR.
Ultimately, the Anthropocene should not be understood as the end of International Relations, but as part of its progressive evolution. It expands the discipline’s analytical horizons by encouraging new ways of thinking about security, agency and global interconnectedness while building on critical traditions already embedded within IR theory.
Bibliography
Agathangelou, A.M. (2016) “Bruno Latour and Ecology Politics: Poetics of Failure and Denial in IR,” Millennium, 44(3), pp. 321–347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816643173.
Beck, U. (2006) “Living in the world risk society,” Economy and society, 35(3), pp. 329–345. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140600844902.
Chakrabarty, D. (2012) “Postcolonial Studies and the Challenge of Climate Change,” New literary history, 43(1), pp. 1–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2012.0007.
Chakrabarty, D. (2018) “Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern,” Millennium, 46(3), pp. 259–282. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829818771277.
Crutzen, P.J. (2002) “Geology of mankind,” Nature (London), 415(6867), pp. 23–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a.
Cudworth, E. and Hobden, S. (2013) “Complexity, ecologism, and posthuman politics,” Review of international studies, 39(3), pp. 643–664. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210512000290.
Fagan, M. (2017) “Security in the anthropocene: Environment, ecology, escape,” European journal of international relations, 23(2), pp. 292–314. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116639738.
Felski, R. (2015) The limits of critique. University of Chicago Press.
Jabri, V. (2006) “War, Security and the Liberal State,” Security dialogue, 37(1), pp. 47–64. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010606064136.
Latour, B. (2014) “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene,” New literary history, 45(1), pp. 1–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0003.
Latour, B. (2017) Facing Gaia : eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge ; Polity. Law, J. (2015) “What’s wrong with a one-world world?,” Distinktion (Aarhus), 16(1), pp. 126–
139. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1020066.
Maliniak, D. et al. (2018) “Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field,”Security studies, 27(3), pp. 448–484. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1416824
Mitchell, A. (2017) “‘Posthuman security’: reflections from an open-ended conversation”, Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations: The Anthropocene, Security and Ecology. Bristol, E-International Relations, pp. 10-18.
Serres, Michel. (1995) The natural contract. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. Stangers, I. (2005) ‘The Cosmopolitical Proposal’, in B. Latour and B. Weibel (eds) Making
Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yusoff, K. (2013) “The Geoengine: Geoengineering and the Geopolitics of Planetary Modification,”Environment and planning. A, 45(12), pp. 2799–2808. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a45645.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
