2 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
Environmental securitization in
International Politics: an analysis of
political leadership’ discourses in the
context of the Paris Agreement
Securitização ambiental na Política Internacional: uma análise de discursos de lideran-
ças políticas no contexto do Acordo de Paris
Securitización Ambiental em la Política Internacional: un análisis de discursos de lide-
razgos políticos en el contexto del Acuerdo de París
Victor de Matos Nascimento1
Recebido em:10 de março de 2023
Aprovado em: 20 de março de 2023
DOI: 10.5752/P.1809-6182.2024v21n1pX-X
1 Doutorando em Relações Internacionais pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais da PUC Minas. ORCID:
0000-0002-9107-0498. Contato: victormatosnasc@gmail.com.
2 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte,
ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
Abstract
Considering the relationship between environmental problems and international security,
this paper questions whether there has been, in recent years, a movement by political
leaderships to securitize environmental problems? e methodology applied in this paper
was a bibliographical review on securitization and its relationship with environmental
discussions. en, we proceed with a discourse analysis of important political leaderships in
the context of the birth of the Paris Agreement. As a result, we observed that, academically,
the debate on the environment and security still lacks many studies. And, although it is not
possible to arm that there is a movement of securitization on the part of international
political leaderships, in the context of COP-21 there were important speeches associating
environmental problems with an urgent threat to the future of humanity.
Key-words: Environment. Climate Change. Securitization. Discourses. Paris Agreement.
Resumo
Considerando a relação entre os problemas ambientais e a segurança internacional, este
artigo questiona se houve, nos últimos anos, um movimento das lideranças políticas para
securitizar os problemas ambientais? A metodologia aplicada neste artigo foi uma revisão
bibliográca sobre securitização e sua relação com as discussões ambientais. Em seguida,
procedemos a uma análise do discurso de importantes lideranças políticas no contexto do
nascimento do Acordo de Paris. Como resultado, observamos que, academicamente, o
debate sobre meio ambiente e segurança ainda carece de muitos estudos. E, embora não
Artigo
3 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
Introduction
ere is already a consensus that climate
change has an expressive anthropogenic com-
ponent and that its consequences aect the
world population in dierent ways. In recent
years, discussions have increased about con-
icts generated by scarcity of resources, mi-
grations induced by environmental problems,
damage to agriculture due to extreme tempera-
tures and loss of territory due to rising sea le-
vels. Although some of these consequences are
still isolated, the fact is that important scienti-
c institutions, such as the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attest that,
in the path that humanity has been following,
if no signicant reduction in global emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHG) is made, these con-
sequences will increase (Franchini et al. 2017;
IMCCS, 2021).
Aware of these consequences, our paper
aims to discuss the relationship between envi-
ronmental issues and international security. We
question if there has been, in recent years, a
movement by political leaderships to securiti-
ze environmental problems? To carry out this
work, through a bibliography review, we rst
highlight the contributions of the Securitiza-
tion eory of the Copenhagen School and
discusses its arguments for the development
of the studies that investigates the relationship
between security and environmental problems.
Afterwards, we carry out a discourse analysis
of important political leaderships for environ-
mental governance in the context of the Paris
Agreement, looking for elements that indicate
whether or not there is an attempt to securiti-
ze the climate issue. As this discussion involves
many aspects, it is noteworthy that this work
does not intend to verify whether the identied
securitization attempts were eective or not.
In addition, our work aims to ll a gap in this
debate, since, as will be shown later, there is a
scarcity of works that make this link that we are
proposing.
seja possível armar que exista um movimento de securitização por parte das lideranças
políticas internacionais, no contexto da COP-21 houve discursos importantes associando os
problemas ambientais a uma ameaça urgente ao futuro da humanidade.
Key-words: Meio Ambiente. Mudança do Clima. Securitização. Discursos. Acordo de Paris
Resumen
Considerando la relación entre los problemas ambientales y la seguridad internacional,
este artículo cuestiona si ha habido, en los últimos años, un movimiento por parte de los
liderazgos políticos para securitizar los problemas ambientales. La metodología aplicada
en este artículo fue una revisión bibliográca sobre la titulización y su relación con las
discusiones ambientales. Luego, procedemos con un análisis del discurso de importantes
liderazgos políticos en el contexto del nacimiento del Acuerdo de París. Como resultado,
observamos que, académicamente, el debate sobre medio ambiente y seguridad aún
carece de muchos estudios. Y, si bien no es posible armar que exista un movimiento
de securitización por parte de los liderazgos políticos internacionales, en el contexto de
la COP-21 hubo importantes discursos asociando los problemas ambientales con una
amenaza urgente al futuro de la humanidad.
Palabras-clave: medio ambiente. Cambio Climático. Securitización. Discursos. Acuerdo de
París.
4 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
Securitizing an issue and the
environmental agenda
In the eld of international security stu-
dies, it is common for authors to diverge on
the concept of security, depending on their
theoretical aliations. ere are those who
defend the exclusivity of the sovereign State
as the main object of reference, such as rea-
lists and neorealists, and others who advocate
a broader concept, such as constructivist and
critical theorists, who oer an approach that
embodies a concern for human beings. It was
in the constructivist approach that the Securi-
tization eory of the Copenhagen School was
established, having as one of its pillars the idea
that securitization takes place through a social
process (Malik, 2015).
Constructivism considers that internatio-
nal relations are socially constructed through
meanings, identities, what certain agents belie-
ve and also through the observation of analysts
about certain phenomena. For the Securitiza-
tion eory, they are social processes that de-
termine whether a given issue is a security issue
or not. us, depending on how it is interpre-
ted, any subject can be a security issue and,
consequently, contrary to traditional approa-
ches in International Relations, the Securitiza-
tion eory goes beyond the sovereign State,
considering multiple reference objects (Malik,
2015).
Of course, if any issue can be a security
issue, none will be. To avoid this problem, Bu-
zan et al. (1998) suggest three criteria for iden-
tifying a security issue: (1) the presence of an
existential threat; (2) the need to act to prevent
a given threat must become a priority; and (3)
the possibility of breaking the rules that govern
the relationship between agents under normal
conditions. In any case, securitization is a sel-
f-referential practice, because it is in the social
process that the subject becomes a security is-
sue, being presented as such, and not because it
is necessarily a threat.
We also consider that an issue is usually
presented as an existential threat by elites, but
the next step depends on an audience’s accep-
tance that that threat is real and of concern to
everyone involved in the context. Only then,
emergency procedures can be adopted, such as
removing that subject from a policy eld un-
der normal conditions and the possibility of
breaking the rules (Malik 2015). e points
highlighted above about securitization and
the explanatory power of the constructivist
approach are important in understanding how
the securitization of environmental issues has
developed over time.
Hough (2015) argues that the securitiza-
tion of environmental issues in international
relations is still a debate far from a consensus.
Although securitization does not necessarily
refer to the militarization of an issue, some
scholars believe that the environmental issue
should not be militarized. Others, like tradi-
tional realists, advocate that issues that are not
military in nature should not be securitized.
An alternative path, which is perhaps one of
the most promising, and which only began to
be developed in the 1990s, places environmen-
tal issues in the perspective of human security,
understanding that thousands of people die
from air pollution and other consequences cli-
mate change. Allenby (2000) also points that
the intersection between national security and
environmental problems started to become
more clearly when the stability of the world’s
ecosystems began to be questioned, in the end
of Cold War and the 20th century. Hence, the
5 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
implications to States, more importantly, their
societies, became undeniable.
One of the rst debates on this issue focu-
sed on the State, highlighting the connection
of climate and key issues in the security debate,
such as war and conict. At the origin of these
problems would be global warming, scarcity of
resources such as water, environmental disas-
ters, oods, diseases and refugee movements
(Hough, 2015). To this day, many believe that
these are isolated problems and still far into the
future. However, these problems are systemic
and are already happening, as shown by data
from institutions such as the IPCC on high
temperatures in tropical areas of the globe, the
challenges of societies dependent on agricul-
ture, sea level rise, forest res and the spread
of pests (Wallace-Wells, 2019). e point is, if
before the debate was about the connection of
these problems with the State, today it is in-
creasingly evident and inseparable from the
impact on human beings’ lives.
Another argument that reinforces the
seriousness of the situation is the discussion
about the Anthropocene. Especially from the
1970s onwards, the increase in scientic evi-
dence reinforced the impact of human activity
on the environment, aggravating certain en-
vironmental problems and increasing global
warming. e pressure of human beings on the
planet allowed the disruption of systems essen-
tial to the stability of life, and the result is that
since the Industrial Revolution the Earth has
abandoned the Holocene period, abandoning a
stability of the last twelve millennia (Franchini
et al. 2017).
At this point, we need to clarify what we
are calling international environmental pro-
blems and what climate problems are. e rst
are “those impacts on the natural environment
of human activities that some signicant set of
people view as negative and that have either a
transboundary or international commons as-
pect” (Mitchell, 2010, p. 21). is is, a pro-
blem exists, in fact, when it is perceived as such
by a set of actors who understand it as so. A cli-
mate problem, on the other hand, is related to
the period in which we live, the Anthropocene,
and concerns, above all, global climate change
and global warming, which in turn are also in-
ternational environmental problems.
In the last thirty years, in addition to the
increase in scientic evidence, it is possible to
identify countries and international organiza-
tions that carry out initiatives that bring the
environmental issue closer to the eld of se-
curity. Often this happens only in a discourse,
but, as seen, it is in the social process that se-
curitization takes place. For example, in 1994,
Russia adopted a declaration stating that en-
vironmental security was part of the country’s
national security. In 2012, Brazil mobilized
the armed forces to ght res in the Ama-
zon, signaling the concern with this problem
(Hough,2015). It is also noteworthy, as stated
by Santos (2015) that, although the IPCC pre-
sents itself as a neutral institution, aspects of
securitization can be identied in its discourses
on global warming. For the author, this securi-
tization is shared by Small Island States, as they
have high levels of vulnerability and exposure
to rising sea levels caused by climate change.
In a recent work, Mendes et al. (2020)
questioned whether vulnerability to climate
change increased or decreased a country’s at-
tempt to securitize an issue. According to the
authors, the hypothesis that a country with a
higher level of vulnerability would be more li-
kely to securitize the climate agenda does not
hold, as the information available to deal with
6 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
this issue may be sucient for policy making,
and how emergency measures can lead to po-
litical instability, it is preferable to deal with
the issue within traditional channels. In other
words, in the debate on the relationship bet-
ween the environmental agenda and interna-
tional security, it is necessary to be aware of the
existence of a series of elements.
It is also necessary to consider the argu-
ments of those who are against the inclusion
of environmental issues in security studies.
According to Deudney (1990), analytically it
would be misleading to think of threats to the
environment as threats to national security, be-
cause its traditional focus would be intra-sta-
te violence and not environmental problems.
Furthermore, according to him, environmental
degradation is not likely to cause wars between
states. Note that this reasoning reects a logic
that does not consider human security as an
analytical object of debate and, in addition, as
already pointed out, securitization does not ne-
cessarily refer to the militarization of an issue.
Although it cannot be said that climate
change has already caused conicts between
States, in the domestic sphere the situation is
dierent. Climate change already has eects on
peace and security, for example in armed con-
icts in institutionally fragile contexts, and the
trend is that with the increase in temperature
this will intensify. Although climate is part of
the agenda of important international security
agents, such as the European Union and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
there is still a long way to go, thinking in terms
of State security and human security (IMCCS
2021).
Furthermore, Deudney’s (1990) argument
about the focus on intrastate security can also
be criticized, since an event potentially harmful
to the environment can start domestically and
aect other countries and regions as well. For
Carter et al. (2021), the consequences of cli-
mate change are transboundary and have a sys-
temic impact, varying in scales and dynamics,
depending on the geographic conditions and
socioeconomic contexts of the aected places.
Again, an approach that pays attention to the
implications of these developments on inter-
national security is important, as only in this
way can adaptation and mitigation planning be
able to build an eective resilience structure.
After these brief considerations on the en-
vironmental theme in the eld of security, what
is observed in the theoretical sphere is that the-
re is still much disagreement and a scarcity of
works on the articulation between the themes.
In practice, initiatives by countries and inter-
national organizations were pointed out in the
articulation between these themes, but there is
still a lack of studies to know the contribution
they have to the securitization of the environ-
mental theme.
Environmental Security in the
international politics of the Paris
Agreement
Resuming the question that guides this
paper, if there has been, in recent years, a mo-
vement by political leaderships to securitize
environmental problems, an analysis will be
made of the initiatives of international policy
agents that have elements that can be interpre-
ted as attempts to securitize the environmental
theme. Speeches by political leaderships will be
analyzed – former US President Barack Oba-
ma, former US Vice President Al Gore, Pope
Francis and the Executive Secretary of the Uni-
ted Nations Framework Convention on Clima-
7 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
te Change (UNFCCC), Cristina Figueres; and
the environmental NGO Greenpeace. ese
agents were chosen because it is assumed that
their positions were important in the context
that led to the establishment of the Paris Agree-
ment in 2015, and also because, they can be
understood, according to theory, as elites whi-
ch discourses matters to determined audiences.
By political leadership, we are assuming
that it is an actor or a set of actors that can
play important roles in a given negotiation or
issue, depending on their attributes. As stated
by Wettestad (1999), a leadership is normally
focused on the success of a negotiation accor-
ding to the values that guide their understan-
ding of success. Underdal (2002) goes beyond
this dimension of negotiation, thinking of a
more diuse and subtle process, where leader-
ship may not present itself explicitly and will
depend on the observer’s identication of his
role in the issue.
As discussed, the constructivist contribu-
tion to security studies believes that securitiza-
tion takes place through a social process, and
one of its primary components is discourse.
Texts, pronouncements, statements and ima-
ges are examples of speeches, as they can con-
tain words or symbols with meanings that go
beyond language, which can also be part of a
historical and social process (Maingueneau
2003). Discursive manifestations can mobilize
a set of elements to try to securitize a given is-
sue.
ere are three modalities of Discourse
Analysis. For this work, modality 2 (AD-2),
commonly associated with the constructivist
eld, is the one that oers the greatest explana-
tory contribution, as it considers the concept
of discursive formation by Foucault (2008),
which establishes that discourses come out of
a specic social place and are also invaded by
other discursive formations (Foucaut 2008;
Mussalim 2006). To operationalize this analy-
sis, we searched for discursive formations in
discourses that associate environmental degra-
dation to a situation of risk, crisis, emergency,
mass extinction and threat to the next genera-
tions.
In 2015, the context in which the discus-
sion on environmental governance took place
was marked by the expectation that the 21st
Conference of the Parties (COP-21) would
manage to establish a strong agreement that
would succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. e
context was driven by increasing scientic evi-
dence attesting to the serious consequences of
GHG emissions and rising global temperatures
on the environment. At the time, two coun-
tries were fundamental agents (and continue
to be): China, currently the country that emits
the most GHG annually, and the USA, which
occupies the second position annually, but rst
in the historical emissions (Silveira, 2019).
In August 2015, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) released the Clean
Power Plan. e plan, which had the support
of President Barack Obama, set limits on car-
bon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power
plants, and proposed a 32% cut below 2005
levels by 2030 (Clean... 2015). Previously, also
endorsed by Obama, the US had presented its
Intended Nationally Determined Contribu-
tions (iNDC) with a total GHG emission re-
duction target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by
2025 (US... 2015). ese targets represented
a concern on the part of the US and Obama
with emissions of CO2, the most harmful to
the atmosphere, and of the GHG as a whole.
However, for Greenpeace, the proposals were
not enough.
8 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
e Obama Administration has submitted a
plan to reduce US climate impacts that be-
gins to treat the wound, but does not stop the
bleeding. As the world’s second largest emit-
ter, the US must strengthen its commitment
to climate solutions before Paris to ensu-
re an agreement that immediately spurs the
necessary transition away from fossil fuels
and towards 100 percent renewable energy
(Greenpeace... 2015, s/p, author’s italics).
is position by one of Greenpeace’s lea-
derships shows an association between the en-
vironmental problem and a disease, as seen in
the terms “wound” and “bleeding”. ese ter-
ms are metaphors, a resource widely used by
political agents in speeches in order to bring
the target audience closer to the object they
want to draw attention to. Metaphors are in
the construction of discourses, whether literary
or scientic, and allow associating a certain
cognitive structure to an object that is being
debated (García, 2004). In addition to meta-
phors, Greenpeace also uses the verb “should”
conjugated in the present tense and the adverb
“immediately”, signaling the degree of urgency
it believes should be attributed to the issue.
Although Greenpeace did not consider
the Obama administration’s proposal enough,
the fact is that, at least in his speeches, former
President Obama was aware of the enormous
environmental challenge facing humanity. On
June 25th, 2013, Obama stated:
And someday, our children, and our children’s
children, will look at us in the eye and they’ll
ask us, did we do all that we could when we
had the chance to deal with this problem and
leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world?
And I want to be able to say, yes, we did.
Don’t you want that? (Remarks... 2013, s/p,
author’s italics).
In this excerpt, we observe that Obama
associates the environmental challenge with
a generational issue, questioning his interlo-
cutors about the future they would leave for
their children. Obama also uses the adjectives
“clean, safe and stable” to refer to the future he
is questioning. For many societies, security and
stability are attributes considered fundamental
to the social order, therefore, by putting these
attributes in check, it is believed that there is
an initiative on the part of Obama to place the
debate on the future of environmental gover-
nance in the eld of security.
In addition to the highlighted points,
the last sentence underlined, “don’t you want
that?”, reinforces the idea of trying to convin-
ce an audience about a certain issue. As men-
tioned, one of the elements that make up the
securitization of an issue is the acceptance by
an audience that it is urgent. Only in this way
is it possible to remove it from a eld of poli-
tics under normal conditions, and place it in
another that allows for the adoption of more
urgent actions and even the breaking of rules
(Malik, 2015).
Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr., former US
Vice President, is also known for being an
environmental activist, founder of the NGO
Climate Reality and, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
laureate with the IPCC (e Nobel... 2020). In
2015, when speaking at COP-21, he declared:
make no mistake, the next generation will
inherit the Earth we bequeath to them. […]
If they live in a world in which we have not
addressed this crisis […] they would be jus-
tied in looking back at us, this group of us
gathered here in Paris in December of 2015
and asking, ‘what were you thinking?! Why did
you not act?! (Envirobeat, 2015, s/p, author’s
italics).
As we see, this speech has many elements
that are similar to the one delivered by Oba-
ma. ere is a mention of the generational is-
sue and the Planet that humanity is leaving for
9 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
our successors. Furthermore, Al Gore uses the
same strategy as Obama when questioning his
interlocutors about “why did you not act?!”.
Furthermore, he also calls the environmental
problem a “crisis”, adding an element that re-
fers to something more worrying and that de-
mands more attention.
Another important gure in 2015 was
Pope Francis, who published an Encyclical
Letter called Laudato Si’2, which addressed the
interconnected nature of environmental, eco-
nomic, and equity issues. In the text, Francis
states that “it is necessary to reinvigorate the
awareness that we are one human family. ere
are no borders or political or social barriers that
allow us to be isolated” (Francisco, 2015, p. 42-
43, author’s italics). In another excerpt, he re-
fers to “a crisis that is a ‘dramatic consequence’
of the uncontrolled activity of human beings”
(p. 4, author’s italics). e text also highlights
the presence of terms such as “ecological crisis”
and “urgency” in relation to human awareness.
As noted, the document mixes elements that
give faith, such as the allusion to the “human
family”, but it also recognizes the anthropoge-
nic nature of environmental problems. In addi-
tion, like Obama and Al Gore, Francisco calls
the situation a “crisis”, communicating to his
audience, mostly made up of Catholic Chris-
tians, about the seriousness of the situation.
One of the reasons for the importance of
the encyclical letter is precisely the audience
it reaches, bearing in mind the gure of Pope
Francis. For Cristina Figueres, UNFCCC Exe-
2 Laudato Si’ comes from “Laudato Si’, mi Signore”, a chant
sung by St. Francis of Assisi whose meaning was “Praised
be You, my Lord”. In the letter, Francisco addresses all of
humanity, warning of the consequences of the devastation
that has been done to the planet. Published in a book, the
text originated the Laudato Si’ Movement, whose goals are
inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN
2030 Agenda (Francisco, 2015).
cutive Secretary at the time, “Pope Francis’
encyclical underscores the moral imperative for
urgent action on climate change to lift the pla-
net’s most vulnerable populations, protect deve-
lopment, and spur responsible growth (Pope...
2015, s /p, author’s italics). In this speech, the
Executive Secretary highlights the impact on
the most vulnerable populations, reinforcing
that this cut is also important for the debate.
Furthermore, in addition to emphasizing the
call for “urgent action”, Figueres also empha-
sizes that taking care of the Planet would be a
“moral imperative”, making use of the assump-
tions that guide the Catholic Christian faith,
and also of concern for future generations. In
other words, his speech is also in tune with tho-
se of the other agents analyzed, especially in the
understanding that urgent action is needed.
Considering Buzan et at. (1998)’s three
criteria, what we can observe in each political
leadership is: Greenpeace uses metaphors and
verbs characteristic to securitization speeches,
but asks for an action of the U.S. government
into the institutional channels, such as a stron-
ger NDC. Obama and Al Gore allude to the
generational issue and a moral commitment of
humanity, but they do not make it clear whe-
ther this should become a priority. In Obama’s
case, although he speaks of values such as se-
curity and stability, which are commonly rela-
ted to security, there is not a possibility of action
through the breaking of rules. With regard to
Pope Francis and the Executive Secretary of the
UNFCCC, both mobilize in their speeches the
issue of humanity’s moral imperative towards
the environment and the next generations, but
also do not go beyond the identication of an
existential threat.
10 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
Conclusion
Among International Relations academi-
cs, depending on their theoretical aliations,
there is a series of disagreements about the
reading of environmental problems and their
impacts through the lens of security studies.
Among political leaders and decision makers,
focusing on those who bring the environmen-
tal issue in their discourse, what is observed is
the presence of elements that can be interpre-
ted as attempts at securitization, but which do
not go beyond the identication of an existen-
tial threat.
We asked whether in recent years there
has been a movement by political leaderships
to securitize environmental problems? Some
elements of the Securitization eory were
presented and its consequences were discussed,
when the focus is on environmental problems.
In our speech’s analysis, what was observed
were important leaderships of countries and
institutions with speeches that make use of
common resources in securitization attempts,
such as the use of metaphors and the intention
to convince a certain audience about a cer-
tain issue. However, none of them said openly
that environmental problems must become a
priority, or at least, they did not specify how
it should be done. And more important, all
of them are speaking from institutional chan-
nels and saying that measures need to be taken
through them, encouraging, for example, the
adoption of the Paris Agreement.
us, although it is not possible to state
that there is a movement of securitization on
the part of international leaderships, what is
clear is that this is a debate among academics
– which needs to be intensied - and that, in
the context of COP-21, important leaderships
spoke out by associating environmental pro-
blems with an existential threat to the future
of humanity. Furthermore, if in previous years
there were environmental movements and dis-
persed voices that denounced environmental
problems, what we had in the 2015’s context,
at least discursive, are speeches of the interna-
tional political elite relating these themes.
References
Allenby, Braden R. 2000. Environmental security: concept and
implementation. International Political Science Review, 21 (1):
5–21.
Buzan, B.; Waever, O.; Wlde, J. 1998. Security: a New Frame-
work for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers: London.
Carter, Timothy R.; Benzie, Magnus; Campiglio, Emanuele;
Carlsen, Henrik; Fronzed, Stefan; Hildén, Mikael; Reyer,
Christopher P.O.; West, Chris. 2021. A conceptual framework
for cross-border impacts of climate change. Global Environmen-
tal Change. Vol. 69, p. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2021.102307.
Clean Power Plan. 2015. United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Available at: https://archive.epa.gov/epa/clean-
powerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html. Last
accessed: July 17, 2021.
Deudney, D. 1990. e Case Against Linking Environmental
Degradation and Security. Millennium. Vol. 19, Nº. 3, 46-76.
Envirobeat. Former Vice President Al Gore Fires Up COP21
Delegates. 2015. (6m34s). Disponível em: https://www.you-
tube.com/watch?v=T90BcrwmoAA&ab_channel=envirobeat.
Acesso em: 15 jan. 2021.
Foucaut, Michel. 2008. A arqueologia do saber. 7ed. Rio de
Janeiro: Forense Universitária.
Franchini, Matías; Viola, Eduardo; Barros-Platiau, Ana
Flávia. 2017. e challenges of the antropocene: from in-
ternational environmental politics to global governance.
Ambiente & Sociedade, vol.20 no.3. São Paulo July/Sept. Avai-
lable at: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttex-
t&pid=S1414-753X2017000300177&lng=en&tlng=en. Last
accessed: July 23, 2021.
Francisco, Papa. 2015. Carta Encíclica “Laudato Si’” sobre o
cuidado da casa comum. Tradução da Editora do Vaticano. São
Paulo: Paulus/ Loyola.
García, Dorde Cuvardic. 2004. La metáfora en el discurso po-
lítico. Revista Reexiones. 83 (2), p. 61-72.
Greenpeace Reaction to US Climate Oer. 2015. Greenpeace.
Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpea-
ce-reaction-to-us-climate-oer/. Last accessed: July 17, 2021.
Hough, Peter. Environmental Security. In. Hough, Peter; Ma-
lik, Shahin; Moran, Andrew; Pilbeam, Bruce. 2015. Internatio-
nal Security Studies: eory and practice. Peter Hough, Shahin
Malik, Andrew Moran and Bruce Pilbeam (Ed). Routledge:
New York.
IMCCS (International Military Council on Climate and Se-
11 • Conjuntura Internacional • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 1809-6182, v.21 n.1, p.2 - 11, abr. 2024
curity). 2021. e World Climate and Security Report 2021.
Available at: https://imccs.org/the-world-climate-and-securi-
ty-report-2021/. Last accessed: July 14, 2021.
Maingueneau, Dominique. 2003. Términos Clave del Análisis
del Discurso. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión.
Malik, Shahin. Constructing Security. In. Houh, Peter; Malik,
Shahin; Moran, Andrew; Pilbeam, Bruce. 2015. Internation-
al Security Studies: eory and practice. Peter Hough, Shahin
Malik, Andrew Moran and Bruce Pilbeam (Ed). Routledge:
New York.
Mendes, Cristiano; Dos Santos, Letícia Britto; De Souza, Ma-
tilde. 2020. Climate Change, vulnerability and securitization.
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63 (1), e14, p. 3-16.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202000114.
Mitchell. Ronald B. International Politics and the Environment.
London: SAGE Publications, 2010.
Mussalim, Fernanda. Análise de discurso. In: Mussalim, F.;
Bentes, A. C. (orgs.). 2006. Introdução à linguística: domínios
e fronteiras, vol.2. 5ª Ed. São Paulo: Cortez.
Remarks by the President on Climate Change. 2013. e
White House. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.
gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-cli-
mate-change. Last accessed: January 13, 2021.
Santos, Letícia Britto dos. 2015. Climate Change as Envi-
ronmental International Security Issue: e reat of Global
Warming in Small Island States. Conjuntura Internacional, V.
12, Nº. 1, p. 28 - 35.
Silveira, Mariana Balau. 2019. Das negociações do clima ao cli-
ma das negociações: A presidência das COP no Complexo de
Regime das Mudanças do Clima. Tese (Doutorado em Rela-
ções Internacionais) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Mi-
nas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2019.
e Nobel Peace Prize 2007. 2020. e Nobel Prize. Available
at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/summary/.
Last accessed: July 17, 2021.
Underdal, A. Methods of Analysis. In: Miles, E., Underdal,
A., Andersen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjaerseth, J., Carlin, E. Envi-
ronmental Regimes Eectiveness: Confronting eory and Evi-
dence. MIT Press. 2002.
U.S.-China joint presidential statement on climate change.
2015. e White House. Available at: https://obamawhite-
house.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-chi-
na-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change. Last accessed:
July 17, 2021.
Wallace-Wells, David. 2019. A Terra Inabitável: uma história
do futuro. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Wettestad, J. Designing Eective Environmental Regimes: the
key conditions. EE Publishing. 1999.
