Environmental Studies of English School: Case Study of Forest Fires in Indonesia and Transboundary Haze in Southeast Asia Yanyan Mochamad Yani Padjadjaran University, Indonesia Verdinand Robertua Christian University of Indonesia, Indonesia Abstract Despite of its advantages in social dimension, English School still has limited articles on environmental issues. Many global ecological crisis has been dealt with constructivism and green theory because the failure of English Scholars to adopt new norms such as climate responsibility, sustainable development and environmental justice. This article would like to highlight the synthesis of the normative tensions and the regional studies within the environmental studies of English School using the case study of Indonesia ratification to ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Pluralism and solidarism will be the conceptual instruments in criticizing the blindness of environmental analysis in the English School communities and also constructing the environmental-friendly English School theory. There are two main conclusions in this article. Firstly, Indonesia ratification of ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, the emergence of domestic environmental legislation and the adoption of environmental responsibility marked the end of pluralist hegemony in environmental studies. Secondly, Indonesia ratification of AATHP is one of the foundations of regional environmental governance in Southeast Asia. Key words: pluralism, solidarism, transboundary haze, Southeast Asia Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2018), pp. 117-135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v6i1.3964 ©2018 by CBDS Bina Nusantara University and Indonesian Association for International Relations ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN 2338-1353 electronic https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v6i1.3964 118 Environmental Studies of English School Introduction Forest fires and transboundary haze are man-made disasters in Southeast Asia. This disaster has been a controversial topic between ASEAN members. ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was signed in 2002 with the aim to collectively combat the fires using joint resources and continuous dialogue (ASEAN, 2002). ASEAN has many arrangements in dealing with environmental issues collectively such as ASEAN Strategic Plan on Environment and Jakarta Declaration on Sustainable Development with the purpose to strengthen inter-governmental cooperation in tackling and preventing regional environmental issues (Elliot, 2012, p. 46). Dauvergne (1998) mentioned that Indonesian government was systematically destroying the forest for transmigration project, palm oil plantation and paper and pulp companies. In 1990s, Suharto government escalated national economic growth through agriculture industrialization and then the need for converting the forest land was inevitable. In the Suharto era, many corporations that were closed to Suharto’s families received huge areas of concessions and forest fires and other clear-cutting forest method were widely used as a tool for land conversion (Barber & Schweithelm, 2000, p. vi). After Suharto regime was toppled down, province and district government have bigger authority in many public sectors including the forest management. However, provincial leaders and district leaders of the new democratic government didn’t show their effective leadership in preventing deforestation, forest fires and transboundary haze. Berenschot (2015) called this phenomenon as the haze of democracy. The worst impact of haze was happened in 1997-1998. The haze harmed people’s health and stopped public activities for weeks in Indonesia and other five countries namely Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippine (Tay, 2001). Indonesia suffered significant loss of human lives, forests area, endangered species and biodiversity loss, financial damage meanwhile Singapore and Malaysia peoples also were exposed to toxic gas. Malaysia and Singapore had deteriorating air quality to dangerous level. In Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, pollution standard index (PSI) hit to 839 (Tay, 2001, p. 5). A reading of PSI over 100 is considered unhealthy and above 300 is hazardous (Cotton, 1999, p. 332). PSI evaluated the healthiness of air based on the presence of four main elements namely sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, ozone and carbon monoxide. Dauvergne (1998, p. 13) mentioned that more than 200.000 peoples in Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore were seeking medical treatment due to the air pollution. It is also noted that almost a quarter of Indonesia’s peat forest was gone due to the fires (Dauvergne, 1998, p. 13). Forest fires, transboundary haze, and other ecological crises were rarely discussed within the English School communities. Sanna Kopra (2016) wrote a dissertation regarding China’s climate responsibility using English School and Robert Falkner (2017) discussed the critics toward the blindness of English School theorists toward environmental issues using pluralism-solidarism continuum and climate change politics. None of English Journal of ASEAN Studies 119 School scholars spotted the urgency of building environmental studies of English School based on massive destruction of forest fires and transboundary haze in Southeast Asia. The absence of environmental studies in English School is a great disadvantage. Jones (1981) is the first scholar giving the label of English School to the thinking of Charles Manning, Herbert Butterfield and Hedley Bull. The founder of English School was critical toward the domination of classical Realism and focused to the importance of diplomacy, international law and international organization. English School gained revival after the incoming of new of scholars including Barry Buzan, Richard Little, Andrew Hurrell. They relaunched the School on a global scale and successful in attracting and inviting new scholars and English School become an established tradition in IR communities (Jorgensen, 2010, p. 105). The primary reason of the revival of the school is the emphasis on the social dimension. Barry Buzan (2004, 1) said that “after a long period of neglect, the social (or societal dimension) of the international system is being brought back into fashion within the International Relations by the upsurge of interest in constructivism”. This social emphasis enabled researcher to see the complexity and the paradox of many contradicting phenomena. The collapse of Berlin Wall, the break-up of Soviet Union, the increasing significance of multinational corporations, and global environmental crisis provided impetus for social theories of International Relations. It is also evident that regional organizations have evolved significantly in their ability to do deal with complex issues as shown in the context of the European Union. In his book From International Society to World Society, Buzan (2004) devoted a special chapter urging scholars to give greater attention to regional studies. According to Buzan (2004), regional studies can bring significant contribution to the diversity of ideas and concepts of English School tradition. However, there is a gap between regional studies and environmental studies. This article argued that the complexity of regional studies can be enriched with the environmental studies. A combination of environmental studies with regional studies is the aim of this article. To achieve the aforementioned goal, the authors have to tackle two main problems. Firstly, English School scholars mostly focused to develop the concept of pluralism of English School (Falkner, 2017; Buzan, 2004). The domination of pluralism within the English School will not develop the environmental regional studies (Buzan, 2004). Using differentiation between thin and thick, Buzan argued that English School scholars still has lack of discussion regarding the concept of solidarism of English School (Buzan 2004, p. 140). Solidarism is key criteria to have “thick” environmental studies of English School. Secondly, there are problems of English School methodology. Case-based study has great potential to theorize key concepts of English School. Jackson (2009, p. 21) said: “theory is a creature of practice and not the other way about, as is often assumed”. In order to evaluate the pluralism and solidarism in English School, 120 Environmental Studies of English School scholars can use specific cases that are relevant to the English School theoretical development. According to Jackson (2009), there are two criteria to select cases. Firstly, it is pluralistic and secondly, the authors are detached. According to Jackson (2009), case selection in English School theoretical development is based on pluralistic approach. Pluralistic approach highlighted the key character of normative inquiry within a specific case that consisted of contradiction, paradox or dilemma. After in-depth investigation using pluralistic approach, researchers deliver their new theoretical construct. Secondly, Jackson emphasized that case selection should give more benefit to the theoretical development than the author’s personal values. The role of English School theorists is to provide interpretation based on reasonableness and logical consistency (Jakson 2009, 26). In this article, Indonesia ratification to AATHP is used as the case to evaluate the domination of pluralism within English School discussion. AATHP and the handling of forest fires provided a complex issue involving the conflicted interest of Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. There is also a perpetual clash between palm oil industry and environmental activists regarding the clearance of forest. English School Environmental Blindness Indonesia’s policies to pursue forest- based developmental strategy are parallel to the blindness of IR theories toward the environmental responsibility. This is anthropocentric view of International Relations. Scholars denied the importance of non-human nature, the needs of future generations and unfair distribution of ecological harms (Eckersley, Green Theory, 2013, p. 267). Eckersley (2013) said that the interests of future generations, the poor and the weak and the non-human nature are invisible and hidden from the global decision-making process. The hegemony of sovereignty is not balanced by other institutions such as civil society and multi- national corporations. Without the ecological crisis as shown by forest fires and haze, anthropocentric view of International Relations will be intact. The philosophy of anthropocentric views started from the assumption that the Earth can support unlimited economic growth (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2005, p. 5). Technology and engineering can manipulate and modify the ecosystem to suit the interest of the human being. The role of governments is to enhance the advancement of science and engineering through financial support. Scientific achievements have the purpose to repair and mitigate the impact of environmental problems (Clapp and Dauvergne 2005, 6). The environmental responsibility is then closely connected with technology. Anthropocentric approach has some parallels to pluralism of English School. Pluralism advised for state-centric mode of governance, the primacy of great power, and the pursuit of national interest (Buzan, 2004). Meanwhile solidarism prefers to embrace new ideas and values into the existing international order such as human rights, democracy and environmental responsibility. The purpose of the dichotomy of solidarism and pluralism is to uncover the complexity surrounding an issue. English Journal of ASEAN Studies 121 School provided a continuum that solidarism and pluralism have equal and fair place that enabled researchers to understand the contradicting and dilemmatic situation. However, solidarism didn’t attract much attention of English School scholars which caused the failure of the School to establish its environmental studies. Hedley Bull is one of English School founder and supporter of pluralism. He developed international order on the basis of pluralism. According to him, there are three components of international order. Firstly, there is a goal of preservation of state-centric society and the independence of states. Secondly, avoidance of violence. And lastly, respects for property (Bull, 1977). Bull is very critical to the idea of integrating environmental responsibility to international order due to his perception that environmental justice can be serious threat to state and its independence. Bull denied the importance of civil society and other non-state actors because they are not appointed through legitimate political process. If a tyrant and authoritarian regime are elected through legitimate process, then they reserved for their right to control the government. Bull said: “And the idea of the rights of the individual human being raises in international politics the question of the right and duty of persons and groups other than the state to which he owes allegiance to come to his aid in the event that his rights are being disregarded - the right of the Western powers to protect the political rights of the citizens of Eastern European countries, or of Africans to protect the rights of black South Africans, or of China to protect the right of Chinese minorities in South-east Asia. These are questions which, answered in a certain way, lead to disorder in international relations, or even to the breakdown of international society itself” (Bull, 1977, p. 80). Bull’s statement confirmed the immutability thesis of material structures of International Relations. In the case of forest fires and transboundary haze, it is the interest of non-human nature, the poor and the indigenous peoples that has been invisible and undermined by the existing theorization of pluralism. Aljazeera (2017) reported that Indonesia is home to an estimated 50-70 million tribal people, but most of them do not have formal title to the forest land. Pluralism neglects the interest of non-human nature, tribal groups and the normative goal of environmental responsibility. Forest fires and haze are the main consequences of this inaction. Buzan explained the factors of the failure of English School scholars to construct the solidarism studies. Buzan said that the hierarchy of pluralism over solidarism was largely pragmatic. In Buzan’s opinion, Hedley Bull’s support to pluralism was based on the assumption that “the state-based approach provided both the only immediately available pathway to a degree of achievable international order, and also a valuable via media between the extremes of realism and liberalism” (Buzan, 2004, 36). Liste (2017) argued that English School scholars can’t take the pluralism as the taken-for-granted norms. English School is also a critical movement toward the hegemony of pluralism in environmental studies of English School. There are already many evidences and phenomenon 122 Environmental Studies of English School indicating irrelevance of pluralism in environmental politics. The presence of various multilateral environmental agreement, public-private partnership and green global movement urged the transformation of state-based pluralism into complex governance beyond the state (Hurrell, On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society, 2007). Sustainable development was used as global development platform for policy-makers (Bernstein, 2001). This is the main challenge for English Scholars. It is important to construct solidarism that is sufficient to answer the ecological challenge such as the emergence of sustainable development. Andrew Hurrell (2007) mentioned that there are three ecological challenges. First challenge is related to the failure of states in dealing with global environmental crisis. Secondly, states are also failed in dealing with local and national environmental problems. Lastly, there are impetuses for creation of a form of non- territorially based political identity. Solidarism has immense potential in answering these challenges by borrowing the concepts environmental justice, sustainable development and climate responsibilities within the English School discourse. English School scholar Sanna Kopra (2016) has written about climate responsibilities and Verdinand Robertua (2016) has written about sustainable development. It is important to further these researches looking the relevancy of solidarism in answering environmental problems including transboundary haze and forest fires. By combining case study with theoretical framework, Environmental Studies of English School has a stronger foundation in International Relations theories. Regional Environmental Governance The hierarchy of pluralism over solidarism can also be seen in the construction of the concept of regional environmental governance. Varkkey (2012) has developed the regionalism of environmental issues using the case studies of forest fires and transboundary haze in Southeast Asia. She argued that ASEAN Way was hampering the establishment of effective haze mitigation mechanism. Varkkey said “This difference in emphases of sovereignty explains why environmental regionalism in Europe has been successful while environmental regionalism in Southeast Asia has not” (Varkkey 2012, 81). The inhospitality of ASEAN Way and haze prevention mechanism was happened due to the interest of Indonesian palm oil industry which contributed significantly to Indonesian national income. Economic interest was prioritized in the Southeast Asia multilateral negotiation including the priority agenda of internationalization of palm oil and forest- related products (Varkkey, 2012, 77-8). Southeast Asia regionalism is founded on the basis of traditional market model. ASEAN was intended to bring welfare and profit through market liberalization. Integration project was evaluated on the basis of monetary value of goods and services. All states are assumed to seek material gain (Miller, 2008, pp. 18- 19). Economic integration obtained higher priority due to the perception that the economic integration will bring greater economic values to individuals (Amador, Journal of ASEAN Studies 123 2011). Meanwhile environmental integration received lukewarm attention due to lack of economic incentives to the states. Meanwhile Elliot also offered similar arguments stating the ineffectiveness of ASEAN’s regional environmental governance. She said: “Regional environmental structures under ASEAN have generally failed to offer effective channels of communication for and among a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities and sub- national units. Commentators have pointed to the importance of engagement with civil society for robust regional environmental governance structures and processes” (Elliot, 2012: 62). The case study of the Indonesia ratification to ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution is an interesting attempt to evaluate the comments above. Buzan (2004) urged English Scholars to devise regional analysis of English School and regional environmental governance is a promising arena for English School-based regional environmental governance. Forest Fires and Transboundary Haze in Indonesia and Southeast Asia Forest fires in Indonesia and transboundary haze in Southeast Asia has transformed ASEAN’s meeting into a debate forum for Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. Due to the forest fires, Singapore had significant decrease of income on tourism industry and industrial investment. It is estimated that 1997’s fires had burdened Singapore’s economy around US$ 9-10 Billion with additional US$ 1.5 Billion for assisting fire-fighting in Indonesia (Forsyth, 2014, p. 18). In a more moderate figure, Varkkey (2011, p. 87) mentioned the data of Singapore’s damage around US$ 97.5 Million during 1997’s forest fires crisis. In 2006, Singapore’s Changi airport was forced to closed due to low visibility and disrupt Singapore’s mega events such as F1 race and APEC forum (Varkkey, 2011, p. 87). Due to the deadly threat of haze to human health, Malaysia declared state of emergency in the state of Sarawak and prepared evacuation plan for two millions of its inhabitants (Barber & Schweithelm, 2000, p. 20). Schools and factories were closed. There were 65% increase of asthma cases and other acute respiratory cases among adults and children (Barber & Schweithelm, 2000, p. 20). Sarawak is very close to the source of haze of Kalimantan islands in Indonesia. In August 1997, there were public demonstration in front of Indonesian embassy office to Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur stating their anger toward the failure of Indonesian government preventing and mitigating the fires and the haze (Wahyuni, 2011). In response to public demand, Singapore and Malaysia expressed their interest to have collective anti-haze efforts under the framework of ASEAN. Singapore government questioned the seriousness of Indonesian government and offered assistance using ASEAN’s framework. Indonesian government rejected the assistance by saying that the mitigation of forest fires was the sole authority of Indonesian government (Nguitragool, 2011). 124 Environmental Studies of English School Varkkey (2009) argued that Indonesia’s persistence of rejecting ASEAN framework was caused by the trauma of IMF’s experience, the hand-over of Indonesian’s islands to Malaysia, Indonesia’s vulnerability of internal conflict, and colonial history. Nguitragool (2011) and Dauvergne (1998) added that Indonesian government had internal friction regarding the cause of the fires resulted into contradicting policies between Ministry of Forest and Ministry of Environment. Former Head of National Committee for Disaster Management Azwar Anas stated that forest fires were due to natural phenomenon of El-Nino which was hardly mitigated and prevented (Nguitragool, 2011). Meanwhile Minister of Environment Sarwono Kusumaatmadja complained that corporation didn’t seriously consider environmental impact of forest fires because they had political protection from Suharto’s ruling family (Dauvergne, 1998). However, Indonesian Environment Minister also accused that Malaysian companies were also responsible toward the forest fires. Tempo (2013) reported that there were eight Malaysian companies suspected of causing fires in Riau and Jambi. The police discovered burnings in the concessions owned by Malaysian companies (Tempo, 2013). The rivalry of Indonesia with Singapore and Malaysia indicated the debate of the effectiveness of state-centric system in overcoming of the impact of environmental crisis. The absence of effective prevention mechanism of transboundary haze was partly due to the primacy of sovereign government over the interest of the nature. The persistence of sovereignty of Indonesia in dealing with fires has some parallels to Indonesia foreign policy toward ASEAN. For Indonesia, ASEAN should work based on the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention including in discussing environmental problems. ASEAN Way is reflecting Indonesia foreign policy that adopted a consensus, non- legalistic binding and informal approach (Acharya, 1997). For Varkkey (2011), it takes longer time to solve environmental problems using ASEAN Way rather than using binding approach as used by the European Union. In his comparative studies, Varkkey (2011) claimed that ASEAN Way has hampered effective prevention mechanism of transboundary haze. ASEAN Way is a manifestation of pragmatic, self-interest and gradualist development of governments (Acharya 1997). Meanwhile The European Union has built an effective cooperating institution using the Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution in dealing with acid rain with regional scope. Moreover, the EU has authority to impose punishment for any abuse of power that leads to ecological crisis (Varkkey 2011). Effective prevention of haze and fires needs regional responsibility with the focus of improving commitment toward the nature, ecosystem and environment. The transboundary haze and forest fires indicated the normative tension between sovereignty and the interest of non-human nature and future generations. Forest fires and transboundary haze are the main effect of Indonesia’s policy to focus to exploit the natural resources and exchanged it for massive infrastructure development in health and education services as well as other public facilities such as roads, airports, and seaports. In the leader’s view, Journal of ASEAN Studies 125 forests can bring financial benefits to the host states by trading the timber and converted the land into palm oil or pulp plantation. Indonesian government has also distributed mass hectares of forests land to the local community through transmigration program (Dauvergne, 1994). Sovereignty is a primary institution of International Relations and this primacy has destructive consequences on ecosystem and the Earth. Ozone depletion, water scarcity, air pollution and oil spill are just few disasters related to industrialization and modernization. Moreover, this situation is immutable (Eckersley, 2005). The recurring pattern of environmental crisis seems confirming the immutability thesis that states will not give up their national interest in exchange for ecological thought (Laferrière & Stoett, 1999). Falk explained the factors of immutability: “A world of sovereign states is unable to cope with endangered-planet problems. Each government is mainly concerned with the pursuit of national goals. These goals are defined in relation to economic growth, political stability and international prestige. The political logic of nationalism generates a system of International Relations that is dominated by conflict and competition. Such a system exhibits only a modest capacity for international co-operation and co- ordination. The distribution of power and authority, as well as the organization of human effort, is overwhelmingly guided by the selfish drive of nations” (Falk, 1971, pp. 37-38). Falk’s classical text above is a perfect illustration of the pessimism of power- political continuum. The priority of national interest and hard power competition put the interest of the Earth and the ecosystem aside. In the anarchic international system, governments can’t expect superior agency in protecting their territory and the power from external aggression. Government will use diplomacy and all related instruments to protect their territory and their peoples. Governments will not compromise their goal for the achieving ecological interest. ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) The immutability of pluralism was tested after Indonesia ratified ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP). It needs 13 years for Indonesia to ratify the agreement. During the ratification process, many articles showed pessimism of Indonesia’s commitment to ratify the agreement. Nguitragool (2011) argued that AATHP was seen as a threat to Indonesian sovereignty meanwhile Purwaningtyas (2007) claimed that Indonesian parliament didn’t support AATHP due to lack of short-term incentives. Varkkey (2009) showed that nationalist sentiments played an important role in Indonesia’s long process of ratification of AATHP. AATHP also provoked internal dispute between Indonesian cabinet that Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Environment supported the ratification meanwhile Ministry of Forest were pessimist toward the prospect of AATHP (Nguitragool, 2011). The neglect of AATHP within the Indonesian parliament and the government’s agenda gave few reasons to develop environmental studies of English School. 126 Environmental Studies of English School The absence of commitment to integrate environmental responsibility into Indonesian foreign policy agenda didn’t provide foundation and background to develop sustainable development, climate responsibility or environmental justice into English School discourse. However, the ratification of AATHP is a surprise that negated this pessimism. From the case study of transboundary haze, Indonesia’s ratification to AATHP in 2015 is a symbol of importance of solidarism-based environmental studies of ES. AATHP has the normative ambition to realize forests as the public goods for future generations. With this kind of ambition, AATHP endorsed win-win solution such as AATHP fund, joint coordination on forest fires combat or ASEAN Humanitarian Agency. The ratification of Indonesian government of AATHP is a breakthrough of the environmental studies because it changed the priority of government from high politics issues such as security and welfare toward the forestry issues. This is closely related to the new presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. From the beginning of his leadership, environmental issues along with anti-corruption program emerged as the priority agenda. In 2010, the president also signed the REDD+ letter of intent with Norwegian government by issuing moratorium for forest conversion (Kompas, 2010). Yudhoyono government received one Billion US Dollar from Norwegian government for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The bilateral agreement indicated that Indonesian government are looking to change their meaning of sovereignty not based only on the narrow definition of material gain but also including environmental justice and sustainable development. Yudhoyono government emphasized the importance of keeping the forest for future generations and this policy has parallel to sustainable development global developmental platform advising a “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Sustainable development requires changes in patterns and levels of production and consumption, protection and promotion of biodiversity, inter- and intra-generational equity (Baker, Kousis, Richardson, & Young, 1997, p. 9). Forest, then, is a critical element in sustainable development that it provided rich biodiversity ecosystem and resources for future generation. REDD+ is a sustainable development policy as it promoted and protected forest. After published by World Commission on Sustainable Development, sustainable development was a key concept in Rio De Janeiro Conference in 1992 with the focus to be the platform of cooperation between developing and developed countries for addressing global environmental problems (Bernstein, 2001). Sustainable development was also used as main topic for Johannesburg Conference with the focus of inclusion of corporation and private entities in state-led regional environmental governance. Multi- stakeholder initiative is one of the results of Johannesburg negotiation and can be considered as a derivative of sustainable development (Robertua, 2017). Journal of ASEAN Studies 127 Not only about Indonesia’s ratification to AATHP, environmental studies are stronger after significant change in domestic environmental legislation. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has established National Climate Change Council in 2008 that oversee the implementation of Indonesian’s climate change policy (McLellan, 2015). In 2009, the new environmental protection legislation law is signed. The law required all national, provincial and city governments to develop environmental management plans. Indonesia also returned the forest to the local indigenous communities. As mentioned earlier, Indonesia has 50-70 million tribal people and 8.2 million hectares of forest belong to them (Aljazeera 2017). Through the national law of Forest in 1987, Indonesian government grabbed all the land into the ownership of the state. However, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court ruled in 2013 that the tribes have the right to manage forests and the government should return the customary lands to tribal communities (Aljazeera, 2017). Tribal group’s victory is not only the victory for minority but also for the solidarism pillar that advised for significant shift to adopt non-state actors in the environmental politics. Indonesia’s ratification to AATHP showed that the inclusion of environmental responsibility in the environmental studies of ES did not obstruct the primary institution of sovereignty. The contradiction of anarchy and environmental responsibility is not necessary in the construction of solidarist environmental studies. The ratification of AATHP, the emergence of domestic environmental legislation and the adoption of environmental responsibility marked the end of the immutability thesis. The attention toward new actors marked the beginning of environmental studies without avoiding the decline of states. Multinational corporations and civil society are new actors in International Relations because they have similar goals to the states that contributing to peace, non- violence and property rights. In the case of transboundary haze and forest crisis, corporation and civil society are building alliance in campaigning for environmental- friendly products by introducing the green- label. The alliance is monitoring whether the activities of corporations comply with the standards of environmental-friendly products. Some notable examples of these alliances are Rountable Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). RSPO and FSC are important tools in the campaign on the harmful impact of forest fires and haze. They set the environmental standards for corporation and monitoring the compliance and appreciating the achievement as well. The main purpose of RSPO and FSC is to promote sustainable development and environmental responsibility for corporation beyond the narrow self-interest (Moog, Spicer, & Bohm, 2015). As stated by Falkner, Stockholm Conference, Rio Conference and Johannesburg Conference were empowering pro-environmental actors within government and created a complex interaction regarding treaty commitments, institutional linkages and actors networks (Falkner, Global environmentalism and the greening of international society, 2012, p. 128 Environmental Studies of English School 516). In Stockholm Conference, there was a rift between developed and developing which need 20 years to fix the rift. 20 years from Stockholm, developed and developing countries agreed on the environmental responsibility (Dauvergne, 2008, pp. 454- 459). There is a shift of the debate whether developed or developing countries that are responsible into the debate on the form of new global economy that supported the non-human nature and the weak groups in a society. To be able to explain the role of RSPO, environmental studies of ES must reject the immutability of the inhospitality between order and justice. The argument is that international order is compatible with environmental justice. Therefore environmental studies of ES will be inclusive combining state with non-state actors that have the same goals of preserving the ecosystem and the Earth. The assumption of environmental studies is that global crisis is happening and it is the result of excessive use of natural resources. Globalization accelerated the exploitation and the way forward is transformation from anthropocentric view into new global economy that promoted local wisdom, environmental justice and internationalization of non-human life (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2005, pp. 14-15). Environmental Studies of English School As mentioned earlier, the rivalry of order and justice is the main hindrance of environmental studies of ES. If there is a rivalry of order and justice, it is hard to think about environmental justice, climate responsibility and sustainable development. The previous Bull’s quote confirmed the victory of this argument. However, using the case study of Indonesia ratification to AATHP, the shift from rivalry mode to the cooperation mode is evident. Environmental justice didn’t exclude sovereignty but enhanced the new meaning of sovereignty. Robin Eckersley said that sovereignty is not only about the territorial defender but also environmental protector, trustee or public custodian of planetary commons (Eckersley, 2004, p. 209). Interestingly Bull has a doubt on the environmental movement itself. In the end of his book, he mentioned that: “It is obvious that if all men were as willing to co-operate in the pursuit of common goals as the crew of a spaceship, these threats to the human environment would be easier to meet than they are … First, what inhibits a common global plan for action in relation to the environment is not the existence of the system of states but the fact of human disagreement and conflict in the ecological realm itself … To avert a universal ‘tragedy of the commons’, all men in the long run may have to learn to accept limitations on their freedom to determine the size of their families, to consume energy and other resources and to pollute their environment, and a state system that cannot provide these limitation may be dysfunctional” (Bull, 1977, 283). Therefore, English School is not only theories of sovereignty, war, balance of power and diplomacy but also theories of environmental justice, climate responsibility and sustainable development. Environmental studies of ES was established by looking the interaction between these institutions. Environmental studies is looking for the cooperation between these institutions. This research Journal of ASEAN Studies 129 disagree that these new institutions are contradicting with Bull’s primary institutions. It is possible and recommended for having cooperation between these institutions as shown in the case of Indonesia ratification of AATHP. AATHP is followed by significant change in Indonesia environmental legislation. As said before, Yudhoyono government has established National Climate Change Council and environmental protection law that have been hailed as the hallmark of Indonesia’s commitment to cut the emission through preventing the forest fires. Indonesia also signed letter of intent with Norwegian government to reduce emission through REDD+ framework. AATHP has indirect impact in changing the perception of Indonesian government toward more proactive in embracing environmental values. Environmental studies of English School started from the assumption of the domination of pluralism. In the case of AATHP, Indonesia’s initial rejection to ratify AATHP symbolized the hierarchy of pluralism over solidarism. However, Indonesia ratification of AATHP marked the end of pluralist domination in the environmental studies. It gives possibility of end of pluralism and transformation toward increasing role of solidarism in environmental studies of English School. Indonesia ratification to AATHP showed that European Union-based regional environmental governance is not relevant to ASEAN regional environmental governance. Elliot (2012) and Varkkey (2011) wanted stronger institutionalization of AATHP with harsher punishment and professional secretariat. Despite of the absence of direct intervention from Singapore and Malaysia, transboundary haze and forest fires have become important political issues for Indonesia. Solidarists argued that it is not necessary to have EU model in implementing regional environmental governance. Solidarists defined regional environmental governance based on the cooperative relationship between sovereignty and environmental protection. In the case of AATHP, the inclusion of environmental responsibility did not destruct the primary institution of sovereignty. Solidarists argued that regional environmental governance consisted of state and non-state actors. From the case study of AATHP, civil society and corporation are increasing their attention and effort to mitigate the forest fires and transboundary haze. AATHP has inspired Indonesia to build effective national haze prevention system. ASEAN still emphasized the norm of non-intervention but adopted the norms of sustainable development and environmental responsibility. It is in line with Eckersley’s inclusive sovereignty. Indonesia still obtained their sovereignty but changed their legislation toward a more friendly approach toward environmental issues. Eckersley said: “Indeed, over the last four decades environmental organizations, movements, and citizens’ initiatives, along with progressive states and certain international organizations, have played a key role in helping to transform the mutually informing international and national discourses of legitimate state conduct in a greener direction, while also introducing a 130 Environmental Studies of English School new layer of domestic state functions and practices … Many of these achievements are merely rhetorical in the sense that the new discourse of sustainable development outstrips the shift in actual practices, but the environmental and broader green movements have nonetheless changed public expectations and provided new standards by which state behavior is to be judged and called to account” (Eckersley, 2005, p. 168). The pessimistic view of Varkkey and Elliot in dealing with Southeast Asian environmental problems was negated by Indonesian people and Indonesian people who wanted to stop Indonesian government policies that destroy the forest and the environment. ASEAN haze fund and ASEAN center on transboundary haze has assisted Indonesia in dealing with forest fires. ASEAN’s commitment in enhancing national institution and network, data and information management, research and development and education and training have pressured indirectly Indonesian government to seriously combat and mitigate the forest fires and haze (Lian & Robinson, 2002). Solidarists wanted to have regional environmental governance that emphasized trust, learning and transparency. Despite of the absence of punishment of violation for multilateral environmental agreement, Hurrell and Kingsbury (1992, 24-5) stated that there are two positive outcome of non- binding and soft agreement. Firstly, international law provided expectations that states will be involved in long-term cooperation and in a wide-range of issues. In the case of AATHP, Indonesia is still active in ASEAN’s meeting regarding the haze and involved in the holistic haze prevention mechanism. Secondly, international law provided means for learning and contributed to a greater degree of transparency. To conclude, this article would like to quote Hurrell and Kingsbury’s statement: “Further, it leads to modifications in perceptions of state interests, with states coming to be more aware of the dangers of environmental degradation and the costs of non-agreement. In sum, environmental regimes facilitate co-operation because of functional benefits which they provide in form of an order based not on coercion, but on coordination of interests and of patterned expectations” (Hurrell & Kingsbury, 1992, pp. 24-5). Conclusion Hurrell and Kingsbury’s statement above illustrated the solidarist approach toward the current regional environmental governance. State-led regional environmental governance provided foundation and powerful insights for building a new architecture of the future’s global environmental governance. Indonesia ratification to AATHP is a case confirming the shift from pluralism to solidarism. Forest fires and transboundary haze are perpetual disasters in Southeast Asia. This man-made disaster has been topic of dispute between ASEAN on how to mitigate the impact of forest fires. This article concluded that Indonesian response toward forest fires and transboundary haze pushed the new architecture of Environmental Studies of English School. The domination of pluralism perspective of English School was transformed into Journal of ASEAN Studies 131 solidarism in response to the contemporary roles of international environmental law. ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution and Indonesia’s ratification of AATHP are examples of the shifting perspective from pluralism into solidarism that more sufficient to accommodate sustainable development, climate justice and environmental ethics. It is also the foundation for regional environmental governance that marked a new importance of civil society and non-state actors in the environmental negotiation. About the Author Yanyan Mochamad Yani is a Professor in International Relations of Padjadjaran University. His expertise is in international security studies especially non-traditional threat. Verdinand Robertua is a lecturer and researcher in International Relations at Christian University of Indonesia. His expertise is in Environmental Studies of English School (ESES). References Acharya, A. 1997. "Ideas, Identity, and Institution Building: From the ‘ASEAN Way' to the 'Asia-Pacific' Way." Pacific Review 319-346. Aljazeera. 2017. Indonesian Tribes Rally for Land Rights. March 17. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.aljazeera.com/ news/2017/03/indigenous-indonesia- rally-land-rights-170317103333776. html. Amador, J. S. 2011. ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community: An Assessment of its Institutional Prospects. April 8. Accessed 4 August, 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1803830. ASEAN. 2002. ASEAN Agreement for Transboundary Haze Pollution. Jakarta : ASEAN Secretariat. Baker, Susan, Maria Kousis, Dick Richardson, and Stephen Young. 1997. "Introduction: The theory and practice of sustainable development in EU perspective." In The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union, by Susan Baker, Maria Kousis, Dick Richardson and Stephen Young, 1-41. London: Routledge. Barber, C. V., & Schweithelm, J. 2000. Trial by Fire: Forest Fires and Forestry Policy in Indonesia's Era of Crisis and Reform. Washington DC: World Resource Institute. Berenschot, W. 2015. "Haze of Democracy." October-December. Accessed February 14, 2016. http://www. insideindonesia.org/haze-of-demo cracy. Bernstein, S. 2001. The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Buzan, B. 2004. From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University http://www.aljazeera.com/%20news/2017/03/indigenous-indonesia-rally-land-rights-170317103333776.%20html http://www.aljazeera.com/%20news/2017/03/indigenous-indonesia-rally-land-rights-170317103333776.%20html http://www.aljazeera.com/%20news/2017/03/indigenous-indonesia-rally-land-rights-170317103333776.%20html http://www.aljazeera.com/%20news/2017/03/indigenous-indonesia-rally-land-rights-170317103333776.%20html https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1803830 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1803830 132 Environmental Studies of English School Press. Clapp, J, & Dauvergne, P. 2011. Path to a Green World: the Political Economy of Global Environment. Masschusets: MIT Press. Cotton, J. 1999. "The "haze" over Southeast Asia: Challenging the ASEAN Mode of Engagement." Pacific Affairs 72 (3): 331-351. Dauvergne, P. 2008. "Globalization and Environment." In Global Political Economy, by John Ravenhill, 448-479. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dauvergne, P. 1998. "The Political Economy of Indonesia's 1997 Forest Fires." Australian Journal of International Affairs 52 (1): 13-17. Dauvergne, P. 1993. "The Politics of Deforestation in Indonesia." Pacific Affairs 66 (4): 497-518. Eckersley, R. 2013. "Green Theory." In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, 266-287. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eckersley, R. 2005. "Greening the Nation- State: From Exclusive to Inclusive Sovereignty." In The State and Global Ecological Crisis, by Robin Eckersley and John Barry, 159-181. Massachusets: MIT Press. —. 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. London: MIT Press. Elliot, L. 2012. "ASEAN and Environmental Governance: Strategies of Regionalism in Southeast Asia." Global Environmental Politics 12 (3): 38-57. Falk, R. 1971. This Endangered Planet: Prospect and Proposals for Human Survival. New York: Random House. Falkner, R. 2012. "Global environmentalism and the greening of international society." International Affairs 503-522. Falkner, R. 2017. "The Anarchical Society and Climate Change." In The Anarchical Society at 40. Contemporary Challenges and Prospects, by Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr and Adam Humphreys, 198-215. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forsyth, T. 2014. "Public concerns on transboundary haze: a comparison of Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia." Global Environmental Change 25: 76-86. Hurrell, A. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hurrell, A, and Benedict Kingsbury. 1992. "The International Politics of the Environment: An Introduction." In The International Politics of the Environment: Actors, Interest and Institution, by Andrew Hurrell and Benedict Kingsbury, 1-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R. 2009. "International Relations as a Craft Discipline." In Theorising International Society: English School Methods, by Cornelia Navari, 21-39. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Journal of ASEAN Studies 133 Jorgensen, K. E. 2017. International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Kompas. 2010. Pengurangan Emisi, RI- Norwegia Teken LoI. May 27. Accessed August 4, 2017. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/20 10/05/27/00061941/Pengurangan.Emi si..RI-Norwegia.Teken.LoI-5. Kopra, S. 2016. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility? China and the International Practice of Climate Responsibility. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Laferrière, E., & Stoett, P. J. 2003. International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought: Towards Synthesis. London: Routledge. Lian, K. Kheng., & Robinson, N. A. 2002. "Regional Environmental Governance: Examining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Model." In Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, by Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova, 101-121. Connecticut: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Liste, P. 2017. "International Relations Norms Research and the Legacies of Critical Legal Theory." 11th Pan- European Conference on International Relations (EISA). Barcelona: European International Studies Association. 1-22. McLellan, S. 2015. Climate Policy under Yudhoyono and Jokowi: Making Progress or Going Backward? November 27. Accessed August 5, 2017. http://www.internationalaffairs.org. au/news-item/climate-policy-under- yudhoyono-and-jokowi-marking- progress-or-going-backward/. Miller, R. C. 2008. International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views. London: Routledge. Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Bohm, S. 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council." Journal of Business Ethics 469-493. Nguitragool, P. 2011. "Negotiating the Haze Treaty Rationality and Institutions in the Negotiations for the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002)." Asian Survey 51 (2): 356-378. Purwaningtyas, E. 2007. Faktor-Faktor yang Menyebabkan Indonesia Belum Meratifikasi ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Surabaya: Universitas Airlangga. Robertua, V. 2016. “Multi-stakeholder Initiative for Sustainable Development: An English School Perspective.” Jurnal Sospol 2 (1): 154- 170. Robertua, V. 2017. The Politics of Sustainable Development: An English School Perspective. Jakarta: UKI Press. Tay, S. S. 2002. "Fires, Haze and Acid Rain: The Social and Political Framework of Air Pollution in ASEAN and Asia." In Challenges of a Changing Earth, by Will Stefen, Jill Jager and David Carson, 49-55. Amsterdam: http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2010/05/27/00061941/Pengurangan.Emisi..RI-Norwegia.Teken.LoI-5 http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2010/05/27/00061941/Pengurangan.Emisi..RI-Norwegia.Teken.LoI-5 http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2010/05/27/00061941/Pengurangan.Emisi..RI-Norwegia.Teken.LoI-5 http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/climate-policy-under-yudhoyono-and-jokowi-marking-progress-or-going-backward/ http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/climate-policy-under-yudhoyono-and-jokowi-marking-progress-or-going-backward/ http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/climate-policy-under-yudhoyono-and-jokowi-marking-progress-or-going-backward/ http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/climate-policy-under-yudhoyono-and-jokowi-marking-progress-or-going-backward/ 134 Environmental Studies of English School Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Tempo. 2013. Malaysian Companies Accused of Causing Indonesia's Forest Fires. June 24. Accessed July 31, 2017. https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/ 06/24/074490897/Malaysian- Companies-Accused-of-Causing- Indonesias-Forest-Fires. Varkkey, H. 2011. "Addressing Transboundary Haze Through Asean: Singapore’s Normative Constraints." Journal of International Studies, 7(2011), 83-101. Varkkey, H. 2011. "ASEAN as a thin community: the case against adopting the EU Acid Rain Framework for transboundary haze management in Southeast Asia." Malaysian Journal of History, Politics & Strategic Studies 38 (2): 1-26. Varkkey, H. 2009. "Indonesia Perspectives on Managing the ASEAN Haze." Jurnal Sarjana 24 (1): 83-101. Wahyuni, D. 2011. Permasalahan Kabut Asap dalam Hubungan Indonesia dan Malaysia pada Periode 1997-2006. Jakarta: UIN Press. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/06/24/074490897/Malaysian-Companies-Accused-of-Causing-Indonesias-Forest-Fires https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/06/24/074490897/Malaysian-Companies-Accused-of-Causing-Indonesias-Forest-Fires https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/06/24/074490897/Malaysian-Companies-Accused-of-Causing-Indonesias-Forest-Fires https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/06/24/074490897/Malaysian-Companies-Accused-of-Causing-Indonesias-Forest-Fires