Political opportunity structure refers to the specific features of a political system (e.g., a country) that can explain the different action repertoires, organizational forms and impacts of social movements, and social movement organizations in that specific country. With the globalization of environmental problems and solution strategies, important parts of the environmental movement have also become global. To what extent could the concept of international political opportunity structure (IPOS) be useful for analyzing transnational environmentalism in the 21st century? In this article, four of the most important constituent parts of IPOS (United Nations [UN], European Union [EU], World Bank, andWorld Trade Organization [WTO]) and their interactions with environmental movements and environmental movement organizations are analyzed. Whereas the UN and EU provoke the participation of a large number of transnational environmental lobby groups whose impacts, however, remain limited, the World Bank and WTO provoke more unconventional actions with potentially farther reaching impacts.
Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs. Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht: International Books.
2.
Boas, M.,& Vevatne, J. (2004). Sustainable development and theWorldTrade Organization. In M. Boas & M. McNeill (Eds.), Global institutions and development(pp. 95-107). London: Routledge.
3.
Desombre, E., & Barkin, J. (2002). Turtles and trade. The WTO's acceptance of environmental trade restrictions. Global Environmental Politics, 2(1), 12-18.
4.
Eisinger, P. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67, 11-28.
5.
Flam, H. (Ed.). (1994). States and anti-nuclear movements. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
6.
Grossman, P. (2000). Corporate interest and trade liberalization: The North American Free Trade Agreement and environmental protection. Organization & Environment, 13(1), 61-85.
7.
Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
Hoad, D. (2000). The World Trade Organisation: The events and impact of Seattle 1999. Environmental Politics, 9(4), 123-128.
9.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
Jordan, A. (2001). The European Union: An evolving system of multi-level governance... or government?Policy and Politics, 29(2), 193-208.
11.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, A. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
12.
Kettnaker, V. (2001). The European conflict over genetically engineered crops, 1995-1997. In D. Imig & S. Tarrow (Eds.), Contentious Europeans(pp. 205-230). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
Khagram, S. (2000). Toward democratic governance for sustainable development: Transnational civil society organizing around big dams. In A. Florini (Ed.), The third force. The rise of transnational civil society(pp. 83-114). Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.
14.
Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57-85.
15.
Korten, D. (1998). Do corporations rule the world? And does it matter?Organization & Environment, 11(4), 389-389.
16.
Kriesi, H., et al. (1992). New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 22(2), 219-244.
17.
Kriesi, H., et al. (1995). Social movements inWestern Europe. A comparative analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
Marchak, M. (1998). Environment and resource protection: Does NAFTA make a difference?Organization & Environment, 11(2), 133-154.
19.
Marks, G.,& McAdam, D. (1999). On the relationship of political opportunities to the forms of collective action: The case of the European Union. In D. Della Porta, H. Kriesi,& D. Rucht (Eds.), Social movements in a globalizing world(pp. 97-111). Houndmills: Macmillan.
20.
Mason, M. (2004). Representing transnational environmental interests: New opportunities for non-governmental organisation access within theWorld Trade Organisation?Environmental Politics, 13(3), 566-589.
21.
Mazey, S.,& Richardson, J. (1993). Interest groups in the European community. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Pressure groups(pp. 191-213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements(pp. 23-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.
24.
Passy, F. (1999). Supranational political opportunities as a channel of globalization of political conflicts. The case of the rights of indigenous peoples. In D. Della Porta, H. Kriesi, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Social movements in a globalizing world(pp. 14-169). Houndmills: Macmillan.
25.
Porter, G., Brown, J., & Chasek, P. (2000). Global environmental politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
26.
Rucht, D. (1997). Limits to mobilization. Environmental policy for the European Union. In J. Smith, C. Chatfield, & R. Pagnucco (Eds.), Transnational social movements and global politics(pp. 195-213). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
27.
Rucht, D. (2001). Lobbying or protest? Strategies to influence EU environmental policies. In D. Imig & S. Tarrow (Eds.), Contentious Europeans(pp. 125-142). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
28.
Sbragia, A. (2000). Environmental policy. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union(pp. 293-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
Smith, J. (1999). Global politics and transnational social movement strategies. In D. Della Porta, H. Kriesi, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Social movements in a globalizing world(pp. 170-188). New York: St. Martin's Press.
30.
Smith, J. (2002). Globalizing resistance: The battle of Seattle and the future of social movements. In J. Smith & H. Johnston (Eds.), Globalization and resistance(pp. 207-227). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
31.
Tamiotti, L., & Finger, M. (2001). Environmental organizations: Changing roles and functions in global politics. Global Environmental Politics, 1(1), 56-76.
32.
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement. Social movements. Collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
van der Heijden, H. A. (1997). Political opportunity structure and the institutionalisation of the environmental movement. Environmental Politics, 6(4), 25-50.
34.
van der Heijden, H. A. (2002). Political parties and NGOs in global environmental politics. International Political Science Review, 23(2), 187-201.
35.
Wade, R. (2004). The World Bank and the environment. In M. Boas & D. McNeill (Eds.), Global institutions and development(pp. 72-94). London: Routledge.
36.
Wallace, H., & Wallace, W. (2000). Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
Wapner, P. (2002). Horizontal politics: Transnational environmental activism and global cultural change. Global Environmental Politics, 2(2), 37-62.
38.
Webster, R. (1998). Environmental collective action: Stable patterns of cooperation and issue alliances at the European level. In J. Greenwood & M. Aspinwall (Eds.), Collective action in the European Union(pp. 176-195). London: Routledge.
39.
Williams, M., & Ford, L. (1999). The World Trade Organization, social movements and global environmental management. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 268-289.
40.
Wissenburg, M. (2004). Globotopia—The antiglobalization movement and utopianism. Organization & Environment, 17(4), 493-508.
41.
World Bank Group. (2003). Working for a world free of poverty. New York: World Bank.
42.
Wright, B. (2000). Environmental NGOsand the dolphin-tuna case. Environmental Politics, 9(4), 82-103.
43.
Zito, A. (2000). Creating environmental policy in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan.
