Some argue that market democracies do not engage in war with one another, and therefore that if one promotes markets, franchise, and elections, or democratic-capitalist states, this will lead to international peace and cooperation. This idea has informed both the theory of international law (e.g., a right to democratic governance) and the practice of American foreign policy (e.g., Bush Doctrine). A counterargument is built on the suspicion that institutional political/economic process is largely independent of the propensity of a state to cooperate in international relations, and that a focus on democracy and markets as a cure-all for international dispute settlement distracts both theorist and practitioner from the real problems that plague the international system. These skeptics call the focus on the creation of democratic states the “consoling myth.”

In The Green State, Robyn Eckersley gives another dimension to this myth with her assumption that a focus on democracy will create more ecologically conscious states. She begins with the premise that “[t]he history of modern grassroots environmental activism and the broader green movement has been … a history of attempts to address the problems of risk generation and risk displacement by seeking to extend and deepen democracy” (p. 109) and concludes that “[t]he case for deeper ecological reform is thus dependent on extending representation and deepening democratic participation” (p. 247). However, in the same way markets and democracy may be independent of war, democracy and grassroots participation may be independent of ecological reform and, if so, by focusing on green democracy and assuming it will create green policy, she introduces a “green consoling myth” that may cloud the real issues of state sovereignty, international law, and the environment.

Specifically, Eckersley asserts that because of its focus on the territorial state, capitalist markets, and what she calls its “democratic deficits,” the liberal state is unfit as a foundation for the creation of the “green state” and therefore must be transcended through critical political ecology to what she calls “ecological democracy.” But before one accepts that we can transcend to an ecological democracy, one needs convincing that it is necessary to do so. Two propositions therefore need argument: first, that these three characteristics of the liberal state (sovereignty, markets, and democratic deficits) are all obstacles to greening and, second, that the existing liberal state does not contain within itself the capacity for change toward greener policy; that is, the ecological democracy as a transcendence of liberalism is necessary for the genesis of the green state.

Eckersley's argument for the first proposition begins well as she convincingly makes the case that nature deserves more respect and status in policy choice and international law. Chapter 2 points out the shortcomings of the “anarchy” model of the current world system and argues that “the ecological crisis has the potential to transform the rationale and structure of exclusive territorial rule, and the identities and interests of states” (p. 49). In Chapter 3, the author rejects the dominance of markets and argues effectively for “ecological modernization” that would replace market motivations with greener alternatives. She is persuasive here that “[e]conomic competitiveness, after all, is not an end in itself” (p. 83).

The argument on the first proposition is unsettled by the “myth” of its third component, a concern for democratic deficits (Chapters 4–7). If there is a possibility that the greenness of a state is independent of how democratic it is, then she needs to argue for how, exactly, democratic inclusiveness renders increased environmental awareness and protection of nature before she moves on to argue the merits of different models of democratic theory. This is especially important, first, as environmental risk needs anticipatory policy not triggered by democratic responsiveness and, second, because life is not a Far Side cartoon where animals and plants can directly participate if granted the opportunity.

The irony is that Eckersley does not need this “deficit” component to support her ultimate recommendations. In Chapter 8, she concludes that the genesis of the green state is in constitutional law reform, human rights, recognizing the intrinsic value of nature, and the need for anticipatory policy through the precautionary principle. But the connection, if any exists, between these conclusions and the existence of more inclusive democratic institutions or “deficits” in participation is vague. She recommends 11 rights and responsibilities that would encourage the green state (pp. 243–44), but of these, only two involve democratic franchise, “a right to participation in negotiation of environmental standards” and “holding of cross-border referenda and reciprocal representation in deliberative forums,” and even these seem as dependent on green administrative structure or a green judiciary as a green electorate.

The second proposition, that the liberal state is inherently inadequate, is undermined by the fact that the author comes to the conclusion, in a number of places, that the liberal/territorial state is already on the move toward a greener reality and that her definition of ecological democracy might exist within a reformed liberalism. In order to make this central part of the book work, she accepts the green caricature of liberalism as confined to instrumental value, market consumerism, and strong Vattel sovereignty, when the possibilities are more varied. For example, I have argued (Justice and Nature, 2002), that Kant's liberalism supports anticipatory policy, precaution in the face of risk, and a reversal of the burden of proof, causing a transcendence of the market for an “ecological contract” and an ecocentric worldview. I am now encouraged to apply this paradigm to international law to see if greening will really require us to “totally dislodge the tight nexus between citizenship, democracy, territoriality and sovereignty that is central to the regulative ideals of the liberal state” (p. 247).

This is a thought-provoking book and valuable for both its critical argument on the failures of the current state system to properly account for the environment and for its conclusions on rights, intrinsic value, precaution, and the need for constitutional transformation toward the green state. But the “democratic” part of the argument and its painstaking analysis of discursive and ecological forms of participation leaves the reader worried that expanding the consoling myth to include the environment will distract many excellent theorists from the real dilemmas of international law, politics, and sustainability.