*Originally published in 2025 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Global environmental challenges like climate change and pollution demand international cooperation. Yet in many cases there are surprising gaps or “voids” in international rules and commitments. These voids are not just random oversights, they often benefit powerful countries and leave vulnerable communities unprotected. For example, the Paris climate agreement of 2015 set goals but  allowed each country to set their own targets, so major emitters could avoid tough limits. This created a strategic void in global governance: a policy arena left intentionally loose or undefined, which strong actors can exploit. This article, building on prior work, explores how such voids work as a subtle tool of influence, why they worsen environmental injustice, and what we might do to fill them.

A strategic void is essentially a gap or empty space in international agreements or norms where action or rules are missing by design. One way to understand this is via Robert Dahl’s classic definition of power: “A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do”. In our context, powerful states create or maintain voids so that other actors behave as the powerful wish, often without noticing the influence. These voids can be tangible (missing treaties, unused funding mechanisms, or unenforced rules) or abstract (missing norms, weak framing of issues, or lack of expertise). For example, there is still no universal tax on carbon emissions and no fully binding global enforcement for cutting greenhouse gases. These are tangible voids: they leave clear problem areas ungoverned. Similarly, there is no widely accepted international concept of “climate refugees” – an abstract void in how we even think about environmental displacement. In each case, the absence of a rule or norm creates a void that powerful actors can occupy and shape on their own terms. 

Imagine global climate policy as a chessboard. In chess, grandmasters know that it’s not just the pieces you move but also the open squares you control that matter. As Garry Kasparov noted: “In chess we have the obligation to move; there is no option to skip a turn if you can’t identify a direction that suits you”. Strategic voids work the same way in world politics. Instead of moving a piece (like signing a strict treaty), a powerful actor can control an empty space (leaving the treaty weak) so that others have to respond to how they fill it. For example, the Paris Agreement requires every country to make a pledge, but it does not set hard binding limits on carbon cuts. This lack of firm rules is a strategic void. It lets top polluters claim they are leaders in climate talks while actually keeping their commitments as weak as possible. In effect, the most powerful countries have used this intentional void to stay competitive economically without taking on big costs. 

These voids tie into the idea of soft power. Unlike military or economic force, soft power is about shaping what others want and believe. Joseph Nye introduced this term to describe how countries can influence others through attraction and persuasion instead of coercion. Strategic voids are prime territory for soft power: by keeping rules vague, powerful states can steer global norms and debates behind the scenes. They might fund friendly NGOs, frame the media narrative, or quietly make climate aid conditional on following their rules. In effect, they get to “set the agenda” without openly forcing anyone’s hand. This is like controlling the center of a chessboard by pressure rather than direct occupation: other players unconsciously adjust to the advantage of the strongest. 

When major powers control voids this way,........

© E-International