Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change

Friman, Mathias

doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9258-1

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The UNFCCC is the principal forum for global negotiations on efforts to combat climate change. Decisions are taken through consensus, even if states that are large emitters of greenhouse gases tend to have greater voice (Friman, 2013). The UNFCCC is relatively open to non-state actors, but critics argue that its policies are ineffective and unfair (Bäckstrand and Kuyper, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining elite perceptions of legitimacy in global governance

Verhaegen

Scholte

Tallberg

2021

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elites are central in creating, operating, defending and contesting international organisations (IOs), but little research is available about their attitudes toward these bodies. To address this gap, this article offers the first systematic and comparative analysis of elite perceptions of IO legitimacy. Building on a unique multi-country and multi-sector survey of 860 elites undertaken in 2017–19, we map and explain elite legitimacy beliefs toward three key IOs in different issue-areas: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Integrating public opinion research and international relations theory, the article advances an explanation of elites’ legitimacy beliefs that emphasises their satisfaction with the institutional qualities of IOs. We contrast this argument with three common alternative explanations, which respectively highlight utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues. The analyses show that elites’ satisfaction with institutional qualities of IOs is most consistently related to legitimacy beliefs: when elites are more satisfied with democracy, effectiveness and fairness in IOs, they also regard these IOs as more legitimate. These findings suggest that the prevailing debate between utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues approaches neglects the importance of institutional satisfaction as an explanation of attitudes toward IOs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining elite perceptions of legitimacy in global governance

Verhaegen

Scholte

Tallberg

2021

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it has been found that CAN reports are NGObiased, and some scholars have questioned their neutrality. The ENB data is more neutral than other available sources (Vanhala & Hesbaek 2016,114), and some scholars have used this data source (ibid; Boyd et al 2008, Friman 2016. A total of 261 ENB coverage reports of the apex form of the negotiations from the 1 st UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties (COP) up to the 21 st COP were used for this work.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diplomatic Rhetoric Shaping Adaptation Funding-related Issues at the UNFCCC Negotiations

Sorkar¹

2020

BJPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the contemporary world, the institutions that entangle states in certain obligations are crafted through multilateral negotiation processes. The Paris Climate Agreement provides one such glaring example. One of the vital issues of the Agreement, 'funding for adaptation’, which is crucial for the most affected countries like Bangladesh, received limited attention during the initial phases of the negotiations but emerged as a vital issue after a short time and quickly became a prominent issue. It finally ended up with a moderate profile in the Paris Agreement. How did the issues related to the Adaptation Fund emerge, and how were they framed-up, what was the mechanism of their evolution, and why did only some crucially-contested issues find traction? In this quest, this work extrapolates the framing theory from the media and communication domain and, through applying the approach, develops a simultaneous content and frame analysis, which leads to a historical mapping and tracing of the process of the evolution of the issues. It identifies a phenomenon of frame generation through the contested rhetoric framing of the actors in line with their primary logics, which were shaped by their original mental schemata and permeated throughout the negotiations. The work also identifies that the powerful actors determine the fates of the crucially-contested frames as well as their future implications. Keywords: Framing, climate negotiations, funding adaptation, power

show abstract

“…In the past two decades, growing concerns about the UNFCCC's leadership, whether moral, legal, or rational, for climate action have led some scholars to warn of an impending legitimacy crisis that could undermine effective climate action (Badrinarayana, 2011; Eckersley, 2007, 2015; Karlsson et al, 2012). In fact, scholars often point to deteriorating credibility and a growing legitimacy crisis in the UNFCCC as two of its main challenges (Badrinarayana, 2011; Friman, 2016; Karlsson et al, 2012; Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen et al, 2018; Kuyper, Schroeder, & Linnér, 2018). Researchers have documented, for example, how power imbalances, conflicting values and interests, and inequality generate legitimacy concerns surrounding climate governance (Okereke, 2019).…”

Section: Trust Matters In Global Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a relational approach in global climate governance: Exploring the role of trust

Suiseeya

Elhard

Paul

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What role does trust play in global climate governance? For decades, claims of mistrust and distrust have dominated climate change policy arenas: doubts about climate change science and disagreements over rights and responsibilities related to mitigation, adaptation, loss, and damages undermine trust, impeding progress toward effective global climate action. And although frequently invoked in explanations of weak or failed climate action, there is limited research exploring the role of trust as a distinct concept in global climate governance. Here we seek to address this gap by developing a relational framework that focuses attention on how trust dynamics shape cooperation in four types of relationships: reliance, reciprocity, responsibility, and recognition. Applying this framework to the UNFCCC, we consider how efforts like expanded participation impact the relational landscape in global climate governance. We focus in particular on Indigenous Peoples and non‐state actors to demonstrate how the UNFCCC's efforts to address its legitimacy and credibility problems have neither adequately considered trust nor created opportunities to develop the transformative relationships needed for more effective climate governance. We suggest that greater attention to trust can help scholars and practitioners better understand how relational phenomena shape the landscape of governance possibilities. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

show abstract

Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Explaining elite perceptions of legitimacy in global governance

Explaining elite perceptions of legitimacy in global governance

Diplomatic Rhetoric Shaping Adaptation Funding-related Issues at the UNFCCC Negotiations

Toward a relational approach in global climate governance: Exploring the role of trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About