Controversial Practices: Tracing the Proceduralization of the IPCC in Time and Space

Abstract

This paper starts from the premise that international practices are neither stable nor universal but are in fact the product of time and space. It analyzes the processes of formalization and change in international practices using the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental institution producing regular assessment of the state of the knowledge on climate change. The IPCC is particularly interesting because of the numerous external and internal controversies that it has faced since its establishment in 1988 and the institutional and organizational changes that they triggered. The paper highlights the potential of controversies as methodological occasions to observe the situatedness of international practices and trace change over time. Controversies represent moments of contention in which the normalizing and universalistic effect of routines and procedures is momentarily suspended, thus facilitating the investigation of the particular space and time in which practices evolve. Policy Implications• While international organizations often seek to minimize controversies, they should use these moments to reflect on their practices and procedures and open up deliberative processes.• International organizations should avoid imposing procedures and guidelines that poorly represent individual practices and situational experiences. They should involve a greater number of participants in their production to increase their legitimacy.• The history of the IPCC shows that the introduction of procedures has not protected the organization from controversies and has instead made the assessment process more cumbersome. The IPCC should take these historical developments into account when thinking about introducing new rules of procedure.

Focal Times and Spaces: How Ethnography Foregrounds the Spatiotemporality of International Organizations and Global Governance

“…In recent years, (political) ethnography has become increasingly popular among political scientists but it has still not become part of the discipline’s mainstream and its future status remains unclear (Curry, 2017; Schatz, 2017; Schwartz‐Shea and Majic, 2017). A similar trend can be observed in the subfield of international relations where political scientists have been joined by a growing number of socio‐cultural anthropologists with an interest in international organizations (Müller, 2013; Niezen and Sapignoli, 2017) and where international practice theory, which values ethnography’s promise of studying practices first‐hand, has seen a considerable rise (Bueger and Gadinger, 2018; see also De Pryck, 2021, in this issue). Finally, also in the field of global health governance, international organizations and public‐private partnerships have been studied ethnographically (Eckl, 2017, 2021; Irwin and Smith, 2019; Storeng and Béhague, 2016).…”

Understanding Change in International Organizations Across Time and Spaces: The Rise of UN Country Teams

“…Through the two case studies, this article unpacks how sequencing impacts IO practices. If De Pryck (2021) focuses on the sequencing of negotiations on reports and related consequences on the formalization of practices, this article investigates the sequencing of various reform implementations and resulting divergent localized outcomes and practices across UN spaces. It shows the importance of considering how the local enactment of IOs affect their functioning (Dairon and Badache, 2021; Kimber and Maertens, this special issue; Maertens et al., this special issue) and considers time as a resource when it comes to IO operational interventions (Verlin, this special issue).…”

Time and space in the study of international organizations: An introduction

“…Verlin (this special issue) captures internal spatiotemporal dimensions of IOs’ actions by exploring humanitarian planning techniques and how its temporalities are renegotiated “on the ground” through the specific case of humanitarian action in Haiti. Based on the case of the Intergovernmental Panel of experts on Climate Change (IPCC), De Pryck (this special issue) questions the historicity of IO practices and analyzes the impact of controversies in the making of expertise across time and space. Together these papers present a broad overview of different types of IOs working in multiple fields of international relations (health, humanitarian action, development, environment and climate, political and regional collaboration).…”

“…A less expected repercussion lies with the success of local actors in trying to capitalize on the role of time and space: while they may sometimes gain political power and concrete influence on IOs (Campos, this special issue; Dairon & Badache, this special issue), they can also be marginalized compared to distant stakeholders, such as donors and IOs’ headquarters, which succeed in imposing their rules at a distance (Verlin, this special issue). At the level of institutions, the spatiotemporal ecosystems can affect the performance and legitimacy of IOs, potentially bringing benefits and economies of scale, or being translated into cumbersome procedures or tensions between different departments, divisions or working groups over how to perform certain tasks (Dairon & Badache, this special issue; De Pryck, this special issue; Worrall, this special issue). Yet the influence of time and space may also be neutralized in short‐ and medium‐term settings (Kimber & Maertens, this special issue; Verlin, this special issue), resulting in situations where the IO context can seem disconnected from the local one, thus revealing the control of certain stakeholders over temporal and spatial constraints (Kimber & Maertens, this special issue).…”

“…Some authors highlight how the experience of time and space shape IO practices including mundane professional habits with the possible effect of generating misunderstanding between IOs with dissimilar working paces (Kimber & Maertens, this special issue). Others argue that IO actors instrumentally use time and space as resources to gain room for maneuver (De Pryck, this special issue; Worrall, this special issue) such as imposing a distinct timeline for policy interventions (Verlin, this special issue) or (arbitrarily) designating the location of an international summit. In other words, IO actors can construct time and space as constraints or opportunities in their own favor.…”