Legitimacy in an Era of Fragmentation: The Case of Global Climate Governance

Abstract

Studies grounded in regime theory have examined the effectiveness of so-called 'minilateral' climate change forums that have emerged outside of the UN climate process. However, there are neither detailed studies of the legitimacy of these forums nor of the impacts of their legitimacy on effectiveness and governance potential. Adopting the lens of legitimacy, we analyze the reasons for the formation of minilateral climate forums and their recent role in global climate governance. In particular, we use Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Vihma's analytical framework for international institutions to examine three minilateral climate forums: (i) the Asia-Pacific Partnership; (ii) the Major Economies Meetings; and (iii) the G8 climate process. These forums are all found to have significant deficits in their source-based, process-based and outcome-based legitimacy, particularly when compared to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If assessed purely on grounds of effectiveness, the minilateral forums might be easily dismissed as peripheral to the UN climate process. However, they have played an important role by providing a site for powerful countries to shape the assumptions and expectations of global climate governance. We therefore argue that the observed institutional fragmentation allows key states to use minilateral forums as sites to shape the architecture of global climate governance.

Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change

“…David Victor 11 , for example, has argued that since only a dozen countries emit the majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a club like the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) would present a good candidate for making progress on climate change. Others, however, maintain that minilateral clubs like the MEF, G8, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership are not necessarily more effective than the UNFCCC, lack the legitimacy of the UN climate process 6 , and do not primarily focus on significantly increasing mitigation ambition 5 .…”

“…Comparing tables 1 and 2 shows that preferences for minilateral forums noticeably overlap with preferences for economic forums, highlighting the concern that minilateral approaches risk limiting not only membership but also the issues under discussion 6,8,22 .…”

Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics

“…Finally, a whole set of empirical themes merits attention of future single case studies or comparative analyses across environmental domains, for example: the interactions between transnational institutions and public institutions (Abbott 2014); the consequences of fragmentation for different types of non-state actors, including further in-depth studies about the legitimacy, accountability and inclusiveness of complex governance architectures (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee 2013;Orsini 2013); the impact of fragmentation on the overall Effectiveness of a global governance architecture, by both Qualitative comparative analysis and Quantitative comparative analysis; for example, by adopting counterfactual approaches to an entire institutional complex (Hovi et al 2003;Stokke 2012); the suitability and effectiveness of specific management attempts such as Orchestration (Abbott and Snidal 2010); the stability or fragility of institutional complexes, including the question whether they move towards a (new) division of labor (Gehring and Faude 2013) or rather towards new types of positional differences and conflicts (Zelli 2011b The MDGs define-mostly by indicators, base year and target year-what development progress the international community aspired to achieve by 2015. The eight goals with 21 targets and 90 indicators cover a wide array of issues.…”

Unlocking the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” of Corporate Water Stewardship in South Africa—Exploring Corporate Power and Legitimacy of Engagement in Water Management and Governance

“…Source-based legitimacy Expertise and resources [28,29,31] Corporate expertise and resources to tackle water issues.…”

“…described in detail below was constructed based on literature of corporate power and legitimacy of their engagement in water, food and environmental management and governance (notably [2,13,15,16,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]). The framework lists different dimensions and forms of corporate power on water and examples of each (described in Section 2.1) and components and sub-components of legitimacy to engage on water and suggested applications of each (described in Section 2.2).…”