The genesis and end of institutional fragmentation in global governance on climate change from a constructivist perspective

Oh, Chaewoon; Matsuoka, Shunji

doi:10.1007/s10784-015-9309-2

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We can then proceed step-by-step to ask questions about the design of regimes in holistic terms, issues pertaining to clusters of regimes or what analysts treat as regime complexes—i.e. “the array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions governing a particular issue-area” (Raustiala & Victor, 2004 : 278–279)—and finally concerns relating to interactions between or among regimes dealing with matters arising in distinct issue domains. Reviewing the contributions to INEA over the last 20 years , it seems clear that many of those interested in matters of design have directed attention to the lowest administrative level on this scale.…”

Section: Matters Of Institutional Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA

Kalfagianni

Young

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article addresses the question: What lessons can we learn from work published in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics regarding the politics of multilateral environmental agreements? What are the implications of these lessons for those responsible for creating and administering these agreements? Based on an analysis of 147 articles published over the past 20 years, the article explores issues of institutional design, institutional politics, implementation, and effectiveness. It concludes that key conditions for success in this realm include: (a) developing a toolkit that is not limited to rules-based governance, (b) paying attention to matters of implementation, (c) bearing in mind the overall regime complex, (d) developing effective leadership based on credibility and accountability, and (e) allowing for institutional adaptation.

show abstract

Section: Matters Of Institutional Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA

Kalfagianni

Young

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet another line of research is represented by Oh and Matsuoka (2017), who scrutinize the emergence of institutional fragmentation in the climate change arena from a constructivist perspective. A key observation here is that fragmentation can arise out of normative contestations of key international norms, often motivated by strategic considerations.…”

Section: Fragmented Climate Governance: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A key observation here is that fragmentation can arise out of normative contestations of key international norms, often motivated by strategic considerations. The example explored in Oh and Matsuoka (2017) is the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), under the leadership of the USA, building a counter-narrative to the mandatory emission reduction approach of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). Earlier work on the APP published in INEA by Karlsson-Vinkhuizen and van Asselt (2009) has reached similar conclusions, highlighting also the implications fragmentation has for effectiveness and legitimacy of global climate governance.…”

Section: Fragmented Climate Governance: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward

Pattberg

Kaiser

Widerberg

et al. 2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on global climate change governance is no longer primarily concerned with the international legal regime, state practice and its outcomes, but rather scrutinizes the intricate interactions between the public and the private in governing climate change. This broad trend has also taken center stage within the pages of INEA. Two decades after its establishment, we sketch the main theoretical debates, conceptual innovations and empirical findings on global climate change governance and survey the new generation of climate governance scholarship. In more detail, we sketch how climate governance research has developed into three innovative sub-debates, building on important conceptualizations and critical inquiries of earlier debates. Our aim is not so much to provide an all-encompassing assessment of global climate change governance scholarship in 2022, but rather to illustrate in what important ways current research is different from research in the early phase of INEA, and what we have learned in the process. First, we discuss scholarship on the bottom-up nature of climate governance, developing from earlier ideas on agency beyond the state and the transnationalization of governance arenas. Second, we review contributions that have more systematically engaged with the concept of governance architectures, resulting in a stimulating new academic debate on the characteristics of complex governance systems and the consequences of governance complexity and fragmentation. Third, we note a distinct normative turn in global environmental scholarship in general and global climate governance in particular, associated with question of access, accountability, allocation, fairness, justice and legitimacy. The assessment of each of these debates is centered around questions of effective and legitimate climate governance to counter the climate emergency. Finally, as a way of concluding, we critically reflect on our own scholarly shortcomings and suggest a modest remedy.

show abstract

“…Yet it is not the only 'game in town'. An increasing number of global forums in which climate governance is addressed have emerged from the 2000s (Oh & Matsuoka, 2015;Palmujoki, 2013;Widerberg & Pattberg, 2015;Zelli, 2011). This 'fragmentation' in global climate governance has included other UN-based forums such as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), minilateral initiatives (such as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) launched in 2005, the Major Economies Meetings (MEM) starting in 2007 and the G8, which put climate change high on its agenda in 2005 -2009) and initiatives promoting international cooperation on renewable energy, such as the biannual renewables conferences from 2004 onwards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Read all about it!? Public accountability, fragmented global climate governance and the media

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way that the media reports and comments on key events in the fragmented global climate governance landscape is one important route to strengthening public accountability of such governance. Editorials and other opinion pieces provide key contributions to the public sphere, but have been almost entirely neglected in media research on climate change. Another understudied aspect in such research is the reporting on the fragmentation of global climate governance across numerous forums. This article provides an exploratory approach to address these two research gaps. It presents a quantitative analysis of how often leading newspapers in seven countries (Finland, India, Laos, Norway, South Africa, UK and USA) wrote about 18 meetings in six different global climate governance forums between 2004-2009 and whether they provided commentaries about them. The study shows that media coverage (articles and opinion pieces) is limited or absent for many meetings that are not attended by heads of state, are the launch of a new process or do not have the convening power of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The pattern of coverage differs significantly among individual newspapers and there is no clear distinction between developed and developing country newspapers. The article concludes that overall news coverage, and editorial commentary in particular, of global climate meetings in the selected newspapers is too low and too patchy to significantly support domestic publics to hold their own (and indirectly other) governments accountable with regard to fragmented global climate governance. Policy relevance This study is instructive for the media and civil society, who should both act as accountholders of governments with regard to how they act in global climate governance and its implementation. Reporting and commentaries need to reflect the overarching process, not only sporadic coverage of high-level meetings, but also critical analysis of what is achieved. They should also take a broader scope in terms of the kinds of meetings and processes in global governance that they cover. Civil society should encourage the media to increase coverage along these lines, e.g. by adequate monitoring of government actions (or lack thereof) and share this with the media.

show abstract

The genesis and end of institutional fragmentation in global governance on climate change from a constructivist perspective

Cited by 7 publications

References 33 publications

The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA

The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA

20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward

Read all about it!? Public accountability, fragmented global climate governance and the media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About