The WTO and the undermining of global environmental governance

Conca, Ken

doi:10.1080/09692290050174051

Cited by 138 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing number of studies have shown that interaction among regimes and/or clusters of institutions is deepening and producing uncertainty for actors (Raustialia and Victor, 2004). Heightened uncertainty may lead to new cooperation and coordination problems, such as constraining or chilling effects by one institution on another (Conca, 2000;Eckersley, 2004;Axelrod 2011 in Oberthur and Stokke;Veggeland and Borgen, 2005;Oberthür and Gehring, 2006) or 'spillovers' effects that can reinforce fragmentation and regime integration/ separation dynamics (Biermann et al, 2009;Johnson and Urpelainen, 2012). Uncertainty also creates opportunities for policy entrepreneurs and new ideas to enter global policy spaces that may set governance along new pathways.…”

Section: The Complexity Of Transnational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Governing the Global Land Grab: Multipolarity, Ideas, and Complexity in Transnational Governance

Margulis

Porter

2013

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2008, a series of new regulatory initiatives have emerged to address large-scale land grabs. These initiatives are occurring simultaneously at multiple levels of social organization instead of a single, overarching institutional site. A significant portion of this activity is taking place at the transnational level. We suggest that transnational land governance is indicative of emerging shifts in the practice of governance of global affairs. We analyze such shifts by asking two related questions: what does land grabbing tell us about developments in transnational governance, particularly with regard to North-South relations, and what do these developments in transnational governance mean for regulating land grabbing?

show abstract

Section: The Complexity Of Transnational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Governing the Global Land Grab: Multipolarity, Ideas, and Complexity in Transnational Governance

Margulis

Porter

2013

Globalizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The NGOs are thus correct in claiming that non-economic and non-technocratic arguments (such as environmental, labour or consumer oriented ones) are unlikely to be seriously entertained at the WTO. In fact, to date, DSB decisions have been pro-trade liberalisation and antienvironmental almost without exception (Conca, 2000: 486, Esty, 2000. This in spite of principles and clauses in WTO agreementsT that could be interpreted as pro-environmental.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative democracy and the WTO

Kapoor

2004

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habermas's rules-based deliberative democratic perspective underscores issues of power, legitimacy and justice. The article deploys this perspective to reveal how the lack of leg itimating procedures and rationa I deliberation at the World Trade Organ ization (WfOlyietOs power politics and unjust outcomes. It examines the rule-making process in the successive trade Rounds that led up to the WTO, as well as the politics of the organisation's rule-application and consensus-maki ng practices.

show abstract

“…In particular, the subject of environmental standards has enraged many groups (Conca, 2000). The WTO judgments on the sea turtles case (against the US' ban on imports of shrimp), the beef hormone case (against the EU's policy to prohibit imports of hormone-treated beef and to allow the US to impose penalties equivalent to the damage suffered by its firms), and the gasoline case (in favour of Venezuelan refiners regarding their exports of gasoline to the US which were banned under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act) are identified as examples in this regard.…”

Section: Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Seattle: globalization, the nonmarket environment and corporate strategy

Prakash¹

2002

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globalization is changing MNEs' nonmarket environments in four ways. First, instead of a 'retreat' of the state across sectors, it is leading to deregulation as well as reregulation. Because cross-border mergers and acquisitions are creating global oligopolies, there is increased antitrust scrutiny, thereby creating opportunities for governments to employ competition policy as a non-tariff barrier. Second, since MNEs retain national identities and 'first-movers' appropriate significant profits, governments have incentives to influence nonmarket environments in favour of their home-based MNEs. Third, many citizen groups that oppose MNEs have acquired a broad array of cross-border competencies (not merely country-specific). Their collective opposition is significantly aided by the Internet and by their abilities to manage the media. Fourth, since media is now significantly globalized, local nonmarket issues quickly acquire supranational dimensions. Thus, to respond to these changes, MNEs can be expected to simultaneously develop multi-domestic and supranational (regional and global) nonmarket strategies.

show abstract

The WTO and the undermining of global environmental governance

Cited by 138 publications

References 7 publications

Governing the Global Land Grab: Multipolarity, Ideas, and Complexity in Transnational Governance

Governing the Global Land Grab: Multipolarity, Ideas, and Complexity in Transnational Governance

Deliberative democracy and the WTO

Beyond Seattle: globalization, the nonmarket environment and corporate strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About