IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v11y2020is3p61-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Powers and Differentiation in Global Climate Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Thompson

Abstract

The Paris Agreement on climate change brought states from the North and South together under a common framework to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This was a remarkable institutional adjustment for a regime that had always maintained a strict distinction between developed and developing countries and imposed meaningful obligations only on the former. To better understand this change, I look at the negotiations surrounding the issue of ‘differentiation’. The rising emissions of the emerging economies created a demand for institutional change on the part of key industrialized countries; however, they faced resistance from the increasingly assertive BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). The challengers ultimately adopted strategic cooptation as their main negotiation strategy, offering compromises in the areas of climate finance and the legal form of new commitments. The climate case sheds light on the impact of power shifts in the domain of global environmental governance and illustrates that calls for change sometime comes from established rather than rising powers.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Thompson, 2020. "Emerging Powers and Differentiation in Global Climate Institutions," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 61-72, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:s3:p:61-72
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12883
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristen Hopewell, 2015. "Different paths to power: The rise of Brazil, India and China at the World Trade Organization," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 311-338, April.
    2. Kaya,Ayse, 2015. "Power and Global Economic Institutions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107120945, November.
    3. Harald Winkler & Lavanya Rajamani, 2014. "CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 102-121, January.
    4. Joanna Depledge, 2009. "The road less travelled: difficulties in moving between annexes in the climate change regime," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 273-287, May.
    5. Lameli Alfred & Südekum Jens & Nitsch Volker & Wolf Nikolaus, 2015. "Same Same But Different: Dialects and Trade," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 290-306, August.
    6. Robert O. Keohane & Michael Oppenheimer, 2016. "Paris: Beyond the Climate Dead End through Pledge and Review?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 142-151.
    7. Christian Downie & Marc Williams, 2018. "After the Paris Agreement: What Role for the BRICS in Global Climate Governance?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 9(3), pages 398-407, September.
    8. Agadzhanyan A.S., 2015. "Key characteristics of different management styles," Электронный вестник Ростовского социально-экономического института, CyberLeninka;Негосударственное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования «Ростовский социально-экономический институт», issue 3-4, pages 368-372.
    9. Jotikasthira, Chotibhak & Le, Anh & Lundblad, Christian, 2015. "Why do term structures in different currencies co-move?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 58-83.
    10. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1992. "Multilateralism: the anatomy of an institution," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 561-598, July.
    11. Lasse Ringius & Asbjørn Torvanger & Arild Underdal, 2002. "Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Bernhard Zangl & Frederick Heußner & Andreas Kruck & Xenia Lanzendörfer, 2016. "Imperfect adaptation: how the WTO and the IMF adjust to shifting power distributions among their members," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 171-196, June.
    13. James Raymo & Marcia Carlson & Alicia VanOrman & Sojung Lim & Brienna Perelli-Harris & Miho Iwasawa, 2015. "Educational differences in early childbearing," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(3), pages 65-92.
    14. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2016. "The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind Closed Doors," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Maria Ivanova, 2016. "Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Reality after Paris," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(3), pages 411-419, September.
    16. Koremenos, Barbara, 2005. "Contracting around International Uncertainty," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 549-565, November.
    17. Karl Hallding & Marie J�risoo & Marcus Carson & Aaron Atteridge, 2013. "Rising powers: the evolving role of BASIC countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 608-631, September.
    18. A. Burcu Bayram & Erin R. Graham, 2017. "Financing the United Nations: Explaining variation in how donors provide funding to the UN," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 421-459, September.
    19. Phillip Y. Lipscy, 2015. "Explaining Institutional Change: Policy Areas, Outside Options, and the Bretton Woods Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 341-356, February.
    20. Mbeva, Kennedy Liti & Pauw, Pieter, 2016. "Self-differentiation of countries’ responsibilities: addressing climate change through intended nationally determined contributions," IDOS Discussion Papers 4/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    21. Downs, George W. & Rocke, David M. & Barsoom, Peter N., 1998. "Managing the Evolution of Multilateralism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 397-419, April.
    22. Victor,David G., 2011. "Global Warming Gridlock," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521865012, November.
    23. Gilligan, Michael J., 2004. "Is There a Broader-Deeper Trade-off in International Multilateral Agreements?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 459-484, July.
    24. Stephen, Matthew D., 2017. "Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(3), pages 483-502.
    25. Davis, Christina L., 2004. "International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(1), pages 153-169, February.
    26. Eugénia C. Heldt & Laura C. Mahrenbach, 2019. "Rising Powers in Global Economic Governance: Mapping the Flexibility‐Empowerment Nexus," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(1), pages 19-28, February.
    27. He, Xiaoping, 2015. "Regional differences in China's CO2 abatement cost," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 145-152.
    28. Voeten, Erik, 2001. "Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 845-858, December.
    29. Kleimeier, Stefanie & Chaudhry, Sajid M., 2015. "Cultural differences and the structure of loan syndicates," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 115-124.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Hale, 2020. "Catalytic Cooperation," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(4), pages 73-98, Autumn.
    2. Phillip Y. Lipscy, 2020. "How Do States Renegotiate International Institutions? Japan’s Renegotiation Diplomacy Since World War II," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 17-27, October.
    3. Guri Bang & Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin, 2016. "The Paris Agreement: Short-Term and Long-Term Effectiveness," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 209-218.
    4. Bernhard Reinsberg & Oliver Westerwinter, 2021. "The global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 59-94, January.
    5. Stephen, Matthew D., 2020. "China's new multilateral institutions: A framework and research agenda," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2020-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    6. Johannes Urpelainen & Thijs Van de Graaf, 2015. "The International Renewable Energy Agency: a success story in institutional innovation?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 159-177, May.
    7. Daniel Verdier, 2022. "Bargaining strategies for governance complex games," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 349-371, April.
    8. Christina L. Davis & Tyler Pratt, 2021. "The forces of attraction: How security interests shape membership in economic institutions," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 903-929, October.
    9. Andreas Kruck & Bernhard Zangl, 2020. "The Adjustment of International Institutions to Global Power Shifts: A Framework for Analysis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 5-16, October.
    10. Kempf, Hubert & Rossignol, Stéphane, 2013. "National politics and international agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-105.
    11. Richard Stewart & Michael Oppenheimer & Bryce Rudyk, 2013. "A new strategy for global climate protection," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Jean-Charles Hourcade & P.-R. Shukla & Christophe Cassen, 2015. "Climate policy architecture for the Cancun paradigm shift: building on the lessons from history," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 353-367, November.
    13. Schleich, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Schwirplies, Claudia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    14. Daniel Verdier, 2009. "Successful and Failed Screening Mechanisms in the Two Gulf Wars," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 311-342, July.
    15. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Domestic reform as a rationale for gradualism in international cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 400-427, July.
    16. Richard Heede, 2014. "Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 229-241, January.
    17. Cahill-Webb, Finn, 2018. "International environmental governance and the Paris agreement on climate change: The adoption of the "pledge and review" governance approach," IPE Working Papers 99/2018, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    18. Stephen, Matthew D. & Parízek, Michal, 2019. "New Powers and the Distribution of Preferences in Global Trade Governance: From Deadlock and Drift to Fragmentation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(6), pages 735-758.
    19. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Early birds: Special interests and the strategic logic of international cooperation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 113-140, July.
    20. Jonas Tallberg & Soetkin Verhaegen, 2020. "The Legitimacy of International Institutions among Rising and Established Powers," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 115-126, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:s3:p:61-72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.