IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ancewp/249518.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the ‘Ratification Straitjacket’

Author

Listed:
  • Kemp, Luke

Abstract

The issue of US ratification of international environmental treaties is a recurring obstacle for environmental multilateralism, including the climate regime. Despite the perceived importance of the role of the US to the success of any future international climate agreement, there has been little direct coverage in terms of how an effective agreement can specifically address US legal participation. This paper explores potential ways of allowing for US legal participation in an effective climate treaty. Possible routes forward include the use of domestic legislation such as section 115 (S115) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the use of sole-executive agreements, instead of Senate ratification. Legal participation from the US through sole-executive agreements is possible if the international architecture is designed to allow for their use. Architectural elements such as varying legality and participation across an agreement (variable geometry) could allow for the use of sole-executive agreements. Two broader models for a 2015 agreement with legal participation through sole-executive agreements are constructed based upon these options: a modified pledge and review system and a form of variable geometry composed of number of opt-out, voting based protocols on specific issues accompanied with bilateral agreements on mitigation commitments with other major emitters through the use of S115 and sole-executive agreements under the Montreal Protocol and Chicago Convention (Critical Mass Governance). While there is no single solution, Critical Mass Governance appears to provide the optimum combination of tools to effectively allow for US legal participation whilst ensuring an effective treaty.

Suggested Citation

  • Kemp, Luke, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the ‘Ratification Straitjacket’," Working Papers 249518, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ancewp:249518
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.249518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249518/files/ccep1513.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.249518?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. Aldy,Joseph E. & Stavins,Robert N. (ed.), 2007. "Architectures for Agreement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521692175, January.
    2. Barry G. Rabe, 2008. "States on Steroids: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of American Climate Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 25(2), pages 105-128, March.
    3. Bang, Guri, 2010. "Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1645-1653, April.
    4. Joseph E. Aldy & Scott Barrett & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 373-397, December.
    5. Victor,David G., 2011. "Global Warming Gridlock," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521865012, January.
    6. Jeffrey S. Peake & Glen S. Krutz & Tyler Hughes, 2012. "President O bama, the Senate, and the Polarized Politics of Treaty Making," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1295-1315, December.
    7. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    8. Taishi Sugiyama & Jonathan Sinton, 2005. "Orchestra of Treaties: A Future Climate Regime Scenario with Multiple Treaties among Like-minded Countries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-88, March.
    9. Barry Rabe, 2011. "Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 494-521, Summer.
    10. Henrik Selin & Stacy D. VanDeveer, 2011. "US climate change politics and policymaking," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 121-127, January.
    11. Robert Falkner & Hannes Stephan & John Vogler, 2010. "International climate policy after Copenhagen: towards a �building blocks� approach," GRI Working Papers 21, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    12. Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "A model of dynamic climate governance: dream big, win small," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 107-125, May.
    13. Maximilian Terhalle & Joanna Depledge, 2013. "Great-power politics, order transition, and climate governance: insights from international relations theory," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 572-588, September.
    14. Lutsey, Nicholas & Sperling, Daniel, 2008. "America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 673-685, February.
    15. Aldy,Joseph E. & Stavins,Robert N. (ed.), 2007. "Architectures for Agreement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521871631, January.
    16. Barrett, Scott & Toman, Michael, 2010. "Contrasting future paths for an evolving global climate regime," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5164, The World Bank.
    17. Purvis, Nigel, 2008. "Paving the Way for U.S. Climate Leadership: The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-09, Resources for the Future.
    18. David G. Victor, 2006. "Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change: Numbers, Interests and Institutions," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(3), pages 90-103, August.
    19. Lutsey, Nicholas P. & Sperling, Dan, 2008. "America's Bottom-Up Climate Change Mitigation Policy," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8jj755d4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    20. Frank Grundig & Hugh Ward, 2015. "Structural Group Leadership and Regime Effectiveness," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(1), pages 221-239, March.
    21. Guri Bang & Jon Hovi & Detlef F. Sprinz, 2012. "US presidents and the failure to ratify multilateral environmental agreements," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 755-763, November.
    22. Gregory Briner & Andrew Prag, 2013. "Establishing and Understanding Post-2020 Climate Change Mitigation Commitments," OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers 2013/3, OECD Publishing.
    23. William Hare & Claire Stockwell & Christian Flachsland & Sebastian Oberth�R, 2010. "The architecture of the global climate regime: a top-down perspective," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 600-614, November.
    24. Tijmes-Lhl, Jaime, 2009. "Consensus and majority voting in the WTO," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 417-437, July.
    25. Erick Lachapelle & Matthew Paterson, 2013. "Drivers of national climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 547-571, September.
    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. Luke Kemp, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the 'Ratification Straitjacket'," CCEP Working Papers 1513, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "A model of dynamic climate governance: dream big, win small," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 107-125, May.
    3. Harro Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2014. "Connect the dots: managing the fragmentation of global climate governance," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(2), pages 137-155, April.
    4. Gregor Schwerhoff, 2013. "Leadership and International Climate Cooperation," Working Papers 2013.97, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Reiche, Danyel, 2013. "Climate policies in the U.S. at the stakeholder level: A case study of the National Football League," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 775-784.
    6. Tora Skodvin & Steinar Andresen, 2009. "An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies? Presidential ambitions and congressional powers," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 263-280, August.
    7. Skodvin, Tora, 2010. ""Pivotal politics" in US energy and climate legislation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4214-4223, August.
    8. Michael Mehling, 2012. "Alternative Frameworks for International Climate Cooperation: Towards a Systematic Assessment Matrix," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44538.
    9. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Bosetti, Valentina, 2011. "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO[subscript 2] Concentrations," Working Paper Series rwp11-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    10. Thomas Norman & Heinrich H. Nax, 2011. "Leading the Way: Coalitional Stability in Technological Cooperation & Sequential Climate Policy," Economics Series Working Papers 585, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Seidman, Laurence & Lewis, Kenneth, 2009. "Compensations and contributions under an international carbon treaty," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 341-350, May.
    12. Phillip M. Hannam & Vítor V. Vasconcelos & Simon A. Levin & Jorge M. Pacheco, 2017. "Incomplete cooperation and co-benefits: deepening climate cooperation with a proliferation of small agreements," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 65-79, September.
    13. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "Global Climate Policy Architecture and Political Feasibility: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO2 Concentrations," NBER Working Papers 15516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2009. "An Elaborated Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries in All Decades," NBER Working Papers 14876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen & Harro Asselt, 2009. "Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 195-211, August.
    16. Håkon Sælen, 2016. "Side-payments: an effective instrument for building climate clubs?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 909-932, December.
    17. Richard B. Stewart & Michael Oppenheimer & Bryce Rudyk, 2017. "Building blocks: a strategy for near-term action within the new global climate framework," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 1-13, September.
    18. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey Frankel, 2012. "Politically Feasible Emissions Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO 2 Concentrations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 86-109.
    19. Bård Harstad, 2016. "The Dynamics Of Climate Agreements," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 719-752, June.
    20. Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2008. "Internationale Klimapolitik nach Kyoto: Architekturen und Institutionen," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:ancewp:249518. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/creauau.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.