The architecture of global climate governance: Setting the stage

Global Climate Governance beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 15-24

  Biermann, Frank ^a   Zelli, Fariborz ^b   Pattberg, Philipp ^a   van Asselt, Harro ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

^b GERMAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961212830     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139107150.004     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Andresen, S. 2001. ‘Global environmental governance: UN fragmentation and co-ordination’, in O. Schram Stokke and B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002. London: Earthscan, pp. 19-26.
2. Asselt, H. van 2007. ‘From UN-ity to diversity? The UNFCCC, the Asia-Pacific Partnership and the future of international law on climate change’, Carbon and Climate Law Review 1: 17-28.
3. Asselt, H. van 2010 (in press). ‘Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an alien instrument?’, in A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, F. Berkhout and T. Rayner (eds.), Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bernstein, S. and M. Ivanova 2007. ‘Institutional fragmentation and normative compromise in global environmental governance: what prospects for re-embedding?’, in S. Bernstein and L. W. Pauly (eds.), Global Liberalism and Political Order: Towards a New Grand Compromise? Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 161-185.
5. Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt and F. Zelli 2009. ‘The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework of analysis’, Global Environmental Politics 9(4): 14-40.
6. Brown Weiss, E. 1993. ‘International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new order’, Georgetown Law Journal 81: 675-710.
7. Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study ofOrder in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Busch, P. O. 2009. ‘The climate secretariat: making a living in a straitjacket’, in F. Biermann and B. Siebenhuner (eds.), Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 245-264.
9. Clemenfon, R. 2008. ‘The Bali road map: a first step on the difficult journey to a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement’, Journal of Environment and Development 17: 70-94.
10. Haas, P. M. 2004. ‘ Addressing the global governance deficit’, Global Environmental Politics 4: 1-15.
11. Hafner, G. 2000. ‘Risks ensuing from fragmentation of international law’, in Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fifth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10, 2000), Annex, pp. 326-354.
12. Hafner, G. 2004. ‘Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law’, Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 849-863.
13. International Institute for Sustainable Development 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12, No. 342. www.iisd.ca/vol12.
14. International Law Commission 2006. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion ofInternational Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682. Geneva: International Law Commission.
15. Ivanova, M. and J. Roy 2007. ‘The architecture of global environmental governance: pros and cons of multiplicity’, in L. Swart and E. Perry (eds.), Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate. New York: Center for UN Reform, pp. 48-66.
16. Kanie, N. 2007. ‘Governance with multilateral environmental agreements: a healthy or ill- equipped fragmentation’, in L. Swart and E. Perry (eds.), Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate. New York: Center for UN Reform, pp. 69-86.
17. Keohane, R. O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
18. Koskenniemi, M. and P. Leino 2002. ‘Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties’, Leiden Journal of International Law 15: 553-579.
19. Krasner, S. D. 1983. ‘Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables’, in S. D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1-21.
20. Lindroos, A. and M. Mehling 2005. ‘Dispelling the chimera of “self-contained regimes”: international law and the WTO’, European Journal of International Law 16: 857-877.
21. McGee, J. and R. Taplin 2006. ‘The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: a competitor or complement to the Kyoto Protocol’, Global Change, Peace and Security 18: 173-192.
22. Pattberg, P. and J. Stripple 2008. ‘Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8: 367-388.
23. Raustiala, K. and D. Victor 2004. ‘The regime complex for plant genetic resources’, International Organization 58: 277-309.
24. Rosendal, G. K. 2006. ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity: tensions with the WTO TRIPS Agreement over access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits’, in S. Oberthur and T. Gehring (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 79-102.
25. Siebert, H. 2003. ‘On the fears of the international division of labor: eight points in the debate with anti-globalizationers’, in H. Siebert (ed.), Global Governance: An Architecture for the World Economy. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3-23.
26. United Nations Environment Programme 2007. Evolution of the Montreal Protocol. http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/evolution_of_mp.shtml.
27. White House 2007. Fact Sheet: Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070927.html.
28. Young, O. R. 2008. ‘Deriving insights from the case of the WTO and the Cartagena Protocol’, in O. R. Young, W. B. Chambers, J. A. Kim and C. ten Have (eds.), Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 131-158.