The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture: A policy appraisal

Global Climate Governance beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 25-34

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

^a GERMAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961237226     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139107150.005     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Abrego, L, C. Perroni, J. Whalley and R. M. Wigle 2003. ‘Trade and environment: bargaining outcomes from linked negotiations’, Review of International Economics9: 414-428.
2. Aldy, J. E., S. Barrett and R. N. Stavins 2003. ‘Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures’, Climate Policy3: 373-397.
3. Asselt, H. van and F. Biermann 2007. ‘European emissions trading and the international competitiveness of energy-intensive industries: a legal and political evaluation of possible supporting measures’, Energy Policy35: 297-306.
4. Barrett, S. 2007. ‘A multitrack climate treaty system’, in J. E. Aldy and R. N. Stavins (eds.), Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-259.
5. Benvenisti, E. and G. W. Downs 2007. ‘The empire’s new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law’, Stanford Law Review60: 595-632.
6. Biermann, F. 1998. Weltumweltpolitik zwischen Nord und Sud: Die neue Verhandlungsmacht der Entwicklungslander [Global Environmental Policy between North and South: The New Bargaining Power of Developing Countries]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
7. Biermann, F. 2005. ‘Between the United States and the South: strategic choices for European climate policy’, Climate Policy5: 273-290.
8. Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt and F. Zelli 2009. ‘The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework of analysis1. Global Environmental Politics 9(4): 14-40.
9. Bodansky, D. 2002. U.S. Climate Policy after Kyoto: Elements for Success. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief15.
10. Echersley, R. 2004. ‘The big chill: The WTO and multilateral environmental agreements’, Global Environmental Politics4(2): 24-40.
11. Falkner, R. 2003. ‘Private environmental governance and international relations: exploring the links’, Global Environmental Politics3: 72-87.
12. Hafner, G. 2000. ‘Risks ensuing from fragmentation of international law’, in Official Records of the General AssemblyFifty-fifth session. Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10, 2000), Annex, pp. 326-354.
13. Hafner, G. 2004. ‘Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law’, Michigan Journal of International Law25: 849-863.
14. Informal Working Group of Experts on Financial Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 1989. Report of the meeting in Geneva, 3-7 July 1989. UN Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.Mech. 1/Inf.1 of 16 August 1989.
15. Jagers, S. C. and J. Stripple 2003. ‘Climate governance beyond the state’, Global Governance9: 385-399.
16. Janicke, M. andK. Jacob 2006. ‘Lead markets for environmental innovations: a new role for the nation state’, in M. Janicke and K. Jacob (eds.), Environmental Governance in Global Perspective: New Approaches to Ecological Modernisation. Berlin: Centre for Environmental Policy Analysis, pp. 30-50.
17. Kohler, D. F., J. Haaga and F. Camm 1987. Projections of Consumption of Products Using Chlorofluorocarbons in Developing Countries. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
18. Massey, E. 2008. ‘Global governance and adaptation to climate change for food security’, in F. Zelli (ed.), Integrated Analysis of Different Possible Portfolios of Policy Options for a Post-2012 Architecture, ADAM Project report No. D-P3a.2b. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, pp. 143-153.
19. 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 Security18: 173-192.
20. Muller, B., J. Drexhage, M. Grubb, A. Michaelowa and A. Sharma 2003. Framing Future Commitments: A Pilot Study on the Evolution of the UNFCCC Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Regime. Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
21. Ott, H. E. 2007. ‘Climate policy post-2012 - a roadmap: the global governance of global change’, a discussion paper for the 2007 Tallberg Forum. www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/Ott_Taellberg_Post-2012.
22. Pattberg, P. 2005. ‘The institutionalization of private governance: how business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules’, Governance18: 589-610.
23. Reinstein, R. A. 2004. ‘A possible way forward on climate change’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change9: 245-309.
24. Stewart, R. B. and J. B. Wiener 2003. Reconstructing Climate Policy: Beyond Kyoto. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
25. Sugiyama, T. and J. Sinton 2005. ‘Orchestra of treaties: a future climate regime scenario with multiple treaties among like-minded countries’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics5: 65-88.
26. Tews, K., Busch, P. O. and H. Jorgens 2003. ‘The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments’, European Journal of Political Research42: 569-600.
27. Victor, D. G. 2007. ‘Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: implications for the design of effective architectures’, in J. E. Aldy and R. N. Stavins (eds.), Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123-163.
28. Vormedal, I. 2008. ‘The influence of business and industry NGOs in the negotiation of the Kyoto mechanisms: the case of carbon capture and storage in the CDM’, Global Environmental Politics8: 36-65.