The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 255-270

  Zelli, Fariborz ^a  

^a GERMAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURE; CLIMATOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

DIVISION OF LABOR; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES; GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURES; INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY; INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; MULTILATERAL TECHNOLOGY; PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 79961240950     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.104     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Polit 2009, 9: 14-40.
2. Rittberger V, Zangl B. International Organization: Polity, Politics and Policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006.
3. Czempiel EO. Internationale Politik: Ein Konfliktmodell. Paderborn: Schöningh; 1981.
4. Keohane RO. International Institutions and State Power. Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1989.
5. Krasner SD. International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1983.
6. Zelli F, Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H. The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture. A policy appraisal. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F, eds. Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012. Architecture, Agency and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, 25-34.
7. Herr RA, Chia E. Concept of regime overlap. Toward identification and assessment. In: Davis B, ed. Overlapping Maritime Regimes. An Initial Reconnaissance. Hobart: Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre and Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies; 1995, 11-26.
8. Young OR. Institutional linkages in international society. Polar perspectives. Glob Gov 1996, 2:1-24.
9. Gehring T, Oberthür S. Comparative empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction. In: Oberthür S, ed. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 307-371.
10. Selin H, VanDeveer SD. Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Glob Environ Polit 2003, 3:14-46.
11. Young OR. Governance in World Affairs. Ithaca, NY: New York University Press; 1999.
12. Young OR. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002.
13. Young OR. Deriving insights from the case of the WTO and the Cartagena Protocol. In: Young OR, Chambers WG, Kim JA, ten Have C, eds. Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008, 131-158.
14. Chambers WB. Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008.
15. Rosendal GK. Impacts of overlapping international regimes. The case of biodiversity. Glob Gov 2001, 7: 95-117.
16. Zelli F. Regime conflicts in global environmental governance. A framework for analysis. Global governance working paper no. 36. The Global Governance Project, Amsterdam, 2008.
17. Zelli F. Regime conflicts and their management in global environmental governance. A framework for analysis. In: Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
18. Stokke OS. Governance of high seas fisheries: the role of regime linkages. In: Vidas D, Østreng W, eds. Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1999, 157-172.
19. Stokke OS. Managing straddling stocks. The interplay of global and regional regimes. Ocean Coast Manag 2000, 43:205-234.
20. Stokke OS. The Interplay of International Regimes. Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work. FNI Report, No. 14/2001. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker; 2001.
21. Gehring T, Oberthür S. Exploring regime interaction. A framework of analysis. In: Underdal A, Young OR, eds. Regime Consequences. Methodological Challenges and Research Strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2004, 247-280.
22. Oberthür S, Gehring T. Conceptual foundations and institutional interaction. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 19-52.
23. Andersen R. The time dimension in international regime interplay. Glob Environ Polit 2002, 2:98-117.
24. Andersen R. Governing Agrobiodiversity: Plant Genetics and Developing Countries. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2008.
25. Bernauer T, Ruloff D, eds. Handel und Umwelt. Zur Frage der Kompatibilität internationaler Regime. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag; 1999.
26. Rosendal GK. The convention on biological diversity: tensions with the WTO TRIPS agreement over access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 79-102.
27. Chambers WB, ed. Global Climate Governance: Inter-linkages between the Kyoto Protocol and Other Multilateral Regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 1998.
28. Chambers WB, ed. Inter-linkages. The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2001.
29. Velazquez J, Piest U. Introducing the UNU inter-linkages initiative. Focusing on the implementation of sustainable development. UNU Work Prog 2003, 17:1-3.
30. Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
31. King LA. Institutional interplay: research questions. A report for institutional dimensions of global change, International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Draft. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 1997.
32. Young OR, Agrawal A, King LA, Underdal A, Sand PH, Underdal A, Wasson M. Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC). Science Plan. Bonn: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change; 1999.
33. Young OR, King LA, Schröder H. Institutions and Environmental Change. Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008.
34. Jenks CW. The conflict of law-making treaties. Br Yearb Int Law 1953, 30:401-453.
35. Kelsen H. Allgemeine Theorie der Normen. Vienna: Manz; 1979.
36. Brown Weiss E. International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new order. Georget Law J 1993, 81:675-710.
37. Marceau G. Conflicts of norms and conflicts of jurisdictions: the relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and other treaties. J World Trade 2001, 35:1081-1131.
38. Vranes E. The definition of 'Norm Conflict' in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 2006, 17:395-418.
39. Vranes E. Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International and WTO Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
40. Wolfrum R, Matz N. Conflicts in International Environmental Law. Berlin: Springer; 2003.
41. Neumann J. Die Koordination des WTO-Rechts mit anderen völkerrechtlichen Ordnungen. Konflikte des materiellen Rechts und Konkurrenzen der Streitbeilegung Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2002.
42. Pauwelyn J. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
43. Underdal A. Determining the causal significance of institutions. Accomplishments and challenges. Paper prepared for the 'Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change' Project synthesis conference, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 6-9 December, 2006.
44. Chambers WG, Kim JA, ten Have C. Institutional interplay and the governance of biosafety. In: Young OR, eds. Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008, 3-18.
45. Oberthür S, Gehring T. Disentangling the interaction between the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organisation. In: Young OR, eds. Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008, 94-127.
46. Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
47. Benvenisti E, Downs GW. The Empire's new clothes. Political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 2007, 60:595-632.
48. Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G. Regime-collision. The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 2004, 25:999-1045.
49. Hafner G. Risks ensuing from fragmentation of international law. UN-Doc. No. A/55/10. In United Nations General Assembly. Official records of the General Assembly, fifty-fifth session, supplement no. 10. New York, 2001.
50. Hafner G. Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Mich J Int Law 2004, 25: 849-863.
51. Koskenniemi M, Leino P. Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 2002, 15:553-579.
52. Simma B. Introduction. Fragmentation in a positive light. Mich J Int Law 2004, 25:845-847.
53. van Asselt H. Dealing with the fragmentation of global climate governance. Legal and political approaches in interplay management. In: Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
54. van Asselt H, Sindico F, Mehling MA. Global climate change and the fragmentation of international law. Law Policy 2008, 30:423-449.
55. International Law Commission. Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682. International Law Commission, Geneva, 2006.
56. Stephens T. International Courts and Environmental Protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
57. Bernstein S, Ivanova MH. Institutional fragmentation and normative compromise in global environmental governance: what prospects for re-embedding? In: Bernstein S, Pauly LW, eds. Global liberalism and political order: toward a new grand compromise? Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2007, 161-186.
58. Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F. Fragmentation of global governance architectures. The case of climate policy. Global governance working paper no. 34. The Global Governance Project, Amsterdam, 2007.
59. Biermann F, Zelli F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H. The architecture of global climate governance. Setting the stage. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F, eds. Global Climate Governance beyond 2012. Architecture, Agency and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, 15-24.
60. Kanie N. Governance with multilateral environmental agreements. A healthy or Ill-equipped fragmentation. In: Swart L, Perry E, eds. Global Environmental Governance. Perspectives on the Current Debate. New York, NY: Center for UN Reform; 2007, 69-86.
61. vanova MH, Roy J. The architecture of global environmental governance. Pros and cons of multiplicity. In: Swart L, Perry E, eds. Global Environmental Governance. Perspectives on the Current Debate. New York: Center for UN Reform; 2007, 48-66.
62. Alter KJ, Meunier S. The politics of international regime complexity. Perspect Polit 2009, 7:13-24.
63. Raustiala K, Victor DG. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Org 2004, 58:277-309.
64. Keohane RO, Victor DG. The regime complex for climate change. Discussion paper 10-33, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, January 2010.
65. Haas PM. Addressing the global governance deficit. Glob Environ Polit 2004, 4:1-15.
66. Siebert H. On the fears of the international division of labor. Eight points in the debate with anti-globalizationers. In: Siebert H, ed. Global Governance: An Architecture for the World Economy. Berlin: Springer; 2003, 3-23.
67. Gehring T. The emerging governance structure on trade and environment: from disruption to division of labor. In: Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
68. Biermann F. Johannesburg Plus 20. From international environmental policy to earth system governance. Polit Life Sci 2002, 21:72-77.
69. Biermann F. 'Earth System Governance' as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Glob Environ Change 2007, 17:326-337.
70. Biermann F. Earth system governance. A research agenda. In: Young OR, King LA, Schröder H, eds. Institutions and Environmental Change. Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008, 277-301.
71. Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F, van Asselt H, Boas I, Flachsland C, Goel N, Jerneck A, Massey E, Olsson L, et al. Global climate governance after 2012. Architecture, agency and adaptation. In: Hulme M, Neufeldt H, eds. Making Climate Change Work for Us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009, 263-290.
72. van Asselt H, Gupta J, Biermann F. Advancing the climate agenda: exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 2005, 14:255-264.
73. Depledge J, Yamin F. The global climate-change regime. A defence. In: Helm D, Hepburn C, eds. The Economics and Politics of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009, 433-453.
74. Aldy JE, Stavins RN. Climate policy architectures for the post-Kyoto world. Environment 2008, 50:6-17.
75. Clémençon R. The Bali road map. A first step on the difficult journey to a post-Kyoto protocol agreement. J Environ Dev 2008, 17:70-94.
76. International Institute for Sustainable Development. COP 13 and COP/MOP 3 highlights: wednesday, 5 December 2007. Earth Negot Bull 12:346.
77. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Summary of the Copenhagen climate change conference, 7-19 December 2009. Earth Negot Bull 12:459.
78. UNFCCC. Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Draft decision -/CP.16. Doc. No. FCCC/ AWGLCA/2010/L.7. Advance unedited version. (Accessed January 19, 2011).
79. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Talks: 31 May-11 June 2010. Earth Negot Bull 12:472.
80. Pattberg P, Stripple J. Beyond the public and private divide. Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. Int Environ Agreements 2008, 8: 367-388.
81. McGee J, Taplin R. The role of the Asia Pacific partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime. In: van Asselt H, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, eds. Exploring and Explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Special Issue of International Environmental Agreements 9(3). Dordrecht: Springer; 2009, 213-238.
82. Skodvin T, Andresen S. An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies? Presidential ambitions and congressional powers. In: van Asselt H, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, eds. Exploring and Explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Special Issue of International Environmental Agreements 9(3). Dordrecht: Springer; 2009, 263-280.
83. McGee J, Taplin R. The Asia-Pacific partnership and United States' international climate change policy. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 2008, 19:179-218.
84. Asselt H van. From unity to diversity? The UNFCCC, the Asia-Pacific Partnership, and the future of international law on climate change. Carbon Clim Law Rev 2007, 1:17-28.
85. Brewer TL. Bilateral and regional trade agreements in post-2012 scenarios. Note prepared for the ADAM-UNEP international workshop on post-2012 climate and trade policies, Geneva, 8-9 September, 2008.
86. McGee J, Taplin R. The Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate. A complement or competitor to the Kyoto Protocol? Glob Change Peace Secur 2006, 18:173-192.
87. Vihma A. Friendly neighbor or Trojan Horse? Assessing the interaction of Soft Law initiatives and the UN climate regime. In: van Asselt H, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, eds. Exploring and Explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Special Issue of International Environmental Agreements 9(3). Dordrecht: Springer; 2009, 239-262.
88. Heggelund GM, Fritzen Buan I. China in the Asia-Pacific partnership: consequences for UN climate change mitigation efforts? In: van Asselt H, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, eds. Exploring and Explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Special Issue of International Environmental Agreements 9(3). Dordrecht: Springer; 2009, 301-317.
89. van Asselt H, Kanie N, Iguchi M. Japan's position in international climate policy: navigating between Kyoto and the APP. In: van Asselt H, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, eds. Exploring and Explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Special Issue of International Environmental Agreements 9(3). Dordrecht: Springer; 2009, 319-336.
90. International Institute for Sustainable Development. AWG and dialogue 4 highlights: Monday, 27 August 2007. Earth Negot Bull 12:355.
91. Sigmar Gabriel, quoted in Spiegel Online. (Accessed February 6, 2010).
92. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Summary of the thirteenth conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change and third meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 3-15 December 2007. Earth Negot Bull 12:354.
93. Brewer TL. The potential of regional and bilateral sectoral agreements. In: Simmons B, van Asselt H, Zelli F, eds. United Nations Environment Programme and ADAM Project ('Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy'). Trade and Climate Policies in a Post-2012 World. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme; 2009, 65-69.
94. Holtwisch C. Asiatisch-pazifische Partnerschaft für umweltverträgliche Entwicklung und Klima. Blockade oder Antrieb für das internationale Klimaregime? Munich: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag; 2008.
95. Victor DG. Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: implications for the design of effective architectures. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN, eds. Architectures for Agreement. Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007, 133-160.
96. Bodansky D. U.S. Climate Policy after Kyoto: Elements for Success. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 2002.
97. Chasek PS. Earth Negotiations. Analyzing Thirty Years of Environmental Diplomacy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2001.
98. Rittberger V, Zangl B. International Organization. Polity, Politics and Policies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006.
99. Skjærseth JB. Protecting the North-East Atlantic. One problem, three institutions. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 103-126.
100. Jacquemont F, Caparrós A. The convention on biological diversity and the climate change convention 10 years after Rio: towards a synergy of the two regimes? Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 2002, 11: 139-180.
101. Kim JA. Regime interplay: the case of biodiversity and climate change. Glob Environ Change 2004, 14:315-324.
102. Malabed J, Velasquez J, Shende R, eds. Inter-linkages between the Ozone and Climate Change Conventions. Part I-Inter-linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Tokyo: United Nations University; 2002.
103. Palmer A, Chaytor B, Werksman J. Interactions between the World Trade Organization and international environmental regimes. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 181-204.
104. European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee. Why use HFCs. (Accessed February 6, 2010).
105. Metz B, Kuijpers L, Solomon S, Andersen SO, Davidson O, Pons J, de Jager D, Kestin T, Manning M, Meyer L. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Joint report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2005.
106. Oberthür S. Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols. Enhancing synergies between protecting the ozone layer and the global climate. Int Environ Agreements 2001, 1:357-377.
107. Oberthür S. The climate change regime: interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU Burden-Sharing Agreement. In: Oberthür S, Gehring T, eds. Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006, 53-78.
108. Doelle M. Linking the Kyoto protocol and other multilateral environmental agreements: from fragmentation to integration? J Environ Law Pract 2004, 14:75-104.
109. Yamin F, Depledge J. The International Climate Change Regime. A Guide to Rules Institutions and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
110. United Nations Security Council. Security Council holds first-ever debate on impact of climate change. Doc. No. SC/9000. (Accessed February 7, 2010).
111. DeSombre ER. Global Environmental Institutions. London: Routledge; 2006.
112. Abeyratne R. ICAO: some recent developments in aviation and environmental protection regulation. Environ Policy Law 2001, 32:32-40.
113. Oberthür S. Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto protocol. Clim Policy 2003, 3:191-205.
114. Wettestad J. Interaction between EU Carbon Trading and international institutions: synergies or disruptions? Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 26-29 March, 2008.
115. Bhagwati J, Srinivasan TN. Trade and the environment: does environmental diversity detract from the case for free trade? In: Bhagwati J, Hudec RE, eds. Fair Trade and Harmonization. Prerequisites for Free Trade. Volume 1: Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996, 159-223.
116. Cairncross F. Costing the Earth: The Challenge for Governments, the Opportunities for Business. London: The Economist Books; 1991.
117. Anderson TL, Leal DR. Free Market Environmentalism. Oxford: Westview Press; 1991.
118. Anderson TL, Leal DR. Free Market Environmentalism Today. New York: St. Martin's Press; 2001.
119. Barry J. Rethinking Green Politics. Nature, Virtue and Progress. London: Sage; 1999.
120. Bartelmus P. Environment, Growth and Development: The Concepts and Strategies of Sustainability. London: Routledge; 1994.
121. Kulessa ME, Schwaab JA. Konzepte zur, Ökologisierung' der internationalen Handels- und Wirtschaftspolitik. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (Int Polit Soc) Online 2000, 3:254-270.
122. Rivera-Batiz LA, Oliva M-A. International Trade: Theory, Strategies, and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
123. Sampson GP. Trade, Environment, and the WTO. The Post-Seattle Agenda. Washington, D.C.: Overseas Development Council; 2000.
124. Sampson GP. The World Trade Organization and global environmental governance. In: Chambers WB, Green JF, eds. Reforming International Environmental Governance: From Institutional Limits to Innovative Reforms. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2005, 124-149.
125. Cosbey A. Trade policy tools and instruments for addressing climate change and sustainable development. A scoping paper produced for the Trade Ministers' Dialogue on Climate Change Issues. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 2007.
126. Brack D, Grubb M, Windram C. International Trade and Climate Change Policies. London: Earthscan; 2000.
127. Chambers WB. International trade law and the Kyoto protocol. Potential incompatibilities. In: Chambers WB, ed. Inter-linkages. The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2001, 87-118.
128. Brewer TL. The trade regime and the climate regime. Institutional evolution and adaptation. Clim Policy 2003, 3:329-341.
129. Brewer TL. The WTO and the Kyoto protocol: interaction issues. Clim Policy 2004, 4:3-12.
130. Charnovitz S. Trade and climate: potential conflicts and synergies. In: Aldy JE, Ashton J, Baron R, Bodansky D, Charnovitz S, et al, eds. Beyond Kyoto. Advancing the International Effort against Climate Change. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change; 2003.
131. Stokke OS. Trade measures and climate compliance. Institutional interplay between WTO and the Marrakesh accords. Int Environ Agreements 2004, 4: 339-357.
132. Frankel J. Climate and trade. Links between the Kyoto protocol and WTO. Environment 2005, 47:8-19.
133. Cosbey A, Tarasofsky R. Climate Change, Competitiveness and Trade. A Chatham House Report. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs; 2007.
134. Howse R, Eliason AL. Domestic and international strategies to address climate change. An overview of the WTO legal issues. In: Bigdeli S, Cottier T, Nartova O, eds. International Trade Regulation and the Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009, 48-94.
135. van Asselt H, Brewer T, Mehling M. Addressing leakage and competitiveness in US climate policy. Issues concerning border adjustment measures. Climate strategies working paper, March 5, 2009.
136. Eckersley R. The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures. Ethics Int Aff 2010, 24: 367-393.
137. van Asselt H, Brewer TL. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy 2010, 38:42-51.
138. Palmer A, Tarasofsky R. The Doha Round and beyond. Towards a lasting relationship between the WTO and the international environmental regime. A Chatham House report. Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 2007.
139. Doelle M. Climate change and the WTO: opportunities to motivate state action on climate change through the World Trade Organization. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 2004, 13:85-103.
140. Tamiotti L, Teh R, Kulaçoǧlu V, Simmons B, Olhoff A, Abaza H, eds. Trade and Climate Change. Geneva: World Trade Organization; 2009.
141. United Nations Environment Programme and ADAM Project ('Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy'). In: Simmons B, van Asselt H, Zelli F, eds. Trade and Climate Policies in a Post-2012 World. United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva; 2009.
142. Biermann F, Brohm R. Implementing the Kyoto protocol without the United States: the strategic role of energy tax adjustments at the border. Clim Policy 2005, 4:289-302.
143. Ismer R, Neuhoff K. Border tax adjustment. A feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur J Law Econom 2007, 24:137-164.
144. Pauwelyn J. US Federal climate policy and competitiveness concerns. The limits and options of international trade law, Nicholas Institute working paper 07-02. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC, 2007.
145. McKibbin WJ, Wilcoxen PJ. The economic and environmental effects of border tax adjustments for climate policy. Brookings Trade Forum 2008/2009: 1-23.
146. Bhagwati J, Mavroidis PC. Is action against US exports for failure to sign Kyoto protocol WTO-legal? World Trade Rev 2007, 6:299-310.
147. Quick R. 'Border Tax Adjustment' in the context of emissions trading. Climate protection or 'Naked' protectionism? Glob Trade Customs J 2008, 3:163-175.
148. Eckersley R. The big chill. The WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. Glob Environ Polit 2004, 4:24-40.
149. Eckersley R. Understanding the interplay between the climate and trade regimes. In: Simmons B, van Asselt H, Zelli F, eds. United Nations Environment Programme and ADAM Project ('Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy'). Trade and Climate Policies in a Post-2012 World. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme; 2009, 11-18.
150. Stillwell MT, Tuerk E. Trade measures and multilateral agreements: resolving uncertainty and removing the WTO chill factor. World Wide Fund for Nature international discussion paper, November 1999.
151. Axelrod M. Savings clauses and the 'Chilling Effect'. Regime interplay as constraints on international governance. In: Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
152. Zelli F. Searching for docking points: prospects for issue-linking between the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Climate Regime. In: Simmons B, van Asselt H, Zelli F, eds. United Nations Environment Programme and ADAM Project ('Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy'). Trade and Climate Policies in a Post-2012 World. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme; 2009, 51-56.
153. Oberthür S, Stokke OS. Introduction: institutional interaction in global environmental change. In: Oberthür S, Stokke OS, eds. Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming.
154. Biermann F. The case for a world environment organization. Environment 2000, 42:22-31.
155. Biermann F. Strengthening green global governance in a disparate world society. Would a world environment organization benefit the south? Int Environ Agreements 2002, 2:297-315.
156. Biermann F, Bauer S, eds. A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2005.
157. Gupta A. Global biosafety governance: emergence and evolution. In: Young OR, Chambers WB, Kim JA, ten Have C, eds. Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008, 19-46.