States' interests at international climate negotiations: New measures of bargaining positions

Environmental Politics

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 610-631

  Genovese, Federica ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

bargaining positions; climate change negotiations; climate cooperation; UNFCCC

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS; KYOTO PROTOCOL; NEGOTIATION PROCESS; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84902788853     PISSN: 09644016     EISSN: 17438934     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2014.904068     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Barrett, S., 1999. A theory of full international cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11 (4), 519-541. 10.1177/0951692899011004004
2. Benoit, K. and Laver, M., 2012. The dimensionality of political space: epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics, 13 (2), 194-218. 10.1177/1465116511434618
3. Benoit, K., et al., 2012. Crowd-sourced Data Coding for the Social Sciences: Massive Non-expert Human Coding of Political Texts. Paper prepared for presentation at the 3rd annual 'New Directions in Analyzing Text as Data conference, Harvard University.
4. Benoit, K., Laver, M., and Mikhaylov, S., 2009. Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (2), 495-513. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00383.x
5. Bernauer, T., 1995. The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more. International Organization, 49 (2), 351-377. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028423
6. Bodansky, D., 2001. The History of the Global Climate Change Regime. In: U. Luterbacher and D.F. Sprinz, eds. International relations and global climate change (global environmental accord: strategies for sustainability and institutional innovation). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 23-40.
7. Boyd, E., Corbera, E., and Estrada, M., 2008. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): What the process says about the politics of CDM-Sinks. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 8, 95-112. doi:10.1007/s10784-008-9070-x
8. Breitmeier, H., Young, O.R., and Zuern, M., 2006. Analyzing international environmental regimes: from case study to database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9. Brunnée, J., 2002. COP-ing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden Journal of International Law. 15, 1-52. doi:10.1017/S0922156502000018
10. Budge, I., et al., 2001. Mapping policy preferences: parties, electors, and governments, 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Castro, P., Hoernlein, L., and Michaelowa, K., 2011. Path dependence of negotiation structures in international organizations: the impact of Annex I membership on discussions within the UNFCCC. CIS Working Paper. 67, 1-38.
12. Bueno De Mesquita, B., 2004. Decision-making models, rigor and new puzzles. European Union Politics, 5 (1), 125-138. doi:10.1177/1465116504040448
13. Dessai, S., 2001. Profile - Why did the hague climate conference fail? Environmental Politics, 10 (3), 139-144. doi:10.1080/714000552
14. Downs, A., 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Addison Wesley.
15. Ellis, J., et al., 2010. Options to Revise Reporting Guidelines for Annex I and Non-Annex I National Communications. Technical report, OECD/IEA.
16. Grundig, F., 2006. Patterns of international cooperation and the explanatory power of relative gains: an analysis of cooperation on global climate change, ozone depletion, and international trade. International Studies Quarterly, 50 (4), 781-801. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00425.x
17. Gupta, J., 2010. A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (5), 636-653.
18. Gupta, J., 2012. Negotiating challenges and climate change. Climate Policy, 12 (5), 630-644. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.693392
19. Gupta, J. and Grubb, M., 2000. Climate change and European leadership. A sustainable role for Europe? Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Hovi, J. and Areklett, I., 2004. Enforcing the climate regime: game theory and the Marrakesh accords. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 4, 1-26. doi:10.1023/B:INEA.0000019026.02330.da
21. Hey, E., 2001. The climate change regime: an enviro-economic problem and international administrative law in the making. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1 (1), 75-100. doi:10.1023/A:1010117910664
22. Hix, S. and Crombez, C., 2005. Extracting ideal point estimates from actors' preferences in the EU constitutional negotiations. European Union Politics, 6 (3), 353-376. doi:10.1177/1465116505054837
23. Hovi, J., 2001. Decentralized Enforcement, Sequential Bargaining, and the Clean Development Mechanism. Technical Report 12, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.
24. Hovi, J., Sprinz, D., and Underdal, A., 2009. Implementing long-term climate policy: time inconsistency, domestic politics, international anarchy. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (3), 20-39. doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.3.20
25. Hug, S. and König, T., 2002. In view of ratification: governmental preferences and domestic constraints at the Amsterdam intergovernmental conference. International Organization, 56 (2), 447-476. doi:10.1162/002081802320005531
26. Jensen, C.B. and Spoon, J., 2011. Testing the 'party matters' thesis: explaining progress towards Kyoto Protocol targets. Political Studies, 59 (1), 99-115. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00852.x
27. Klüver, H., 2009. Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics, 10 (4), 535-549. doi:10.1177/1465116509346782
28. Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Lange, A., Vogt, C., and Ziegler, A., 2007. On the importance of equity in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Energy Economics, 29 (3), 545-562. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2006.09.002
30. Laver, M., Benoit, K., and Garry, J., 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97 (02), 311-331. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000698
31. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K., 1986. The manager as negotiator. Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. New York, London: The Free Press.
32. Lowe, W., Benoit K., Mikhaylov S., Laver M., 2011. Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36 (1), 123-155. doi:10.1111/j.1939-9162.2010.00006.x
33. Mansfield, E.D., Milner, H.V., and Rosendorff, B.P., 2000. Free to trade: democracies, autocracies, and international trade. The American Political Science Review, 94 (2), 305-321. doi:10.2307/2586014
34. Michaelowa, K. and Michaelowa, A., 2012. India as an emerging power in international climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12 (5), 575-590. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.691226
35. Milner, H.V. and Rosendorff, B.P., 1997. Democratic politics and international trade negotiations: elections and divided government as constraints on trade liberalization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (1), 117-146. doi:10.1177/0022002797041001006
36. Odell, J.S., 2002. Creating data on international negotiation strategies, alternatives and outcomes. International Negotiation, 7 (1), 39-52. doi:10.1163/157180602401262410
37. Ott, H.E., Sterk, W., and Watanabe, R., 2008. The Bali roadmap: new horizons for global climate policy. Climate Policy, 8 (1), 91-95. doi:10.3763/cpol.2007.0510
38. Quinn, K.M., 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis, 12 (4), 338-353. doi:10.1093/pan/mph022
39. Schneider, G. and Cederman, L., 1994. The change of tide in political cooperation: a limited information model of European integration. International Organization, 48 (04), 633-662. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028332
40. Slapin, J.B. and Proksch, S.-O., 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science, 52 (3), 705-722. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00338.x
41. Sprinz, D.F., 2004. Quantitative Analysis of International Environmental Policy. In: D.F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. Models, numbers, and cases: methods for studying international relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42. Thomson, R., et al., 2006. The European Union decides. Cambridge University Press, New York.
43. Tsebelis, G., 1999. Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis. The American Political Science Review, 93 (3), 591-608. doi:10.2307/2585576
44. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), Bonn. 2012a. National reports [online]. Available from: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php. Last date accessed: 01 March 2014.
45. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), Bonn. 2012b. Submissions from parties [online]. Available from: http://unfccc.int/documentation/submissions_from_parties/items/5900.php. Last date accessed: 01 March 2014.
46. Ward, H., Grundig, F., and Zorick, E.R., 2001. Marching at the pace of the slowest: a model of international climate change negotiations. Political Studies, 49 (3), 438-461. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00320
47. Weiler, F., 2012. Determinants of bargaining success in the climate change negotiations. Climate Policy, 12 (5), 552-574. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.691225