International Climate Diplomacy Research Articles

Influence of Political Leaders in Five Countries on Climate Diplomacy via Twitter

Climate diplomacy is one of the hot topics in recent years that the world has paid extensive attention to. It goes beyond the traditional regional environmental issues; the worldwide impact of climate change makes international cooperation in this area more and more close. In order to explore the influence of political leaders on climate diplomacy and the reasons for their influence, this paper selects five countries with large differences in national conditions. And these countries will have a significant impact on international climate diplomacy in 2023. They are the United States, France, Brazil, Japan, and Senegal. This study quantitatively examines the data content analysis of climate-related tweets posted by political leaders from five countries on Twitter in 2023 and their social network influence through social network analysis and other quantitative studies to explore the influence of political leaders from five countries on international climate diplomacy. Finally, the conclusion is that the online power and influence of political leaders in each country do not exist independently but are closely linked to the real power of each country.

A New Kid in Town? The Evolution of the EEAS Headquarters’ Involvement in EU Climate Diplomacy

Relatively little is known about the precise activities of the European External Action Service (EEAS) headquarters in the European Union’s (EU’s) international climate diplomacy, especially since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015. This article therefore sketches the evolution of the climate diplomacy activities undertaken by EEAS headquarters between the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in 2015 and COP26 in 2021. Based on a triangulation of official documents and twenty semi-structured interviews, the article finds that although the EEAS headquarters continues to coordinate and mainstream EU climate diplomacy, it has also become more outwardly-involved and entrepreneurial. This entrepreneurship can be explained by the creation within the EEAS of an Ambassador at Large for Climate Diplomacy, the working style of the appointed ambassador, increased resources at EEAS headquarters dedicated to climate diplomacy, and a favourable institutional context within the EU. These findings provide a detailed and updated insight into the involvement of EEAS headquarters within EU climate diplomacy. Accordingly, they improve our understanding of the EU as a climate actor and also demonstrate the importance of individuals in shaping how the EU conducts its climate diplomacy. EEAS, European Union, climate diplomacy, international climate politics

The Voluntary Carbon Market and Climate Finance: Impact of Energy Transition Accelerator on United States Climate Policy and International Climate Diplomacy

The Voluntary Carbon Market and Climate Finance: Impact of Energy Transition Accelerator on United States Climate Policy and International Climate Diplomacy

How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data.

Climate change is an ongoing topic in nearly all areas of society since many years. A discussion of climate change without referring to scientific results is not imaginable. This is especially the case for policies since action on the macro scale is required to avoid costly consequences for society. In this study, we deal with the question of how research on climate change and policy are connected. In 2019, the new Overton database of policy documents was released including links to research papers that are cited by policy documents. The use of results and recommendations from research on climate change might be reflected in citations of scientific papers in policy documents. Although we suspect a lot of uncertainty related to the coverage of policy documents in Overton, there seems to be an impact of international climate policy cycles on policy document publication. We observe local peaks in climate policy documents around major decisions in international climate diplomacy. Our results point out that IGOs and think tanks–with a focus on climate change–have published more climate change policy documents than expected. We found that climate change papers that are cited in climate change policy documents received significantly more citations on average than climate change papers that are not cited in these documents. Both areas of society (science and policy) focus on similar climate change research fields: biology, earth sciences, engineering, and disease sciences. Based on these and other empirical results in this study, we propose a simple model of policy impact considering a chain of different document types: The chain starts with scientific assessment reports (systematic reviews) that lead via science communication documents (policy briefs, policy reports or plain language summaries) and government reports to legislative documents.

Russian discourses on benefits and threats from international climate diplomacy

Russian discourses on benefits and threats from international climate diplomacy

Inter-state Climate Change Litigation: ‘Neither a Chimera nor a Panacea’

In the face of the difficulties of international climate diplomacy, ‘the invisible college of international lawyers’ has recently been called upon to devote more efforts ‘towards reviving the blunt edge of climate change-based national, regional, or international litigation, adjudication, and arbitration towards reaching sufficiency of climate pledges’ (Desierto 2019). This paper therefore reviews the use of international law arguments and remedies in climate change litigation, with a view to ascertain the related opportunities and constraints. In order to achieve this objective, this paper considers international legal practice in light of the typologies of climate change litigation identified in the literature (Peel and Osofsky 2015; Setzer and Vanhala 2019). This literature typically distinguishes between so-called ‘proactive’ litigation — initiated in order to engender policy change, for example, asking for the adoption or reform of legislation; and ‘reactive’ litigation — initiated to resist such change, for example, challenging the adoption of new or reformed legislation. Reactive litigation has long been common at the international level, whereby investors have instigated international investment disputes to resist reforms of renewable energy subsidies, with alternate fortunes (Baetens 2019). Proactive litigation at the international level, instead, has been rarer and more recent. It has largely focused on the use of international human rights remedies for complaining over states’ failure to mitigate climate change, and/or over states’ failure to address the impacts of climate change (Savaresi and Auz 2019). The possibility to make greater use of other international law instruments and remedies to address both issues has been at the centre of much scholarly speculation. Already in 2007, Faure and Nollkaemper suggested that, even though they faced ‘significant hurdles’, international liability suits could help to put pressure on states to reduce emissions (Faure and Nollkaemper 2007, 172). Much literature has considered the role of the law on state responsibility in this connection (Tol and Verheyen 2004; Verheyen 2005; Voigt 2008; Wewerinke 2019). No inter-state legal suits have however been lodged so far. Similarly, international judicial bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (Stephens 2019) or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (McCreath 2020), could be asked to adjudicate over matters of compliance with international climate obligations on the basis of customary international law (Bodansky, Brunnee, Rajamani 2017). Again no inter-state legal suits have been lodged on this basis to date. This paper reviews these international litigation scenarios and ascertains opportunities and constraints, in light of developments occurred in recent years. Paraphrasing Bierly (Bierly, 1928), the paper concludes that, given the present state of international climate diplomacy, international litigation is neither a chimera nor a panacea, but represents one means at our disposal for delivering better climate protection.

Domestic frames on Russia’s role in international climate diplomacy

ABSTRACT How are climate change and Russia’s role in international climate diplomacy understood in Russia? This article enhances our understanding of the cultural drivers of Russia’s international climate position by using extensive interview data with Russian (non-climate) professionals to explore domestic assumptions, perceptions, and beliefs beyond official positions expressed in international diplomatic discourses. Underlying cultural framings are understood as societal beliefs widely shared in Russian society. A framing analysis of the interview data indicates that Russian participation in climate diplomacy is underpinned by assumptions concerning Russian self-interest – such as benefit-seeking, foreign-policy goals and suspicion of the motives of other countries – that are often unrelated to environmental concerns. Societal beliefs in Russia’s great-power status together with a focus on national economic and political interests, societal cynicism/zero-sum game beliefs, conspiracy theories and a dualistic approach to science are reflected in these assumptions, and provide persuasive cultural explanations for understanding official climate change statements. The influence of the political leadership on societal beliefs on climate change helps to explain the prevalence of these beliefs; wider societal beliefs are a further significant explanatory factor. Key policy insights Most informants supported Russia’s participation in climate negotiations but often based on concerns other than environmental ones. The main reasons for participating in international climate diplomacy beyond environmental concerns were related to foreign policy and expected economic or political benefits while suspicions of the motives of other countries spoke against participation; similar elements were identified in Russia’s official climate position. Beliefs in climate change largely as a natural phenomenon reduce the rationale for mitigation actions. Russian societal beliefs in the country’s great power status, societal cynicism/zero-sum thinking and conspiracies, and a dualistic approach to science, anchor Russia’s climate position to wider cultural dynamics and make Russia’s more active engagement in climate mitigation unlikely.

Parliamentarizing a Politicized Policy: Understanding the Involvement of the European Parliament in UN Climate Negotiations

Climate change is a central topic of concern for EU international diplomacy and is the site of increased politicization globally. Concomitantly, a parallel process of parliamentarization of the EU has unfolded. Whilst the European Parliament (EP) has enjoyed significant powers in internal policy-making on climate change, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the EP has gained the right to veto the EU’s ratification of international (climate change) agreements. This development raises questions about our understanding of the EP as an actor in international climate diplomacy that this article addresses through the following research question: What impact have the increased powers of the EP had on its involvement in UN climate diplomacy? We analyze the EP’s evolving role in international climate diplomacy through an evaluation of its policy preferences prior to international climate conferences (COPs) and its activities during those meetings. We find evidence that the EP’s preferences have become more moderate over time, and that it is also more active at COPs and increasingly engaged with a range of more important actors. However, we find little evidence that the EP’s involvement in international negotiations is significantly different when it holds a veto power, which we attribute to a willingness to depoliticize internal EU climate negotiations to secure policy gains at the international level.

Towards a Theory of Pure Procedural Climate Justice

AbstractA challenge for the theorising of climate justice is that even when the agents whose actions are supposed to be regulated are cooperative and act in good faith, they may still disagree about how the burdens and benefits of dealing with climate change should be distributed. This article is a contribution to the formulation of a useful role for normative theorising in light of this bounded nature of climate justice. We outline a theory of pure procedural climate justice; its content, function in relation to international climate diplomacy, and justification. The theory is ‘pure' in the sense that it does not rely on an independent criterion of what are just outcomes in negotiations of climate responsibilities. Rather, it specifies procedural fairness norms, such as transparency, reciprocity and participation, which make the process of negotiation fair independently of which account of substantive climate justice happens to be correct. Such procedural fairness norms are justified in part by being expressions of an ideal of a reasonable negotiator, an ideal which itself commands respect. They are also justified as means to an effective coordinated response to dangerous climate change in virtue of their capacity to create trust, predictability and accountability.

Recalibrating China-U.S. Climate Cooperation Under the Trump Administration

Based on the analytical framework of securitization, this article argues that cooperation between China and the United States on climate change will not lose momentum despite President Trump’s seemingly passive stance. A securitization process on the climate issue has been ongoing in China since President Xi Jinping took office and proposed the Overall National Security Outlook (ONSO). Climate security was thus integrated into China’s political discourse as a key component of ecological and common security, leading to a period of China-U.S. cooperation during the Obama administration. Similarly, in the United States, climate policy has been cemented in security planning and assessment of various federal agencies. The U.S. security sector seems to be largely unaffected by the White House decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. A growing number of Americans treat climate change as a security threat and many U.S. states and cities, in collaboration with business leaders, have taken on a role in international climate diplomacy. Combined with existing intergovernmental collaborative projects, robust market forces and innovative local initiatives will continue to push China-U.S. climate cooperation forward. As a necessary step to sustain its ties with the United States on climate issues, the Chinese government needs to propose a renewed bilateral framework on energy and environment cooperation under the China-U.S. Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.

Fossil fuel emitters and climate change: unpacking the governance activities of large oil and gas companies

ABSTRACTGlobal climate change governance is under increasing pressure to deliver meaningful action. It is now widely agreed that a low-carbon growth path requires major transformations of energy systems. The ways in which the 10 largest oil and gas companies in the world present their rationales for addressing climate change and their activities related to climate action, including the oil and gas companies’ involvement in international climate diplomacy, are examined. How these major companies in different world regions seek to influence states and other actors are illustrated through their actions on climate change. The analysis highlights the relations between state and non-state actors and our understanding of the allocation of responsibility in climate change politics. Novel empirical findings contribute to new insights into the climate change activities currently underway in the oil and gas sector, with implications for both the theory and practice of climate change governance.

The human rights turn: ENGOs’ changing tactics in the quest for a more transparent, participatory and accountable CDM

ABSTRACTNon-state actors are increasingly participating in international climate diplomacy. The tactics employed by diverse civil society agents to influence climate policymaking are radicalizing through the adoption of more confrontational language. Activist groups have been seeking opportunities to influence policymakers regarding the rules related to transparency, public participation and accountability in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). By scrutinizing efforts of three environmental NGOs (ENGOs) – Climate Action Network, Center for International Environmental Law and Carbon Market Watch – the analysis concentrates on what tactical shifts have occurred in the framing positions and approaches of these activists during the 1997–2015 period. After several years of legal advocacy, expertise and/or critique in an effort to reform input legitimacy of CDM governance, the selected ENGOs have recently drifted away from narratives of green governmentality and ecological modernization and, instead, radicalized their rhetorical tactics by turning to a human rights perspective under the umbrella of climate justice.

The Paris Agreement and Global Climate Governance: China’s Role and Contribution

The United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris in late 2015 is regarded as a milestone in the progress of global climate governance. Adopting the approach of “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) plus Periodic Review”, the Paris Climate Agreement reached at the conference has rejuvenated the multilateral negotiation process and established a hybrid governance structure as the basic framework of the post-2020 climate regime. The Agreement also sends a clear and strong signal regarding the sustainable transformation of the world economy. Through low-carbon economic transformation and international climate diplomacy, China played a leadership role in achieving the Paris Agreement, which ushered in a new era for the international community to combat climate change. The future of global climate governance will depend on the follow-up measures of all contracting parties, and China should continue to show climate leadership in the post-Paris era.

Democracy, Localism, and The Future of The Climate Movement

The accelerating disruption of the Earth's climate systems is the defining issue of our time. The persistent failure of international climate diplomacy has encouraged local, regional, and some national-level solutions and spurred an emerging global movement for climate justice, mainly rooted in communities that bear disproportionate impacts from climate change. This article discusses the ways in which movements from below, seeking economic and energy democracy, are shaping our responses to the crisis. How can the imperative for immediate climate action and the ethical agenda of climate justice be furthered by movements seeking democratic alternatives and a more genuinely ecological future?

Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change

This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

US Federal Climate Change Law in Obama’s Second Term†

AbstractThis commentary details the United States’ progress in advancing climate change law since President Barrack Obama’s re-election in 2012, in spite of congressional dysfunction and opposition. It describes how the Obama administration is building upon earlier regulatory efforts by using existing statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants. It also explains the important role the judiciary has played in facilitating more robust executive actions, while at the same time courts have rejected citizen efforts to force judicial remedies for the problem of climate change. Finally, it suggests some reasons why climate change has gained more prominence in the Obama administration’s second term agenda and considers how domestic actions help the United States to reposition itself in international climate diplomacy.

An International Relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage

With the publication of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS), CCS has emerged as a focal issue in international climate diplomacy and energy collaboration. This paper has two goals. The first goal is to map CCS activities in and among various types of intergovernmental organisations; the second goal is to apply International Relations (IR) theories to explain the growing diversity, overlap and fragmentation of international organisations dealing with CCS. Which international organisations embrace CCS, and which refrain from discussing it at all? What role do these institutions play in bringing CCS forward? Why is international collaboration on CCS so fragmented and weak? We utilise realism, liberal institutionalism and constructivism to provide three different interpretations of the complex global landscape of CCS governance in the context of the similarly complicated architecture of global climate policy. A realist account of CCS's fragmented international politics is power driven. International fossil fuel and energy organisations, dominated by major emitter states, take an active role in CCS. An interest-based approach, such as liberal institutionalism, claims that CCS is part of a “regime complex” rather than an integrated, hierarchical, comprehensive and international regime. Such a regime complex is exemplified by the plethora of international organisations with a role in CCS. Finally, constructivism moves beyond material and interest-based interpretations of the evolution of the institutionally fragmented architecture of global CCS governance. The 2005 IPCC Special Report on CCS demonstrates the pivotal role that ideas, norms and scientific knowledge have played in transforming the preferences of the international climate-change policy community.