Book Review: Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer: Special Report of the IPCC Working Group III

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Akins
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Special Report ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

scholarly journals Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esteve Corbera ◽  
Laura Calvet-Mir ◽  
Hannah Hughes ◽  
Matthew Paterson
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

scholarly journals Agency and climate change: a quantitative-structuralist approach to the assignment of moral agency in mitigation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Erik Thorstensen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
The Public ◽  
Structuralist Approach ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

<p>This article uses the IPCC Working Group III’s latest report on mitigation of climate change as its material. The ambition is to investigate how the IPCC assigns moral agency to non-experts. For this, the article analyzes whether the terms “citizens”, “stakeholders”, “the public” and “laypeople” are presented as barriers to, drivers for or neutral towards mitigation measures. The “public” stand out in the IPCC report as a much larger barrier to mitigation than the other groups. This article relates these finding to work conducted by Brian Wynne (1991) and Mike Michael (2009) regarding perception of the public by scientific assessments. This article documents that the IPCC Working Group III tends to replicate stereotypes of the public from such scientific assessments.</p>

IS THE IPCC’s 5TH ASSESSMENT A DENIER OF POSSIBLE MACROECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE?

2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 1640003 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD A. ROSEN
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Working Group ◽  
The Self ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Systematic Methodology ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

This review summarizes what we know about the macroeconomics of mitigating climate change over the period 2010 to 2100 as presented in the 2014 IPCC Working Group III report. The review finds that little more, if anything, has been learned about the macroeconomics of mitigating climate change over the long run since the 2007 IPCC report. Furthermore, while the 2014 report is quite self-critical about the serious weaknesses in its methodologies, the self-criticisms are not explicitly taken into account when the net macroeconomic costs of mitigation are reported. Nor do the research teams that run the integrated assessment models relied on in the report utilize any systematic methodology for assessing the inherent uncertainty in the macroeconomic results reported. Thus, the basic quantitative “findings” are misleading — and, perhaps, even deceptive — in part because they appear to preclude the possibility of large macroeconomic benefits from mitigating climate change.

Canada’s Pro-Ban Stance on Double-Hatting: Playing the Long Game in ISDS Reform?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
CÉLINE LÉVESQUE
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Investment Promotion ◽  
Long Run ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract The practice of arbitrators and counsel in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases simultaneously playing both roles — known as “double-hatting” — has been the subject of much controversy in recent debates on ISDS reform, notably, at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Working Group III where a Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes is under discussion. While Canada has been less than consistent in its approaches to ISDS in recent international investment agreements (IIAs), its position against double-hatting has been rather constant. This article explores whether this stance reveals a commitment on the part of Canada towards increased judicialization of ISDS or reflects a “flavour of the month” reform likely to change with differing IIAs and negotiating partners. Analysis of Canada’s recent IIA practices, including its model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, released in May 2021, and the positions it has taken at UNCITRAL’s Working Group III, lead the author to conclude that Canada appears committed to increased judicialization of ISDS in the long run.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document