Three Ways to Understand State Actors in International Negotiations: The Case of Climate Change in the Clinton Years (1993-2000)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Downie
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
State Actors

Three Ways to Understand State Actors in International Negotiations: Climate Change in the Clinton Years (1993–2000)

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Downie
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
International Negotiation ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Temporal Dimension ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Climate Change Negotiations ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Elite Interviews

Different theoretical perspectives ask different questions about state behavior in international negotiations. For example, are governments moved by domestic political pressures? Are transnational networks influencing state behavior? Or do international regimes affect state decisions? However, these questions are almost always considered in the context of an individual negotiation outcome. Indeed, very little work has been undertaken on how these factors vary over time (the temporal dimension of international negotiations). This article addresses the temporal dimension by considering the role of the US across almost a decade of the international climate change negotiations. Drawing on an empirical data set based on elite interviews, this article suggests three factors that need to be taken into account by existing theoretical frameworks in order to capture the observed fluctuations in the behavior of state actors in a prolonged international negotiation, and explains why they matter.

scholarly journals EXPLORING THE LESSONS OF THE KIMBERLEY PROCESS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-79
Author(s):  
Martin-Joe Ezeudu
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
The Political ◽  
Kimberley Process ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Governance Choices ◽  
Alternative Regime

There has been a great deal of academic discourse about policy and governance choices embedded in the UNFCCC-based regimes for Climate Change action, and they point to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such regimes, which is often attributed to the fact that they hinge on the political authority of State actors and lack meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that an alternative regime may be needed; and that for an effective regulatory framework for Climate Change action to emerge there needs to be a regulatory imperativeness similar to that upon which the Kimberley Process was created, where Non-State Actors play a leadership role. It also argues that in addition to regulatory imperativeness, the making and enforcement of the Kimberley Process provides helpful lessons towards crafting a more effective Climate Change remedial regime.

scholarly journals Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism?

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 920-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naghmeh Nasiritousi ◽  
Mattias Hjerpe ◽  
Karin Bäckstrand
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
State Actor ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Procedural Values

The participation of non-state actors in multilateral institutions is often portrayed as one way of decreasing the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance. The literature on non-state actors has identified several ways in which these actors can enhance the legitimacy of intergovernmental organisations and global governance arrangements. Three partially competing normative arguments, or rationales, for the inclusion of non-state actors in international policymaking — functionalism, neocorporatism and democratic pluralism — have been identified. Whereas functionalism highlights the contribution of non-state actors to output legitimacy in terms of expertise, neocorporatism emphasises the inclusion of affected interests, and democratic pluralism claims that non-state actors increase input legitimacy through procedural values. These three normative arguments thus offer different understandings of the motives for the inclusion and representation of non-state actors in international negotiations and diplomacy. Through a single case study of United Nations climate diplomacy, we analyse the extent to which the three rationales for non-state actor inclusion are found in views held by state and non-state actors participating in the annual United Nations climate change conferences. Our results show that different actor groups place varying degrees of emphasis on the different rationales for non-state actor inclusion, even though the neocorporatist rationale remains most favoured overall. We discuss the implications of our findings for the democratic legitimacy of increasing participation of non-state actors in intergovernmental affairs and recent trends in the participation of non-state actors in the international climate change policymaking process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document