Abstract
Global agreements to mitigate climate change, conserve biodiversity, or combat desertification typically take center stage in scholarly discussions about international environmental politics. Even though the United Nations Environment Programme reported 10 years ago that regional agreements make up two-thirds of all international treaties, regional cooperation has by comparison either received scant attention or been conceptually and empirically lumped together with global treaties. This lack of knowledge about the historical and current scope of regional governance is a serious obstacle to understanding the architecture of global environmental governance and to overcoming current bottlenecks in international environmental cooperation. In response, we report on the outcome of a descriptive analysis that complements the most comprehensive database on international environmental agreements (iea.uoregon.edu) with variables for analysis at the regional level. We introduce a multidimensional typology of regional agreements based on contiguous/noncontiguous agreement membership, contiguous/noncontiguous spatial ambit, and whether membership and ambit are adjoining and/or coextensive. We discuss the theoretical and empirical relevance of the different types of agreements and the nature and prevalence of special cases. Given the previous lack of research in this area, our primary purpose is to present a systematic account of regional environmental governance, leaving causal analysis to our own and others’ future research. Our analysis, nevertheless, helps us to identify a number of knowledge gaps and analytical directions in the conclusion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We use the term “spatial ambit” to differentiate it from the notion of “territorial scope” or “territorial application area” since the latter, as used in Article 29 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, defines as the default that treaties are binding upon each party in respect of it entire territory.
Varying according to author and discipline, a region can be understood as a subnational entity that is embedded within an overarching administrative and political unit (microregions) (Allen and Cochrane 2007) but which can also have a cross-border dimension (Söderbaum 2005); others, most prominently in IR, assume that regions consist at least of two states, but can also take on continental extensions (macroregions) (cf. Buzan and Waever 2003; Cantori and Spiegel 1970; Warleigh-Lack 2008).
An important example is the International Regimes Database (IRD) (Breitmeier et al. 2006). Among the regimes included in the IRD are distinctly regional regimes such as the Antarctic Regime, the Danube River Protection Regime, and the Inter American Tropical Tuna Regime. While their database includes factors such as “tensions among individual members,” the spatial element of these tensions gets lost.
Logical noncases are types 3, 7, 11 and 15, where contiguous membership and spatial ambit with fully or partially coextensive membership and ambit imply that membership and ambit would also need to be adjoining. Empirical noncases are types 5b, 6, and 14, though the European Union Habitats Directive would be a likely candidate for Type 5 (contiguous membership with coextensive but noncontiguous spatial ambit).
We cover the years 1945–2005 because data on bilateral agreements have not been collected systematically since 2005 (Ron Mitchell, personal communication).
The IEA database defines an IEA as “an intergovernmental document intended as legally binding with a primary stated purpose of preventing or managing human impacts on natural resources”; “international” refers to agreements involving two or more governments; “agreements” are instruments in which states consent to be bound; and “environmental” refers to agreements in which the prevention of human impact on the environment is the primary purpose (Mitchell 2002 –2013).
The initial coding of more than 2,000 agreements was subject to a carefully designed, iterative intercoder reliability test protocol. Random rechecking and recoding eventually covered approximately 25 percent of the data set.
References
Acharya, A., & Johnston, A. I. (2007). Crafting cooperation: Regional integration institutions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agarwal, A., & Narain, S. (1995). Global warming in an unequal world: A case of environmental colonialism. In K. Conca, M. Alberty, & G. D. Dabelko (Eds.), Green planet blues: Environmental politics from Stockholm to Rio (pp. 150–154). Boulder: Westview Press.
Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1161–1175.
Asheim, G. B., Froyn, C. B., Hovi, J., & Menz, F. C. (2006). Regional versus global cooperation for climate control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(1), 93–109.
Ayoob, M. (1999). from regional system to regional society: Exploring key variables in the construction of regional order. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 53(3), 247–260.
Balsiger, J., & Debarbieux, B. (Eds.) (2011). Regional environmental governance: Interdisciplinary perspectives, theoretical issues, comparative designs. In Procedia—social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 1–8.
Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2010). Regional governance and environmental problems. In R. Denemark, et al. (Eds.), The International Studies Compendium Project (pp. 6179–6200). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Navigating regional environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1–17.
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.
Bodansky, D. (2010). The art and craft of international environmental law. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Breitmeier, H., Young, O., & Zürn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Breslin, S., & Elliott, L. (Eds.). (2011). Comparative environmental regionalism. London: Routledge.
Breslin, S., Hughes, C. W., Phillips, N., & Rosamund, B. (Eds.). (2002). New regionalisms in the global political economy. London: Routledge.
Brinks, D., & Coppedge, M. (2006). Diffusion is no illusion: Neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 39(4), 463–489.
Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cantori, L. J., & Spiegel, S. L. (1970). The international politics of regions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Chester, C. C. (2006). Conservation across borders: Biodiversity in an interdependent world. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Conca, K. (2006). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Conca, K. (2012). The rise of the region in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 12(3), 127–133.
De Lombaerde, P., Söderbaum, F., Van Langenhove, L., & Baert, F. (2010). The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of International Studies, 36, 731–753.
Deutsch, K. W. (1954). Political community at the international level. Problems of definition and measurement. New York: Archon Books.
Esty, D. C. (1999). Toward Optimal Environmental Governance, Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 440. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/440. Accessed 22 May 2013.
Fawn, R. (2009). “Regions” and their study: Where from, what for and whereto? Review of International Studies, 35, 5–34.
Haas, P. M. (1990). Saving the Mediterranean: The politics of international environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Halle, M. (2012). Life After Rio: A Commentary by Mark Halle, IISD. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/com_life_after_rio.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2013.
Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2002). Theorising the rise of regionness. In S. Breslin, C. W. Hughes, N. Phillips, & B. Rosamund (Eds.), New regionalisms in the global political economy (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.
Hurrell, A. (1995). Regionalism in theoretical perspective. In L. Fawcett & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Regionalism in world politics: Regional organizations and international order (pp. 37–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurrell, A. (2005). The regional dimension in international relations theory. In M. Farell, B. Hettne, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Global politics of regionalism: Theory and practice (pp. 38–53). London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.
Hurrell, A. (2007). One world? Many worlds? The place of regions in the study of international society. International Affairs, 83(1), 127–146.
Lipschutz, R. (1999). Bioregionalism, civil society and global environmental governance. In M. V. McGinnis (Ed.), Bioregionalism (pp. 101–120). London/New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, R. B. (2002–2013). International Environmental Agreements Database Project (Version 2010.3). http://iea.uoregon.edu/.
Mitchell, R. B. (2010). International politics and the environment. London and Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Murphy, A. B. (1991). Regions as social constructs: The gap between theory and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 15(1), 22–35.
Neumann, I. B. (1994). A region-building approach to Northern Europe. Review of International Studies, 20(1), 53–74.
Neumann, I. B. (1999). Uses of the other: “The East” in European identity formation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Nye, J. S. (1968). Comparative regional integration: Concept and measurement. International Organization, 22(4), 855–880.
O’Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Ostrom, E. (2012). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.
Prys, M. (2010). Hegemony, domination, detachment: Differences in regional powerhood. International Studies Review, 12(4), 479–504.
Söderbaum, F. (2005). Exploring the links between micro-regionalism and macro-regionalism. In M. Farell, B. Hettne, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Global politics of regionalism: Theory and practice (pp. 87–103). London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2001). International environmental governance: Multilateral environmental agreements. Report of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or their Representatives on International Environmental Governance. New York: United Nations.
van Asselt, H. (2007). Dealing with the fragmentation of global climate governance. Legal and political approaches in interplay management. Global Governance Working Paper No. 30. Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project.
Warleigh-Lack, A. (2008). Studying regionalisation comparatively: A conceptual framework. In A. Cooper, C. Hughes, & P. de Lombaerde (Eds.), Regionalisation and global governance (pp. 43–60). London: Routledge.
Young, O. R. (1980). International regimes: Problems of concept formation. World Politics, 32(3), 331–356.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ron Mitchell for providing support with the underlying data for the present analysis, and Ron Mitchell, Stacy VanDeveer, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. Special thanks go to Niko Steinhoff and Elisa Wege, research assistants at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), for assisting with coding and validating the data. The authors further thank GIGA for its support for this initiative and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation for its financial support to the COST Action IS 0802 project “Ecoregional Territorialization: Rescaling Environmental Governance.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balsiger, J., Prys, M. Regional agreements in international environmental politics. Int Environ Agreements 16, 239–260 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9256-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9256-3