Prolonged international environmental negotiations: the roles and strategies of non-state actors in the EU

Original Paper

Abstract

For scholars of international environmental agreements, the role of non-state actors has been a central focus. There is a considerable literature on the influence of environmental NGOs and business groups on state behaviour and in turn international environmental outcomes. However, much less empirical work has been done to examine the influence of these actors and the strategies they can use in prolonged international environmental negotiations that last for years or decades. This article takes up this task. Drawing on a rich empirical data set on the role of European-based actors in the international climate change negotiations, it considers the influence of non-state actors in prolonged negotiations and identifies four strategies that these actors can use to influence state actors and non-state actors alike.

Keywords

Environmental politics Non-state actors International negotiations Climate change European Union 

References

  1. Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs: Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht: International Books.Google Scholar
  2. Avant, D., Finnemore, M., & Sell, S. (Eds.). (2010). Who governs the globe? (Cambridge Studies in International Relations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M., & Sikkink, K. (2008). From international relations to global society. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 62–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.Google Scholar
  5. Betsill, M. (2008). Environmental NGOs and the Kyoto protocol negotiations: 1995 to 1997. In M. Betsill & E. Corell (Eds.), NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations (pp. 43–66). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). Introduction to NGO diplomacy. In M. Betsill & E. Corell (Eds.), NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beuermann, C., & Jager, J. (1996). Climate change politics in Germany: How long will any double dividend last? In T. O’Riordan & J. Jager (Eds.), Politics of climate change: A European perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cass, L. (2007). The indispensable awkward partner: The United Kingdom in European climate policy. In P. Harris (Ed.), Europe and global climate change: Politics, foreign policy and regional cooperation (pp. 63–86). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Christiansen, A., & Wettestad, J. (2003). The EU as a frontrunner on greenhouse gas emissions trading: How did it happen and will the EU succeed? Climate Policy, 3(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corell, E., & Betsill, M. (2008). Analytical framework: Assessing the influence of NGO diplomats. In E. Corell & M. Betsill (Eds.), NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations (pp. 19–42). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Darkin, B. (2006). Pledges, politics and performance: An assessment of UK climate policy. Climate Policy, 6, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downie, C. (2014a). Transnational actors: Nongovernmental organizations, civil society and individuals. In P. Harris (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (pp. 176–186). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Downie, C. (2014b). The Politics Of Climate Change Negotiations: Strategies and Variables in Prolonged International Negotiations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downie, C. (2014c). Transnational actors in environmental politics: Strategies and influence in long negotiations. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontana, M.-C. (2011). Europeanization and domestic policy concertation: How actors use Europe to modify domestic patterns of policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 654–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giorgetti, C. (1999). From Rio to Kyoto: A study of the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the negotiations on climate change. N.Y.U Environmental Law Journal, 7, 201–245.Google Scholar
  18. Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The respectable politics of climate change: The epistemic communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77(2), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta, J., & van der Grijp, N. (2000). Perceptions of the EU’s role. In J. Gupta & M. Grubb (Eds.), Climate change and European leadership? A sustainable role for europe?. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, P. (2007). Europe and the politics and foreign policy of global climate change. In P. Harris (Ed.), Europe and global climate change: Politics, foreign policy and regional cooperation (pp. 3–37). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lake, D. (2008). The state and international relations. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 41–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lake, D. (2010). Rightful rules: Authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 587–613.Google Scholar
  24. Levy, D. (2005). Business and the evolution of the climate regime. In D. Levy & P. Newell (Eds.), The business of global environmental governance (pp. 73–104). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moravcsik, A. (1994). Why the European Union strengthens the state: domestic politics and international cooperation. Paper presented at the Centre for European Studies: Working Paper 52, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., & Linnér, B.-O. (2014). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: Understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9243-8.Google Scholar
  27. Newell, P. (2000). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oberthur, S., & Ott, H. (1999). The Kyoto protocol: International climate policy for the 21st century. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Odell, J. (1993). International threats and internal politics: Brazil, the European community, and the United States 1985–1987. In P. Evans, H. Jacobson, & R. Putnam (Eds.), Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics (pp. 233–264). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Odell, J., & Sell, S. (2006). Reframing the issue: The WTO coalition on intellectual property and public health, 2011. In J. Odell (Ed.), Negotiating trade: Developing countries in the WTO and NAFTA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes, R. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years On. Organization Studies, 28, 1243–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ringius, L. (1999). Differentiation, leaders, and fairness: Negotiating climate commitments in the European community. International Negotiation, 4(2), 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Introduction. In T. Risse-Kappen (Ed.), Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebenius, J. (1994). Towards a winning climate coalition. In I. Mintzer & A. Leonard (Eds.), Negotiating climate change: The inside story of the rio convention (pp. 277–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sewell, G. (2005). Actors, Coalitions and the framework convention on climate change. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Skjaerseth, J. B., & Skodovin, T. (2003). Climate change and the oil industry: Common problem, varying strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skjaerseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2008). EU emissions trading: Initiation, decision-making and implementation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Tienhaara, K. (2014). Business: Corporate and industrial influence. In P. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of global environmental politics (pp. 164–175). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. van Asselt, H. (2010). Emissions trading: The enthusiastic adoption of an ‘alien’ instrument? In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. V. Asselt, T. Rayner, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Climate change policy in the European union: Confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation? (pp. 125–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. WWF. (1996). Policies and measures to reduce CO 2 emissions by efficiency and renewables. A preliminary survey for the period to 2005. The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  42. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Young, O. (1999). Regime effectiveness: Taking stock. In O. Young (Ed.), The effectiveness of international environmental regimes (pp. 249–279). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations