International Politics

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 469–490 | Cite as

Climate change and EU foreign policy: The negotiation of burden sharing

  • John Vogler
Part Two: External Relations


The European Union has established itself as the leader of attempts to construct a global climate change regime. This has become an important normative stance, part of its self-image and international identity. Yet it has also come to depend on the Union's ability to negotiate internally on the distribution of the burdens necessitated by its external pledges to cut emissions. The paper considers institutionalist hypotheses on cooperative bargaining and normative entrapment in EU internal negotiations before the 1997 Kyoto Protocol negotiations and the more recent approach to negotiations on a post-2012 regime. It finds that there is evidence to support the normative entrapment hypothesis in both cases, but that agreement in 1997 was facilitated by a very favourable context associated with a 1990 baseline.


European Union global climate change cooperative bargaining normative entrapment Kyoto Protocol 


  1. Andersen, M. and Liefferink, D. (eds.) (1997) European Environmental Policy: The Pioneers. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. and Mol, A.P.J. (2002) The Netherlands in the UNFCCC process – Leadership between ambition and reality. International Environmental Agreements 2: 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (2006) The European Union as a Global Actor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Cantor, J and Castle, F. (2007) EU wrangling on carbon emissions moves into the courts'. International Herald Tribune, 31 July.Google Scholar
  5. Cass, L. (2005) Norm entrapment and preference change: The evolution of the European Union position on international emissions trading. Global Environmental Politics 5 (2): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicero. (2006) The battle over climate policy in the EU, 2006-1.
  7. Costa, O. (2006) Spain as an actor in European and international climate policy: From a passive to an active laggard. South European Society and Politics 11 (2): 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa, O. (2008) Is climate change changing the EU? The second image reversed in climate politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21: 4, December: 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dessai, S. and Michaelowa, A. (2001) Burden sharing and cohesion countries in European climate policy: The Portuguese example. Climate Policy 1: 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Council. (2005) Presidency Conclusions – Brussels 22/23 March.Google Scholar
  11. European Council. (2007) Presidency Conclusions - Brussels 8/9 March.Google Scholar
  12. Commission of the European Communities. (1996) Communication from the Commission under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, COM(96) 217 final, 11 June.Google Scholar
  13. Commission of the European Communities. (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the assessment of national allocation plans for rhe allocation of emission allowances in the second period of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Brussels, 29 November, COM(2006)725 final, p. 2.Google Scholar
  14. Commission of the European Communities. (2008) Questions and answers on the Commission's proposal for effort sharing, Press Release MEMO/08/34, 23 January.Google Scholar
  15. Commission of the European Communities. (2008a) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community, COM (2008) 16 final, 23 January.Google Scholar
  16. Commission of the European Communities. (2008b) Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. COM (2008) 17 final, 23 January.Google Scholar
  17. Commission of the European Communities. (2008c) Questions and answers on the revised EU emissions trading system. MEMO/08/796, Brussels, 17 December.Google Scholar
  18. Council of Ministers. (1997) 2033 Environment, 16/10/- Press: 296 Nr:11332/97.Google Scholar
  19. Council of Ministers. (2006) Press Release 58, No. 576206, 9 March.Google Scholar
  20. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB). (1995) ‘1st CoP FCCC-Summary’. Vol. 12 no. 21.Google Scholar
  21. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB). (1996) ‘3rd Session of the AGBM’. Vol. 12 no. 27.Google Scholar
  22. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB). (1997) ‘6th Session of the AGBM’- Summary. Vol. 12 no. 45.Google Scholar
  23. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB). (2001) ‘CoP 6 bis-Summary’. Vol. 12 no. 176.Google Scholar
  24. ENDS Daily. (2006) Italy weakens ministerial climate resolution. 10 March.Google Scholar
  25. ENDS Daily. (2006a) Sweden adopts 2020 climate change target. 31 March.Google Scholar
  26. ENDS Daily. (2006b) Spain's greenhouse emissions hit new high. 24 April.Google Scholar
  27. ENDS Daily. (2006c) Italy returns to the fold on post-Kyoto rules. 8 November.Google Scholar
  28. ENDS Daily. (2006d) Council debates post-2012 climate options. 18 December.Google Scholar
  29. European Environment Agency. (2007) Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2005 and inventory report 2007, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, EEA technical Report No.7/2006.Google Scholar
  30. European Voice. (2008) Deals on climate change economy and Lisbon Treaty. 12 December.Google Scholar
  31. Grubb, M. and Yamin, F. (2001) Climate collapse at the Hague. What happened and where do we go from here? International Affairs 77 (2): 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Interview Council Secretariat. (2005) Brussels, 21 September.Google Scholar
  33. Interview Council Secretariat. (2006) Brussels, 13 January.Google Scholar
  34. Institute of International and European Affairs. (2008) Energy and Climate Change Policy Brief, February.Google Scholar
  35. Ringius, L. (1997) Differentiation, Leaders and Fairness: Negotiating Climate Commitments in the European Community. Oslo, Norway: Cicero, Report 1997:8.Google Scholar
  36. Schreurs, M.A. and Tiberghien, Y. (2007) Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics 7 (4): 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern, N. (2008) Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change. London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, D.C. (2009) Explaining the negotiation of EU foreign policy: Normative institutionalism and alternative approaches. International Politics 46 (4): 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogler, J. (1999) The European Union as an actor in international environmental politics. Environmental Politics 8 (3): 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vogler, J. and Bretherton, C. (2006) The European Union as a protagonist to the United States on climate change. International Studies Perspectives 7: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zartmann, I.W. (1976) Reality image and detail. In: I.W. Zartmann (ed.) The 50% Solution. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  42. Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1965) A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  43. Wettestad, J. (2005) The making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: An ultra-quick process due to entrepreneurial proficiency?' Global Environmental Politics 5 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Vogler
    • 1
  1. 1.SPIRE, Keele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations