The Experts below are selected from a list of 11421 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter Heywood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Climate Change Negotiations legally binding treaty or voluntary agreements lessons from international action on tuberculosis
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013Co-Authors: Peter HeywoodAbstract:The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC Negotiations in Durban and Doha agreed to develop a new Kyoto Protocol (KP) in which neither the form nor content of future agreements are set—they are to be determined over the 3 years remaining before the 2015 deadline. Alternate architectures proposed for an international agreement on Climate Change range from those that retain many of the top-down, legally binding elements of the current KP through bottom-up voluntary agreements that are not dependent on a legally binding treaty. Given this wide range of suggestions there is value in assessing experience in other areas of sustained international cooperation that have not involved treaties. One such effort is international cooperation to control tuberculosis (TB). In contrast to the legally binding treaty approach of the KP, international action on TB rests on a voluntary agreement by member states at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1991, just a year before the UNFCCC was approved in Rio. An important characteristic of the TB agreement is that all countries (developed and developing) agreed on the importance of the problem, the targets set, and the ways in which measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) would occur. In contrast, the KP differentiated between nations, mandated targets for some and not others, and little progress has been made. The agreement to renegotiate the KP without commitment to form and content represents a new opportunity for Climate Change Negotiations. Experience with international efforts to control TB provides an example of an international voluntary agreement that is yielding results. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:467–477. doi: 10.1002/wcc.237 Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
-
Climate Change Negotiations—legally binding treaty or voluntary agreements: lessons from international action on tuberculosis
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013Co-Authors: Peter HeywoodAbstract:The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC Negotiations in Durban and Doha agreed to develop a new Kyoto Protocol (KP) in which neither the form nor content of future agreements are set—they are to be determined over the 3 years remaining before the 2015 deadline. Alternate architectures proposed for an international agreement on Climate Change range from those that retain many of the top-down, legally binding elements of the current KP through bottom-up voluntary agreements that are not dependent on a legally binding treaty. Given this wide range of suggestions there is value in assessing experience in other areas of sustained international cooperation that have not involved treaties. One such effort is international cooperation to control tuberculosis (TB). In contrast to the legally binding treaty approach of the KP, international action on TB rests on a voluntary agreement by member states at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1991, just a year before the UNFCCC was approved in Rio. An important characteristic of the TB agreement is that all countries (developed and developing) agreed on the importance of the problem, the targets set, and the ways in which measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) would occur. In contrast, the KP differentiated between nations, mandated targets for some and not others, and little progress has been made. The agreement to renegotiate the KP without commitment to form and content represents a new opportunity for Climate Change Negotiations. Experience with international efforts to control TB provides an example of an international voluntary agreement that is yielding results. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:467–477. doi: 10.1002/wcc.237 Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Joanna Depledge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Latin America in the Climate Change Negotiations: Exploring the AILAC and ALBA coalitions
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2018Co-Authors: Joshua Watts, Joanna DepledgeAbstract:Latin American nations and negotiators have long been prominent actors in the United Nations Climate Change Negotiations, but for many years, no distinctively Latin American coalition existed in that process. Since 2009, however, two Latin American coalitions have emerged—the “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas” (ALBA), which came to the fore during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP‐15), and the “Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean” (AILAC), which was launched at the 2012 Doha Climate Conference (COP‐18). These two groups propose very different approaches for Latin American engagement on Climate Change, largely corresponding to their broader political and economic aspirations for the continent. Although ALBA reflects a Bolivarian vision of regional solidarity that rejects U.S.‐led neoliberalism, AILAC is more conciliatory toward the North, echoing a more outward‐looking vision of hemispheric unity. In line with these different underlying visions, the two groups have adopted contrasting positions and forms of engagement with the Negotiations, with differing degrees of impact and success. AILAC now seems to be emerging as the stronger coalition, with its conciliatory approach better aligned with the current positive tone of the international Negotiations. In contrast, internal contradictions within ALBA's narrative on Climate Change, along with political upheavals experienced by some of its key members, are weakening that group's cohesion. Theories of regionalism, combined with insights from the existing literature and some empirical analysis, help to illuminate these developments, enriching our understanding of international Climate politics more broadly. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework
-
a special relationship chairpersons and the secretariat in the Climate Change Negotiations
Global Environmental Politics, 2007Co-Authors: Joanna DepledgeAbstract:There is growing recognition in the literature of the important roles played by Chairpersons and secretariats in global environmental Negotiations. Less frequently recognized, however, is the interdependence of those roles. Using the example of the Climate Change Negotiations, this paper argues that Chairpersons and the secretariat are locked into a mutually-dependent relationship. Whereas the Chairperson has the political authority needed to exert leadership in the Negotiations, the secretariat possesses intellectual resources that can maximize the effectiveness of that leadership. The secretariat's input to the Negotiations, however, must be shielded by a “veil of legitimacy,” whereby the Chairperson takes responsibility for that input. The paper explores how Chairpersons and the secretariat work together, along with the dysfunctionalities that can emerge in this very personal relationship. In doing so, the paper expands our understanding of exactly how these two actors exert influence in global environ...
-
A Special Relationship: Chairpersons and the Secretariat in the Climate Change Negotiations
Global Environmental Politics, 2007Co-Authors: Joanna DepledgeAbstract:There is growing recognition in the literature of the important roles played by Chairpersons and secretariats in global environmental Negotiations. Less frequently recognized, however, is the interdependence of those roles. Using the example of the Climate Change Negotiations, this paper argues that Chairpersons and the secretariat are locked into a mutually-dependent relationship. Whereas the Chairperson has the political authority needed to exert leadership in the Negotiations, the secretariat possesses intellectual resources that can maximize the effectiveness of that leadership. The secretariat's input to the Negotiations, however, must be shielded by a "veil of legitimacy," whereby the Chairperson takes responsibility for that input. The paper explores how Chairpersons and the secretariat work together, along with the dysfunctionalities that can emerge in this very personal relationship. In doing so, the paper expands our understanding of exactly how these two actors exert influence in global environmental Negotiations. (c) 2007 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Song-li Zhu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Toward Paris: China and Climate Change Negotiations
Advances in Climate Change Research, 2015Co-Authors: Song-li ZhuAbstract:Abstract This article explains the challenges and evolution of Climate Change governance by linking governance and diplomacy. The challenges of Climate Change involve not only international competition for new energy but also related adjustments of global governance in this area. To be specific, the carbon emission reductions are still problematic, and Negotiations surrounding financing mechanisms between developed and developing countries hang in doubt. Furthermore, the attitude of the two sides toward CBDRs (common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities) and INDCs (intended nationally determined contributions) is disparate. Finally, this article outlines some diplomatic policies for China's future developmental trend.
Alexandre K. Magnan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Paris Agreement and Climate Change Negotiations: Small Islands, big players
Regional Environmental Change, 2017Co-Authors: T. Ourbak, Alexandre K. MagnanAbstract:Climate Change poses an existential threat to Small Island Developing States (SIDS). They have played a leading role in raising awareness of Climate Change on the international stage and advocating for strong Climate action, notably through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Despite their heterogeneity, they succeeded in building a common diplomatic discourse and influencing strategy, and mobilized political leaders as well as talented negotiators and advisors.Small Island States were a crucial group in the negotiating period up to, during the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), and for the entry into force of the Paris Agreement. SIDS succeeded to secure their special circumstances as vulnerable countries, demonstrated leadership in raising ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help secure an ambitious long-term temperature goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C, and advanced the complex debate on loss and damage.Small Island States face major challenges to advance their leadership on Climate Change moving forward: securing immediate actions for those particularly vulnerable countries and increasing their influence within and outside the Climate Change Negotiations. For Small Island states, the 1.5 °C goal should be considered “the visible part of the iceberg” for their diplomacy in a post-Paris context.
T. Ourbak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Paris Agreement and Climate Change Negotiations: Small Islands, big players
Regional Environmental Change, 2017Co-Authors: T. Ourbak, Alexandre K. MagnanAbstract:Climate Change poses an existential threat to Small Island Developing States (SIDS). They have played a leading role in raising awareness of Climate Change on the international stage and advocating for strong Climate action, notably through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Despite their heterogeneity, they succeeded in building a common diplomatic discourse and influencing strategy, and mobilized political leaders as well as talented negotiators and advisors.Small Island States were a crucial group in the negotiating period up to, during the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), and for the entry into force of the Paris Agreement. SIDS succeeded to secure their special circumstances as vulnerable countries, demonstrated leadership in raising ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help secure an ambitious long-term temperature goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C, and advanced the complex debate on loss and damage.Small Island States face major challenges to advance their leadership on Climate Change moving forward: securing immediate actions for those particularly vulnerable countries and increasing their influence within and outside the Climate Change Negotiations. For Small Island states, the 1.5 °C goal should be considered “the visible part of the iceberg” for their diplomacy in a post-Paris context.