Not just since the failure of COP-15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 we know that dealing
with climate change, its reasons and its consequences, is anything but easy.
Climate protection is a small part of a wider image: The fight of humankind against any form of environmental degradation. No matter if it concerns the hole in the ozone layer, forest decline caused by acid rain or the distinction of species, firm action is required.
Climate falls in the same category, but moreover it is much more difficult to handle: As a common good climate affects every state on earth, equal if it is being destroyed or protected.
Moreover, at first glance investments in climate protection seem to be curtailments in economic development and only having effects in the far future. Hence, we can consider climate politics on national and especially on international level as a hot subject where failures are easy and successes are rare, but where action is required.
We target to investigate if the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol (KP) compose an international regime on climate change and how well various international relations approaches are able to explain the actual outcome.
In the first part we start with the question: How do we know a regime when we see one?
Subsequently, we depict the road to the adoption of the FCCC and the KP, respectively.
Finally, we present different approaches in explaining the formation of regimes and use them to determine their predictive efficiency by applying them to our case study.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. How Do We Know a Regime when We See One? – A Definition
3. The FCCC and the KP
4. Analysis
4.1 Realism and Neorealism
4.2 Neoliberal Institutionalism
4.3 Constructivism
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper investigates whether the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol (KP) constitute an international regime on climate change and evaluates the effectiveness of various international relations theories in explaining the actual outcome of these agreements.
- The theoretical definition and conceptualization of international regimes.
- Historical evolution of the climate change regime through five key phases.
- Application of (neo-)realist perspectives on power and hegemony.
- Analysis of neoliberal institutionalism regarding cooperation and flexibility mechanisms.
- Constructivist examination of epistemic communities and shared knowledge.
Excerpt from the Book
2. How Do We Know a Regime when We See One? – A Definition
Nearly every essay or book on regimes starts by introducing different definitions (Young 1980; Haas 1982; Haggard/Simmons 1987) and without a doubt it is very important to differentiate between some of them to clarify the content of this term.
Despite of a universe of definitions, science on regimes stands nearly unified behind the definition of Krasner who defines regimes “as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations” (1982, 186, emphasis added). Though this definition is widely accepted (Sprinz 2003, 251), there are modifications and amendments that we can’t miss to mention.
For Ernst Haas regimes “are arrangements peculiar to substantive issue-areas in international relations that are characterized by the condition of complex interdependence” (1982, 211, emphasis added). Haas continues by distinguishing between two different types of regimes: “regimes of common interest” and “regimes of common aversion”. In the first case the states know that all actors are better off cooperating on a specific issue than acting on their own, hence they opt for policy collaboration. On the contrary, in the case of the regime of common aversion the actors do not collaborate on certain policy issues, but merely coordinate their policies, since there is no agreement among the actors which is the best policy to be pursued, but they agree on a certain policy they all wish to avoid. The bottom line of this arrangement is that regimes can either constitute a way to collaborate on certain policy issues or a way to coordinate them (Haas 1982, 210-212).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the difficulty of climate protection as a common good and sets the stage for investigating the FCCC and KP through the lens of international relations theories.
2. How Do We Know a Regime when We See One? – A Definition: This chapter reviews foundational definitions of regimes, particularly those by Krasner, Haas, and Young, to establish a unified working definition for the analysis.
3. The FCCC and the KP: This chapter provides a historical flashback into the five phases of the climate change regime's evolution, from the foundational period to the formal intergovernmental negotiations.
4. Analysis: This chapter systematically applies three major international relations theories—(neo-)realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism—to evaluate their predictive power regarding the climate change regime.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, suggesting that while current theories offer limited explanations, a combined approach or a focus on issue-specific relative gains may provide a better understanding of future climate policy.
Keywords
International Regimes, Climate Change, FCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Realism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, Constructivism, International Relations, Epistemic Communities, Flexibility Mechanisms, Global Warming, Cooperation, Hegemony, Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The work examines the evolution of the international climate change regime, specifically analyzing the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol through different international relations paradigms.
What are the primary theoretical frameworks applied?
The authors apply three main strands: (neo-)realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The goal is to determine if a climate change regime has evolved and to test the predictive efficiency of various IR theories in explaining this outcome.
Which methodology is utilized?
The study uses a qualitative, theory-based analytical approach, applying theoretical concepts to historical data regarding the development of the FCCC and the KP.
What does the main body of the paper address?
It covers the definition of regimes, the historical timeline of climate negotiations, and an in-depth analytical section applying IR theories to the empirical case study.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include International Regimes, Climate Change, FCCC, Kyoto Protocol, IR Theories, and Hegemony.
Why is the United States considered in the realist analysis?
The authors adopt the perspective of Rowlands to test the theory of hegemonic stability, assuming the USA acts as a hegemon in climate change policy negotiations.
How does the study evaluate the 'Clean Development Mechanism' (CDM)?
The authors provide a critique of the CDM, noting issues such as incentive incompatibility, baseline inflation, and enforcement problems.
How is the IPCC categorized in this study?
The IPCC is identified as an 'epistemic community' that was crucial during the prenegotiation period for providing authoritative, policy-relevant scientific information.
What is the final verdict on existing regime theory?
The authors conclude that while existing theories provide decent explanations, their explanatory power is currently limited, necessitating further development to fully capture environmental regime formation.
- Citation du texte
- Kai Nehen (Auteur), Tobias Heck (Auteur), 2010, A Regime in International Climate Protection, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/172070
