Responding to a central question: To what extent did the EU lead the international climate policy? This paper focuses on the EU performance in global climate negotiations, the type/ quality of the EU leader role, and internal problems/external challenges facing the EU. At the beginning, this paper briefly reviews the climate change in recent 160 years and the global climate negotiations from performances of individual leaders and international institutions last century to interventions and interactions of state actors this century. Next, the EU climate actions are reviewed and its latest important initiatives are updated.
This paper then compares two representative periods: the Kyoto Conference, which signaled the success and achievements of the EU leadership and the Copenhagen Conference, which illustrated the failure and challenges of the EU leadership. Most importantly, this paper applies the neorealism and its varieties to discuss why and how the EU strived for a leadership in international climate policy, and the liberal intergovernmentalism to explore the EU internal problematic leading partially to the failure of the EU at the Copenhagen Summit. In the concluding section, the key points of this paper are emphasized. In addition, the future of the EU leadership and its way forward are discussed.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Combating climate change
2.1 Climate change in brief
2.2 Global climate negotiations
2.3 EU climate action
3. EU leadership: Success and achievements
3.1 The Kyoto Conference and beyond
3.2 Neorealism and its varieties
4. EU leadership: Failure and challenges
4.1 The Copenhagen Conference
4.2 Liberal intergovernmentalism
5. Conclusion
6. References
Objectives and Research Focus
This paper examines the extent of the European Union's leadership in international climate policy by analyzing its performance in global negotiations, the nature of its leadership role, and the internal and external challenges it faces. It seeks to understand why the EU strove for a leading position and identifies the factors contributing to both its successes and failures by applying international relations theories.
- The evolution of global climate negotiations and the EU's role within them.
- Successes in the Kyoto Protocol era driven by soft balancing and directional leadership.
- Failures and challenges encountered during the Copenhagen Conference.
- Theoretical application of neorealism to explain EU strategic motivation.
- Application of liberal intergovernmentalism to analyze internal EU decision-making complexities.
Excerpt from the Book
(i) Balancing of power
Kenneth Walz, the most influential neorealist, laid out in his well-known book "Theory of International Politics" a conceptualisation of the international system and its internal structure. As Walz claimed, the international system contains two elements: units and structure. The former consists of uniform states that are described as "black box", the latter shapes independently the behaviours of states. From the neorealist perspective, the international structure is characterised with the anarchical ordering principle. The states are therefore forced to maximize their security through balancing of power (Schörnig 2006). International climate policy is a new emerging field (the first gloal legally binding convention "UNFCCC" wasn't established until the early 1990s.) closely linked to the international security and well-being of human kind.
The EU viewed the newborn global climate regime as a good opportunity to "stand forth as a strong and unified block on the world scene" (Andresen/Agrawala 2002: 45). On one hand, internal strategic motivations (e.g. to meet strong public demand for environmental protection, to reinvigorate the European integration process, to sustain future energy supplies and to push forward multilaterism) support the EU's striving for leadership on climate change. On the other hand, in contrast to the EU, the US was seen as laggard due to its "overall cautious and negative stance" (Andresen/Agrawala 2002: 45). The US opposed quantified targets and timetable approach, because it found that inflexible and impractical in terms of benefits related to costs. During the Bush administration, the US even abandoned the leadership on climate issues (It unilaterally abandoned the Kyoto accords in 2001). Against this backdrop with the absence of other great powers, the EU welcomed this opportunity to step out of the shadow of the US and gain the most international powerful position.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the significance of climate change as a global threat and introduces the central research question regarding the EU's leadership role in international climate policy.
2. Combating climate change: Reviews the scientific background of global warming, the history of international climate negotiations, and the development of EU climate actions.
3. EU leadership: Success and achievements: Analyzes the Kyoto Protocol period, illustrating how the EU established itself as a leader through soft balancing and directional leadership.
4. EU leadership: Failure and challenges: Examines the Copenhagen Conference as a strategic setback for the EU and utilizes liberal intergovernmentalism to explain the internal difficulties in reaching consensus.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings of the research and discusses the future prospects and strategic necessities for the EU to regain influence.
6. References: Lists the academic and institutional sources utilized throughout the paper.
Keywords
European Union, Climate Change, International Policy, Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen Conference, Neorealism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Soft Balancing, Directional Leadership, Climate Negotiations, Global Governance, Emission Trading, Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development, Political Leadership.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the extent to which the European Union has functioned as a leader in international climate policy, assessing both its successes and its failures.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The themes include the evolution of international climate regimes, the EU's strategic use of its climate policy, theoretical explanations for state behavior, and the complexities of EU internal decision-making.
What is the core research question?
The research asks: To what extent did the EU lead international climate policy, and what were the factors behind its varying degrees of influence?
Which scientific methods or theoretical frameworks are applied?
The paper utilizes international relations theories, specifically neorealism and its varieties (such as soft balancing), and liberal intergovernmentalism to analyze state behavior and EU policy processes.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers the history of global negotiations, the successes of the Kyoto era, the challenges experienced at the Copenhagen Summit, and the theoretical analysis of why the EU struggled to maintain a unified role.
What defines the EU's leadership according to this paper?
The paper defines it through concepts like "directional leadership" (leading by example) and the EU's role as a norm setter and contributor to international climate finance.
How does the paper differentiate the outcomes of the Kyoto and Copenhagen summits?
Kyoto is framed as a success where the EU solidified its influence, while Copenhagen is viewed as a strategic failure where the EU was sidelined by emerging powers and the US.
What role did the US play in the context of EU leadership?
The US is described as a laggard during the Kyoto era, which allowed the EU to step into a leadership vacuum, but later, along with emerging powers, it sidelined the EU during the Copenhagen negotiations.
What does the author suggest for the future of EU climate leadership?
The author argues that self-proclamation is insufficient and that the EU needs new strategic revisions, such as stronger negotiation skills and better integration of climate policy into foreign trade and development aid.
What is meant by the "intergovernmental struggle" mentioned regarding Copenhagen?
It refers to the difficulty the EU faced in reconciling the conflicting economic and political interests of its own Member States, which hindered its ability to present a unified and effective negotiating position.
- Quote paper
- Duanzhuang Zheng (Author), 2012, EU leadership in international climate policy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/923041
