Overview
After more than two decades of inter-state negotiations aimed at addressing and managing the problem of climate change, scholars and policy-makers have become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with the international climate regime. Although the obstacles to reaching an international agreement for collective action have largely been identified, a fundamental breakthrough in the international climate negotiations is unlikely to occur in the near future (e.g. Keohane and Victor 2011; Hale, Held, and Young 2013; Abbott 2014). Therefore, in recent years, a number of authors have begun to direct increasing attention to transnational climate initiatives launched by different types of sub- and non-state actors1 (e.g. Jagers and Stripple 2003; Betsill and Bulkeley 2006; Bäckstrand 2008; Pattberg and Stripple 2008; Andonova, Betsill, and Bulkeley 2009; Bulkeley and Newell 2010; Hoffmann 2011; Pattberg 2012; Green 2014). Many of these authors claim that multilateral treaty-making has lost much of its spark, and conceive the various initiatives developed by sub-national, non-profit, or business actors as alternative governance arrangements to the instruments established at the intergovernmental level. In particular, they hold that the increasing involvement of sub- and non-state actors in climate policy-making has generated a âshift in the centre of gravity in climate governance away from traditional state-centric multilateral processes to multilevel governance whereby diverse, decentralised initiatives (âŚ) form the basis for the global response to climate changeâ (Bernstein et al. 2010: 171).
Taking up this thread, this book argues that while transnational climate initiatives can certainly contribute to solving the problem of climate change, the development of such initiatives by sub- and non-state actors does not imply a weakening of the intergovernmental level. On the contrary, many transnational climate initiatives use the international climate regime as a point of reference and have adopted various rules and procedures from international climate agreements. Most importantly, the case studies in this book suggest that the effective operation of transnational governance arrangements strongly relies on the existence of an international regulatory framework created by nation-states. Thus, the book emphasizes the centrality of the intergovernmental process clustered around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereafter UNFCCC) and underscores that multilateral treaty-making continues to be more important than many scholars and policy-makers suppose.
After this overview of the general theme of the book, the introduction proceeds with a review of the changing role and function of sub- and non-state actors in global policy-making. After that, I discuss major concepts within the field of international relations theory, which are of crucial importance for this study, particularly focusing on international regimes, global governance, and authority in world politics. Then, I provide a brief outline of the book with its principal objective, primary research question, conceptual assumptions, case studies, and main findings. And finally, I present the general structure of the work as a whole.
Sub- and non-state actors in world politics
Over the past few years, numerous scholars have pointed to the increasingly salient role played by actors other than the nation-state in world politics (e.g. Hewson and Sinclair 1999; Higgott, Underhill, and Bieler 2000; Kahler and Lake 2003; Grande and Pauly 2005; Avant, Finnemore, and Sell 2010). They contend that different types of sub- and non-state actors now perform several functions that previously rested solely with national governments or international institutions. This phenomenon is of course not entirely new. Early examples of private actors with a significant role in world politics include commercial corporations that had a major influence in the Middle Ages, financial enterprises that already possessed substantial political power in the Renaissance, and the private empires of European holdings in colonial times (Biermann and Dingwerth 2004: 14). Nevertheless, according to many authors, the growing involvement of sub- and non-state actors in world politics has lately gained a new quality and can be regarded as a response to the increasing complexity and interdependence in global politics prompted by globalization. For instance, scholars have interpreted the increasing influence of large enterprises in the global political economy as structural power of transnational corporations (Cutler 1999; Fuchs 2007; Clapp and Fuchs 2009). They have examined the critical role played by rating agencies that estimate the credit-worthiness of firms and countries and maintain a quasi-legal position in the regulation of global financial markets (Kerwer 2002; Sinclair 2005; Kruck 2011). They have focused on public-private partnerships and private charity organizations that are instrumental in the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and provide basic public health services in a number of least-developed countries (Liese and Beisheim 2011; Moran and Stevenson 2013). They have explored how transnational advocacy groups and other actors, such as firms and domestic opposition groups, promote compliance with international human rights standards (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink 2013). And they have dedicated special attention to private military companies that operate in several areas of the world to establish security and thereby considerably shape the international security agenda (Leander 2005; Abrahamsen and Williams 2011). These current research examples illustrate that sub- and non-state actors contribute to the provision of collective goods and have acquired several policy-making functions across different domains of world politics. Hence, it can be argued that these actors âhave left their mark on the international system and that we cannot start theorizing about the contemporary world system without taking their influence into accountâ (Risse 2013: 426).
Scholars have identified various reasons for the growing involvement of sub-and non-state state actors in world politics. The most common explanation is the declining financial and technical capacity of nation-states to regulate increasingly complex matters (Strange 1996). As several scholars argue, due to the ongoing processes associated with economic, social, and cultural globalization, nation-states have lost some of their earlier dominance and other actors have begun to fill the emerging regulatory gap. According to numerous authors, sub- and non-state actors play a particularly prevalent role in the field of global environmental politics (e.g. Biermann and Pattberg 2008; Dellas, Pattberg, and Betsill 2011; Newell, Pattberg, and Schroeder 2012). Since the 1970s, several environmental problems, such as acid rain, ozone depletion, climate change, desertification, and biodiversity loss, have put additional pressure on national governments by increasing the demand for new environmental abatement policies and creating new interdependencies among nation-states (Biermann and Dingwerth 2004). While these transboundary problems have traditionally been dealt with rather exclusively by national governments at diplomatic conferences, a wide array of sub- and non-state actors has emerged in recent decades that increasingly participate in global environmental policy-making. Prominent examples include environmental nongovernmental organizations and business associations, coalitions of local governments concerned with common environmental problems, international environmental bureaucracies and treaty secretariats, science networks, as well as private standard-setting bodies that often focus on particular issue areas, such as forest management, climate change, or biodiversity conservation.2
Interestingly, the role and function of sub- and non-state actors in global environmental policy-making has advanced considerably in the last decades. In the 1990s, sub- and non-state actors were, at the global level, still primarily conceived as environmental advocacy groups aimed at influencing certain policy outcomes negotiated by nation-states at the intergovernmental level (Conca 1995; Raustiala 1997; Keck and Sikkink 1998). Later, both environmental and business non-governmental organizations adopted a different role and started to directly engage in the formation and maintenance of international environmental regimes (Newell 2000; Betsill and Corell 2001). And most important for the focus of this book, in recent years, many scholars have recognized the development of various transnational governance arrangements beyond central governments and international institutions, such as city networks, private certification schemes, and business self-regulatory initiatives (e.g. Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Levy and Newell 2005; Arts 2006; Pattberg 2007; Andonova 2010; Bäckstrand et al. 2010; Gulbrandsen 2010; Biermann and Pattberg 2012; Green 2014). These transnational governance arrangements supply regulation or other public goods and seek to contribute to the solution of global environmental problems. The probably most prominent example of such initiatives is the emergence of climate-related partnerships between local governments (Bulkeley 2010). In the absence of a wide-ranging international climate treaty that contains ambitious targets for nation-states to reduce greenhouse gas (hereafter GHG) emissions, cities and municipalities are now organizing themselves into networks and aim at mitigating and adapting to climate change at the local level. Other prominent examples of transnational climate initiatives include non-profit organizations that create certain guidelines and standards for responsible business behavior in order to assess corporate responses to climate change as well as voluntary efforts of businesses to account and report their GHG emissions.
Against this backdrop, some authors have argued that the growing significance of transnational governance arrangements in global environmental politics and other fields of world politics has led to a relocation of authority from state-based forms of regulation to new actors and institutions that are better suited to cope with increasingly complex issues (e.g. Rittberger et al. 2008a: 318). These scholars contend that transboundary problems can no longer be perceived as matters exclusively addressed by national governments at diplomatic conferences. Instead, they emphasize that different types of sub- and non-state actors increasingly take on the role of âpolitical authorities able to design and make rules themselves, rather than merely complying with the directives of nation-states or the result of cooperation among nation-states (treaties and intergovernmental organizations)â (Hoffmann 2011: 67). This perspective challenges classical approaches to international politics and traditional concepts of authority in world politics. However, the precise nature of the relationship between the various climate initiatives launched by sub- and non-state actors and the intergovernmental level has so far not been studied in much detail. Therefore, this book aims to move beyond the debate on the emergence of transnational governance arrangements and explores the wider implications of this development for global (climate) politics.
Major concepts of international relations theory
In the past decades, the vast majority of researchers concerned with global affairs have centered their studies first and foremost on the interactions between nation-states. These authors start from the premise that nation-states are the principal actors in the international system, and argue that cross-border concerns are primarily addressed through inter-state negotiations. Scholars in this tradition assert that due to the lack of a central government at the global level, authority resides exclusively with national governments and the different institutions they create to cope with transboundary problems. Consequently, they pay much attention to the concept of international regimes and focus on the question of how these institutions facilitate or shape international relations.
International regimes
The theoretical concept of international regimes began to receive scholarly attention in the 1970s.3 At that time, a number of scholars recognized the evolution of various international institutions that could not be satisfactorily explained by the then prevailing realist approach to international politics. A few years later, the concept of international regimes was the subject of a conference convened to prepare the 1982 Special Issue of International Organization (Hasen-clever, Mayer, and Rittberger 1997: 8). At this conference, Stephen Krasner defined international regimes as âsets of implicit and explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actorsâ expectations converge in a given area of international relationsâ (Krasner 1982: 186). In the following years, the regime concept came into common parlance in international relations theory. Although Krasnerâs definition has often been criticized for its lack of clarity (Strange 1982; Haggard and Simmons 1987; Stein 1993), it has been widely used by scholars studying the creation, the maintenance, and the effectiveness of international institutions in various domains of international politics (e.g. Donelly 1986; Nye 1987; Bernauer 1995; Levy, Young, and ZĂźrn 1995; Hoekman and Kostecki 2001). In fact, the analysis of international regimes has provided powerful tools for understanding different aspects of global policy-making, especially the dynamics of intergovernmental negotiations. One of the most important contributions of regime scholars is that they âhave convincingly shown that âcooperation under anarchyâ is possible and that self-interested actors can achieve stable and enduring cooperation and overcome collective action dilemmasâ (Risse 2000: 3â4). According to adherents of the neo-liberal institutionalist approach to international politics, international regimes are created by nation-states to facilitate cooperation and achieve mutually beneficial gains mainly by providing information and reducing transaction costs (Keohane 1984; Axelrod and Keohane 1986; Keohane and Martin 1995). Hence, this sc...
