liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, Sweden .ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1912-5538
2016 (English)In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 285-305Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2016. Vol. 16, no 2, p. 285-305
Keywords [en]
Climate negotiations, Consensus, Legitimacy, Historical responsibility
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107221DOI: 10.1007/s10784-014-9258-1ISI: 000372245400006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-107221DiVA, id: diva2:722927
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2011-779Swedish Energy Agency, P35462-2
Note

Funding agencies: Formas [2011-779]; Swedish Energy Agency [P35462-2]

Available from: 2014-06-09 Created: 2014-06-09 Last updated: 2018-06-27Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Historical responsibility: Assessing the past in international climate negotiations
2013 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Assessments of the past are essential to the struggle over the right to define the normative position of history under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Despite this importance, attempts to analyze the use of history in this context are rare. This thesis aims to investigate how assessments of the past are used in UNFCCC negotiations on responsibilities to act, focusing on negotiations on historical responsibilities. The research questions concern how discourse on historical responsibility: 1) can be structured, 2) is influenced by UNFCCC negotiating practice, 3) has been structured in the UNFCCC, and 4) has enabled agreement despite considerable conflict. Official UNFCCC documentation between 1991 and 2011 was studied using discourse analysis. This study suggests: first, the UNFCCC discourse on historical responsibility conveys two main assessments—a proportional and a conceptual one—of how the past could be used to differentiate responsibilities to act. Second, the strong consensus focus necessitates rationales underlying an “agreeable history” that is neither too flexible, allowing arbitrariness, nor too rigid, reducing Parties’ likelihood of ratifying. Third, as the past evolves, new situations challenge discourse that potentially engages policy makers with a need to rearticulate history. Fourth, if the context changes, so may the importance ascribed to particular assessments of the past. If the stakes increase over time, even more effort is required to reach agreement, which simultaneously becomes more important in solving problems of common concern. Fifth, power seems difficult to circumvent, even by means of cleverly designed negotiating practice. If so, multilateral environmental negotiations could increase the legitimacy of outcomes among Parties in two principal ways: first, by identifying the core conflict that drives negotiations and, second, by evaluating how multilateral environmental negotiations handle conflict. Obscuring or ignoring conflict will likely only reduce the legitimacy of the negotiations. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2013. p. 71
Series
Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences, ISSN 0282-9800 ; 569
Keywords
Historical responsibility; UNFCCC negotiations; discourse
National Category
Social Sciences Humanities
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-86920 (URN)9789175197128 (ISBN)
Public defence
2013-02-15, K1, Kåkenhus, Campus Norrköping, Linköpings universitet, Norrköping, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2013-01-29 Created: 2013-01-07 Last updated: 2019-11-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(812 kB)590 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 812 kBChecksum SHA-512
2388c7afe35a325ecdee74243c0ec79c05e067417604d3b84d1491f8d7d749069cc7e2bb410a719f02b6c11c63f5ac281453f412c38c0d99827bc556631c81da
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Friman (Fridahl), Mathias

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
By organisation
Centre for Climate Science and Policy ResearchDepartment of Water and Environmental StudiesFaculty of Arts and Sciences
In the same journal
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
Social Sciences InterdisciplinaryEnvironmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 590 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 413 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf