liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 7 of 7
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent 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
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Benzie, Magnus
    et al.
    Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden.
    Persson, Asa
    Not Found:Linkoping Univ, Dept Themat Studies, S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden; Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden.
    Governing borderless climate risks: moving beyond the territorial framing of adaptation2019In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 19, no 4-5, p. 369-393Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite the increasing relevance of cross-border flows of goods, capital and people in shaping risks and opportunities today, we still live in a bordered world, where the nation state plays a key role in planning and governance. Yet, climate change impacts will not be contained within country borders, meaning that climate change adaptation governance should also consider borderless climate risks that cascade through the international system, in relatively simple or highly complex ways. In this paper, we demonstrate how the notion of borderless climate risks challenges the dominant territorial framing of adaptation and its problem structure. To advance knowledge, we ask: why has a territorial framing and the national and sub-national scales dominated adaptation governance? How do borderless climate risks challenge this framing and what are possible governance responses? We draw on constructivist international relations theory and propose that the epistemic community that developed to interpret climate change adaptation for decision-makers had certain features (e.g. strong environmental sciences foundation, reliance on place-based case study research) that established and subsequently reinforced the territorial framing. This framing was then reinforced by an international norm that adaptation was primarily a national or local responsibility, which has paradoxically also informed calls for international responsibility for funding adaptation. We conclude by identifying types of governance responses at three different scales-national and bilateral; transnational; international and regional-and invite more systematic evaluation by the IR community.

  • 2.
    Friman (Fridahl), Mathias
    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 .
    Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change2016In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 285-305Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

  • 3.
    Kuchler, Magdalena
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.
    Stakeholding as sorting of actors into categories: implications for civil society participation in the CDM2017In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 17, no 2, p. 191-208Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Following a deliberative shift towards public–private partnership networks in global environmental governance, the multi-stakeholder framework is increasingly advocated for engaging multiple actors in collective decision-making. As this arrangement relies on proper participatory conditions in order to include all relevant stakeholders, input legitimacy is crucial to achieving legitimate outcomes. However, ‘stakeholding’ implies that actors—recast into a specific institutional context—are sorted into new formal or informal categories. This paper scrutinizes the clean development mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to interrogate the problematic issue of ‘stakeholding’—i.e. the ‘sorting’ of actors—in enacting the multi-stakeholder framework. Based on an analysis of 25 CDM projects that provides insight into the widest range of participation opportunities for civil society regarding specific projects, this paper considers how certain institutional context of the Mechanism’s stakeholder framework affects the involvement of civil society actors and the implications of this for balanced and fair input legitimacy. The findings suggest that, in practice, the informal corporate-induced sorting of actors into internal and external stakeholders keeps civil society actors outside the CDM’s inner circle, forcing them to voice their concerns regarding specific projects via CDM insiders or through irregular channels. Furthermore, the absence of a clear definition of stakeholder in local consultations results in the inclusion of unsorted actors, destabilizing the distribution of participation opportunities. The paper concludes that recasting the deliberative principles of openness and plurality into the CDM’s corporate-inspired stakeholding creates a specific institutional context that imposes more than one set of perhaps incompatible stakeholder categories while impairing input legitimacy.

  • 4.
    Nasiritousi, Naghmeh
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Hjerpe, Mattias
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research .
    The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles2016In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 1, p. 109-126Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Globalization processes have rendered non-state actors an integral part of global governance. The body of literature that has examined non-state actor involvement in global governance has focused mainly on whether and how non-state actors can influence states. Less attention has been paid to the comparative advantages of non-state actors to answer questions about agency across categories of non-state actors, and more precisely what governance activities non-state actors are perceived to fulfil. Using unique survey material from two climate change conferences, we propose that different categories of non-state actors have distinct governance profiles. We further suggest that the different governance profiles are derived from particular power sources and that agency is a function of these profiles. The study thereby contributes to a strand in the literature focusing on the authority of non-state actors in climate governance and broadens the methodological toolkit for studying the “governors” of global governance.

  • 5.
    Nasiritousi, Naghmeh
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Linnér, Björn-Ola
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Open or closed meetings? Explaining nonstate actor involvement in the international climate change negotiations2016In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 1, p. 127-144Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    When do states allow nonstate actors (NSAs) to observe negotiations at intergovernmental meetings? Previous studies have identified the need for states to close negotiations when the issues under discussion are sensitive. This paper argues that sensitivity alone cannot adequately explain the dynamic of closing down negotiations to observers. Questions that have received little attention in the literature include which issues are considered sensitive and how the decision is made to move the negotiations behind closed doors. This paper examines the practices of NSA involvement in climate diplomacy from three analytical perspectives: functional efficiency, political dynamics, and historical institutionalism. Based on interviews and UNFCCC documents, this paper suggests that to understand the issue of openness in negotiations, institutional factors and the politics of NSA involvement need to be better scrutinized. The paper shows that each perspective has particular advantages when analyzing different dimensions of the negotiations, with implications of how we understand the role of NSAs in global environmental governance.

  • 6.
    Palm, Matilda
    et al.
    Department of Earth Science, Physical Geography, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Ostwald, Madelene
    Department of Earth Science, Physical Geography, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Reilly, John
    Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
    Land use and forestry based CDM in scientific literature pre and post COP 9 in Milan2008In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, no 8, p. 249-274Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article explores the science-policy interactions between peer-reviewed

    literature and decisions and declarations on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

    (LULUCF) projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) taken at Conference of

    the Parties (COP) meetings. The results are based on a literature analysis capturing 88

    articles published from 1997 to 2005. By using a matrix search method and a structured

    reading form, the method and analysis focussed on whether issues of CDM and LULUCF

    were presented as ‘supportive of the inclusion of LULUCF’ and ‘critical of the inclusion of

    LULUCF’. A matrix search method and a structured reading form were applied. Of the 88

    articles, 66% included discussions supportive to the inclusion of LULUCF. Forty-nine

    percent had a first author affiliated in natural sciences. Only 19% had first authors affiliated

    in developing countries while the same number for contributing authors was 38%. The

    results show no clear connection between scientific literature and decisions and declarations,

    but indicate that policymakers set the research agenda by declarations, while

    researchers feed the process up until decisions are made.

  • 7.
    Persson, Åsa
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Tema Environmental Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden.
    Dzebo, Adis
    Stockholm Environm Inst, Sweden; Univ Utrecht, Netherlands.
    Special issue: Exploring global and transnational governance of climate change adaptation2019In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 19, no 4-5, p. 357-367Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

1 - 7 of 7
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent 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