Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Beyond the Nation State
How Is Differential Treatment Addressed in Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4755458 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paula Castro (0000-0002-5818-301X, University of Zurich, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 379-400 |
| Publication date | 2016-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Transnational Environmental Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2047-1025 • E-ISSN: 2047-1033 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s2047102516000224 |
| OpenAlex | W2536742076 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 20 |
Many multilateral environmental agreements have adopted differentiated rules for different countries, based on the recognition of the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDRs) of states. By establishing two rigid groups of countries with and without emissions reduction obligations, the intergovernmental climate regime represents the most extreme case of such differentiation. The regime has struggled to overcome this rigidity and the resulting political deadlock between developing and developed countries. Transnational climate governance (TCG) initiatives have emerged as an alternative to provide mitigation, adaptation or finance outside the multilateral process. By drawing on synergies between public and private actors, it is hoped that they overcome the paralysis of the intergovernmental process. Yet, they take place in the same world of unequal peers, with different levels of capacity and responsibility for climate change. This article investigates the extent to which such TCG initiatives reflect the CBDR principle. Do different types of initiative - involving different types of actor or with different climate-related goals - address differentiation in distinct ways? Does taking account of CBDRs affect the membership of transnational initiatives? This article explores these questions empirically by analyzing a sample of TCG initiatives in terms of how they include differential treatment of states and non-state members. It concludes that TCG initiatives address differentiation in a pragmatic way. Most frequently, they either offer participants flexibility in how to implement their commitments, or provide support to members from developing countries. Such support is, so far, still insufficient to address the limited involvement of developing country actors
Business · Climate change · Climate Finance · Climate governance · Corporate governance · Deadlock · Developing country · Differential treatment · Economic growth · Economics · International trade · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Climate Change Policy and Economics · International Development and Aid · Law · Public Administration · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Ecology · Finance
Governing Climate Change
Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice
An Optimal Pollution Control Model for Environmental Protection Cooperation between Developing and Developed Countries
Rethinking polycentricity
Moral duties, compliance and polycentric climate governance
Reconciling common but differentiated responsibilities principle and no more favourable treatment principle in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping
Years of global climate change governance research
Country differentiation in the global environmental context
Counting Carbon While the Planet Burns
Foreword to the TEL Fifth Anniversary Issue Re-evaluating the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities in Transnational Climate Change Law
Transnational Climate Change Governance
Climate Governance at the Crossroads
Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development
Orchestration and transnational climate governance
Governing Climate Change Transnationally
Beyond the intergovernmental regime
Order out of Chaos
Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime
Public-Private Partnerships for the Earth
Global Cities and Transnational Climate Change Networks
Change and Stasis
Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network
Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement
Rethinking Private Authority
The Institutionalization of Private Governance
External Actors, State‐Building, and Service Provision in Areas of Limited Statehood
The changing fortunes of differential treatment in the evolution of international environmental law
| Unique citing works | 10 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2026 (11) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 10 |