June 2014
Global Governance of Climate Change; The reasons
for lack of efficiency in dealing with global warming
on international scale
Master thesis in International and European relations/Division of
political science/Department of Management and
Engineering/Linköping University
Mona Moini Namini
Word count (26,770)
0
Supervisor: Dr. Per Jansson
 Abstract
Many discussions have been shaped which try to estimate whether or not the international
community has been successful to address climate related concerns. While some believe that,
it has been successful in many aspects, others view it as a total failure. In theory, a
considerable institutional frame work has been built through former decades to improve the
overall state of Global environmental governance. In practice, the whole system has not been
successful to fulfill the expectations it was once built to address, which is to reduce the fatal
effects of global warming. Many multilateral environmental agreements have been shaped, a
considerable amount of financial and human resource have been dedicated to the system and
meetings are held each year to improve the overall implementation status of, what has been
agreed on beforehand. Despite all of the mentioned efforts, "Most of the observed increase
in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an
advance since the TAR’s conclusion that most of the observed warming over the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations.”(IPCC synthesis report, 2007, P.39)
So as it is obvious from the
mentioned statement, reform has to be applied to the current status of the system in order to
make it operate more efficiently. These changes should be in form of short term and long term
strategies. Short term plans should be structured in a manner that finally pave the way for long
term ones. There is a certain amount of agreement on the fact that, reform is necessary but
reaching an agreement on a certain reform plan is highly controversial. Some reform
proposals focus on a large scale reform as the final solution like the creation of a World
Environment Organization (WEO), others on the other hand, believe in making the existing
pieces work more efficiently by enforcing small scale changes. Efficient measures have to be
1
taken place otherwise; current and future generations would build their lives on fear and risk.
This situation has been explained by Ray Braudbury as” living at risk is jumping off the
cliff and building your wings on the way down."(Canfield, 2007, p.12)

Acknowledgements
My gratitude should be expressed to a number of people:
First, I would like to thank my supervisor”Dr. Per Jansson”, who has been extremely patient
and kind towards me. His constant advice and guidelines have had significant effects on the
formation of this thesis. I have learned considerably each and every time I received feedback
from him. I truly cannot find words, capable of expressing my degree of gratitude and respect
for him.
Second, I would like to thank Dr. Jan Aart Scholte, who is a guest lecturer at Linköping
University. We as students enjoyed his lectures and learned considerably from him. The topic
and many issues that are included in this thesis are inspired by his excellent method of
teaching and the interesting discussions that often took place during his lectures.
Third, I would like to dedicate this work to these two inspiring human beings; Mr. Alireza
Mahernia and Mr. Majeeed Moini that have played major roles in my life. Without them by
my side; I would not be the person I am today.
2
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1) Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 7

1.1.1) the definition of climate change ................................................................................. 7

1.1.2) Climate change scenarios ........................................................................................... 7

1.1.3) the worst case scenario................................................................................................ 8

1.2) Research puzzle .................................................................................................................. 9

1.3) Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10

1.3.1) the philosophical stance ............................................................................................ 11

1.3.2) Research method ....................................................................................................... 13

1.3.3) the reasons for the selection of the mentioned methods......................................... 15


1.4) Methodological analysis ................................................................................................... 19

1.4.1) Introduction ............................................................................................................... 19

1.4.2) Differentiated philosophical standpoints on evaluation criteria ........................... 20

1.4.3) Trustworthiness and Reflexivity .............................................................................. 21
Chapter two: Globalization and environmental degradation ................................................. 23

2.1) Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 23

2.2) The main counter narratives against globalization ....................................................... 24

2.3) The philosophical stand point of this work on globalization: ...................................... 27

2.4) good Global Governance as the ultimate solution ......................................................... 28

2.5) Final remarks ................................................................................................................... 29

Chapter three: Theoretical frame work of the study ............................................................... 30

3.1) Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 30

3.2) Historical Institutionalism (HI) ...................................................................................... 31

3.3) Discursive Institutionalism (DI) ...................................................................................... 33


3.3.1) “Interactive processes” and their impact on IEG reform ..................................... 34

3.3.2) considering discourse as different levels of idea ..................................................... 35

3.3.3) Mobilization of bias as the main barrier ................................................................. 37
3.4) Rational Choice Institutionalism (RI) ............................................................................ 38
3


3.5) A brief summary .............................................................................................................. 39
Chapter four: Climate Change to be studied under different labels ...................................... 41

4.1) Security studies of Climate Change ................................................................................ 41

4.1.1) Introduction ............................................................................................................... 41

4.1.2) Discourse Analysis approach ................................................................................... 42

4.1.3) the history of environmental debates ...................................................................... 45

4.1.4) possible future storylines .......................................................................................... 47

4.1.5) Final remarks ............................................................................................................ 49

4.2) Ethical studies of climate change .................................................................................... 50

4.2.1) Introduction ............................................................................................................... 50

4.2.2) the core principles included in Ethical Environmental Discourses ...................... 51

4.2.3) the main arguments of anti-ethical environmental discourses .............................. 55

4.2.4) Final remarks ............................................................................................................ 58

4.3) Global Governance studies of climate change ............................................................... 59

4.3.1) Introduction ............................................................................................................... 59

4.3.2) the main definitions of Global Governance extracted from relative Discourses . 60

4.3.3) Final remarks ............................................................................................................ 63

Chapter five: International Environmental Governance (IEG) and lack of efficiency from
the New Institutionalist perspective ................................................................................................... 65

5.1) A brief history of debates on IEG reform ..................................................................... 65

5.2) Historical institutionalism ............................................................................................... 68

5.2.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Path Dependency: ..... 68

5.2.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of Power
Inequalities:.................................................................................................................................. 69

5.3) Discursive institutionalism .............................................................................................. 70

5.3.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Socialisation .............. 70

5.3.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of Discursive
Processes ....................................................................................................................................... 71

5.4) Rational Choice Institutionalism .................................................................................... 72

5.4.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Collective Action
Dilemmas ...................................................................................................................................... 72

5.4.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of Calculus
Approach:..................................................................................................................................... 73


5.5) Concluding remarks: ....................................................................................................... 75
Chapter six: Good Global Governance or Democratic Global Governance .......................... 77
4

6.1) Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 77

6.2) Building the frame work for analysis ............................................................................. 77

6.3) Democracy as a challenging issue in Global Governance ............................................. 82

6.4) Civil Society and Democratic Global Governance ........................................................ 84

6.5) Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 86

Final Conclusion: ......................................................................................................................... 88

Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 89
List of Abbreviations
AIDS
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
BIS
the Bank for International Settlements
C&C
Contraction and Convergence
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
COP
Conference Of the Parties
CSD
Commission on Sustainable Development
DI
Discursive Institutionalism
EMG
Environment Management Group
EMS
Environmental Management System
EU
European Union
G77
Group of 77
GATT
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GCI
Global Common Institute
GEG
Global Environmental Governance
GHG
Green House Gas
GMEF
Global Ministerial Environment Forum
GTC
Giga Tons Carbon
5
HI
Historical Institutionalism
ICBL
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
IEG
International Environmental Governance
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR
International Relations
NGO
Non- Governmental Organization
OECD
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PPM
Parts Per Million
RI
Rational choice Institutionalism
SI
Sociological Institutionalism
UN
United Nations
UNEO
United Nations Environment Organization
UNFCC
United Nations Frame work Convention on Climate change
US
United States
WEO
World Environment Organization
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
6
Chapter one: Introduction

1.1) Climate Change
Since the overall concern of this thesis is climate change, it could be useful to give some
basic information regarding this subject area. This part gives brief explanations to the
following questions: 1. what is climate change? 2. What are the main case scenarios
predicted for the future? 3. Are we heading towards the worst case scenario?

1.1.1) the definition of climate change
"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that
can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the
variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically
decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to
natural variability or as a result of human activity."(IPCC, 2007) As it is obvious
some might conclude from the mentioned definition that, human beings might not be the
main cause of climate change and it might occur due to other natural reasons. Many
studies have been shaped since 1958 which have discussed this issue in details and
"Although, the report's definition of climate change includes both natural and
anthropogenic causes, it represents the consensus of the scientific community in
placing anthropogenic drivers as the lead cause of climate change."(Sharma,
2011, p.36)

1.1.2) Climate change scenarios
Different scenarios have been predicted on the future of global warming and these
scenarios are based on many different factors. Any prediction for future highly depends on
the amount of effort that is taken in the following decades by the international community
7
to decrease further harm to the environment. These scenarios are listed as B1, A1T, B2,
A1B, A2, and A1F1. While B1 scenario is the most optimistic, A1F1 is considered as the
least optimistic scenario regarding the future. Since describing each scenario in details
would be time consuming, a figure has been provided below from IPCC reports of
working group 1, which describes well enough these scenarios.

Source: (IPCC: working group1, 2007, p.13)

1.1.3) the worst case scenario
Some scholars believe that, we are heading towards the worst case scenario and effective
measures need to be taken place as soon as possible. In fact there is not an agreement
among scholars regarding the fact that where climate change is heading towards and how
hard it might be, due to some of its unpredictable characteristics. It is important to notice
that, being too optimistic and creating policy responses accordingly, could be highly risky
since pay offs would be irreparable. Michelangelo describes this wisely when he declares,
"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it,
but that it is too low and we reach it."(Canfield, 2007, p.30) Below are some brief
8
explanations regarding the fact that, "the worst case scenario should be taken more in to
consideration."
First, Greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be declined, while in reality they are
increasing at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent. If "...We continue pumping greenhouse
emissions at current rates, the planet appears to be headed for a truly scary
future where carbon dioxide levels would reach somewhere near 1,000 ppm,
and the temperature rise would be about 6 Celsius by the end of this
century."(Sharma, 2011, p.38)
Second, According to Schmidt and Archer, The co2 emission should not exceed 190
GTC during the period of 2009- 2050. This is while if we take the year 2008
individually, the co2 production was around 9 GTC. Due to the 1-3 percent increase in
co2 levels annually, the conclusion would be that the limit 190 GTC seems
unreasonable and we would hit this limit around 2029. (2009) All in all, According to
John Ruskin, "what we think or what we know or what we believe is, in the end
of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do."(Canfield, 2007,
p.98) So, in the following parts of this thesis, the scenarios would be left for scientists
and experts to be dealt with and instead policy responses would be evaluated.

1.2) Research puzzle
As it was mentioned earlier, there is a considerable amount of agreement on the fact that,
in order to make the environmental system work more efficiently, some degree of reform
is necessary. From a practical point of view, the environmental related concerns seem to
be in a constant state of negotiation and small scale reforms are applied once in a while,
that are in consistent with one another. At one point climate change is referred to as one of
the biggest humanitarian challenges of the century while on the other hand, enough effort
9
is not dedicated to save the lives of human beings round the globe. In fact as it would be
mentioned later, from an ethical stand point, future generations deserve to inherit a healthy
planet to live their lives on, while the possibility of this fact is highly under question. In
spite of four decades of debates on the problems as well as the appropriate solutions to the
fragmented system of international environmental governance, clear decisions could have
not been made on “what exactly needs to be done”. So the main concern of this research
would be to explore the reasons for lack of any productive action plan with the purpose of
upgrading the current status of the system. In order to put it simply, the research question
is, “why climate change is governed the way it is and if current policy responses are
not effective enough, then why reform does not take place?” In order to give a
comprehensive response to the research problem, the three theories of New
Institutionalism would be chosen as the theoretical frame work of the study. The reason
for the selection of these theories and the manner, in which they help to solve the research
puzzle, would be explained in details later in the study.

1.3) Methodology
There are plenty of methods available for the researcher to choose for a single study and at
first it seems as an unchallengeable task. In fact there are other important criteria
involved, which need to be taken in to consideration before choosing any specific kind of
method. According to Lynch and Holden “It is our contention that research should
not be methodologically led, rather that methodological choice should be
consequential to the researcher’s philosophical stance and the social science
phenomenon to be investigated.”(2004, p.2) The mentioned term “philosophical
stance” is derived by the following core assumptions which are ontology, epistemology
10
and human nature. So in the following parts, these assumptions will be explained in
details and the analytical tools chosen for this research will be clarified.

1.3.1) the philosophical stance
In order to start this part, it is necessary to define what ontology, epistemology and human
nature are. Ontology is” a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of
things that have existence “and Epistemology is “the study or a theory of the
nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and
validity.”(Merriam Webster, 2013) In order to put it simply, ontology deals with the
existence of different phenomena and investigates whether human mind and perspective
have any role in defining this existence or not. Epistemology deals with the way human
beings acquire knowledge regarding the world around them. Human nature is conceived
as”...whether or not the researcher perceives man as the controller or as the
controlled” in the research process.(Lynch and Holden, 2004, p.6) Subjectivism and
Objectivism are two assumptions that are in total contrast with one another and this
contradiction stems from their differentiated ontologies, epistemologies and perceptions
regarding human nature. If we are supposed to imagine a line that has subjectivism on one
end and objectivism on the other end, there are many shades of approaches in between
these two extremes. Objectivism has a Realist ontology which points to the fact that, the
world has existed prior to human being's existence and therefore the individual's efforts to
understand the external reality does not have any effects on the nature of that reality itself.
So “valid knowledge about a concrete reality can only be discovered through
sense observation and measurement and any reference to the intangible or
subjective is excluded as meaningless.” (Lynch and Holden, 2004, p.7) On the other
11
hand, subjectivism's ontology is called Nominalism which indicates the fact that, the
reality is tightly attached to human's mind and in fact there is no reality but human mind
and imagination. Its epistemological stand point is that, “knowledge cannot be
discovered, as it is subjectively acquired –everything is relative.”(Lynch and
Holden, 2004, p.7) Objectivist's belief regarding human nature is, individual’s social
behavior can be explained by the causal laws that dominate every aspect of the universe
and to the contrary, subjectivists believe that, in order to understand any assumed subject
area, the perception of the individual should be investigated. Objectivists believe that the
researcher's attitudes and beliefs should not have any impact on the research since they
diminish the accuracy of the observations and conducted experiments. So it is necessary to
define my own philosophical standpoint because of the mentioned contradictions and the
fact that it has great influence on the way the research methods are applied in the study. I
define my philosophical stance as Intermediate or Post-positivist which indicates that”...
reality is tangible yet humans have an input into forming its concreteness. The
corresponding epistemological stance is that knowledge although not absolute,
can be accumulated, tested, and either retained or discarded.”(Lynch and Holden,
2004, p.14) Regarding human nature, the world has existed long before human beings
and has certain laws and causal relations. Human beings are influenced by these laws and
they influence the world in the same way, through their social interactions and perceptions
of the world. The table provided below could be helpful for better understanding since it
categorizes each philosophical standpoint and its related assumptions.
12

Source: (Lynch and Holden, 2004, p.5 cited in Burrell and Morgan 1979)

1.3.2) Research method
In the former part, the philosophical stance has been pointed out and accordingly
Qualitative method is perceived as the appropriate method for this research. Qualitative
method is considered as”... the idea that meaning is socially constructed by
individuals in interaction with their world. The world, or reality, is not the fixed,
single, agreed upon, or measurable phenomenon that is assumed to be in
positivist, quantitative research.”(Merriam, 2002, p.3) Since this paper is mainly
based on document analysis and literature review, there is a need for a method that is
descriptive in nature and Qualitative method can suit this purpose perfectly. This thesis is
considered as:

First, Basic interpretive Qualitative study: This method mainly tries to seek
different understandings of a phenomenon and the researcher is seen as a medium to
define these differentiated perspectives. This kind of research is highly descriptive and
data is often gathered through document analysis, interviews or observations. "These
data are inductively analyzed to identify the recurring patterns or common
13
themes that cut across the data."(Merriam, 2002, p.6/7) Discourse analysis and
Narrative analysis are appropriate analytical tools for this purpose and would be used
frequently in this paper to highlight different understandings of the same phenomenon
and point out their similarities as well as differences. These two notions would be
clarified more, later in this work in the related chapters and the practical aspect of
them would become more obvious. In order to provide a brief definition, Discourse
analysis is to investigate differentiated aspects of language use which is consisted of
the following: first, linguistic forms and second, the purpose behind the formation of
these linguistic forms that is to serve specific goals in human relations. (Juez, 2009,
p.9) Narrative analysis users often use their imagination and interests to make
interpretations about the past. These interpretations do not necessarily mirror the past.
The “truths of narrative accounts are not in their faithful representations of a
past world, but in the shifting connections they forge among past, present, and
future."(Riessman, 2003, p.6) All in all, in order to put it simply, discourse and
narrative analysis approaches emphasize the power of words. As Canfield describes,
"Everything you say produces an effect in the world. Everything you say to
someone else produces an effect in that person. Know that you are constantly
creating something-either positive or negative with your words."(2007, p.343)

Second, Critical Qualitative research: This method has been derived from Critical
theory that is “…a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society
as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or
explaining it. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and
uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of
how the world works.”(About.com, 2013) This kind of research method often tries
to deal with the following issues: 1. whose interests are served from the status quo? 2.
14
Who has the necessary power to apply changes to the system? 3. What are the
consequences of staying in the status quo? 4. How power relations influence the way a
system operates? These questions and many similar ones are the exact concerns of this
research process since it is investigating the reasons for lack of efficiency in the
Global Environmental Governance system. So, in order to create efficient policy
responses to upgrade the current status of the system, a critical lens is needed first to
identify the weaknesses. Canfield describes the process towards changing the status
quo as follows "...the formula is simple-do more of what is working, do less of
what isn't, and try on new behaviors to see if they produce better
results."(2007, p.17)

1.3.3) the reasons for the selection of the mentioned methods

First, Basic Qualitative method
The reason for this selection is due to the nature of the research question itself as
well as the way each chapter would be conducted due to my philosophical stand
point. In order to start this research process, one kind of study has to be chosen since
there are different kinds of studies available and each are divided in to multiple
subcategories. Choosing a specific kind of study is like taking a specific lens to look
through things and it can have major influence on the whole research process. The
literature review suggests that, three different kinds of study are available to study the
“politics of climate change” and are: Security studies, Ethical studies and Global
Governance studies. So there is a need to clarify what each study is about and in which
ways it could be conducted. Below, a brief description of each chapter is provided and
the reason for providing such a summary is that, “the content and purpose of each
chapter creates the need for using the mentioned methods.”
15
Chapter two: It would focus on the relationship among globalization and
environmental concerns. It explores the main counter narratives that have been shaped
against globalization and investigates the degree to which their claims are accurate.
These counter narratives view globalization as a negative factor and would be
categorized as “Green counter narratives” and “Ecological counter narratives”. By
the end of this chapter it would be argued that, there is a need for a third narrative
regarding globalization, since the two mentioned counter narratives would not be
capable of creating productive policy responses in the future. The main reason for the
inclusion of this chapter is that, 1. Globalization and environmental concerns are
remarkably linked to each other and 2. Our understanding of globalization has direct
effects on the definition we choose for the term Global Governance.
Chapter three: This chapter is consisted of the three theories of New
Institutionalism which are: Historical Institutionalism, Discursive Institutionalism
and Rational Choice Institutionalism. Each of these theories looks at the problem from
a specific angle and the descriptions they provide play a complementary role towards
one another. Each theory and its main assumptions would be described later in the
related chapter.
Chapter four: this chapter would deal with Security, Ethical and Global Governance
studies of climate change.
First, Security studies: a wide range of studies have been shaped under this label and
their perception of the problem and the policy responses they suggest could be
remarkably different. In order to have a clear categorization of these studies, a
Discourse analytic approach has been chosen as the main analytical tool. According to
this approach all Security studies could be gathered under two differentiated
categories; “the environmental security discourse” and “the environmental conflict
16
discourse”. These two set of discourses are different due to 1. Their perception of the
problem and 2. The policy responses they propose to address the identified concerns.
Second, Ethical studies: the majority of Ethical discourses on climate change try to
influence actor’s manner of thinking. These discourses use Ethical principles and
norms, as the foundation for their discussions and policy proposals. This chapter
would introduce the main principles of ethics that are the base of most comprehensive
Ethical discourses. These principles are: the principle of equity and distributive
justice, the principle of non-maleficence and the principle of free and informed
consent. Ethical studies suggest that these principles could help actors to create more
efficient policies in the future since they specifically address the inequalities between
the North and South.
Third, Global Governance studies: The main difference among the majority of
discourses on global governance of climate change is due to the definition they
attribute to the phrase “Global Governance”. These definitions would be categorized
as Phenomenological, Normative and Empirical definitions of Global Governance.
The differences among the definitions are due to the fact that, “the term Global
Governance has been given different meanings from the time it was created till now.”
So, this chapter mainly introduces the differentiated meanings of global governance.
Chapter five: it is designed to point out the main deficiencies of International
Environmental Governance (IEG). These deficiencies would be mainly extracted
from discourses that view this system as a weak and inefficient governance structure.
This chapter would mainly describe these weaknesses and deficiencies of the system
from the perspective of New Institutionalism. This chapter is mainly consisted of a
direct interaction between the theoretical frame work and research problem.
17
Chapter six: it is designed to describe what a Good Global Governance system
could look like and point out its main characteristics. These characteristics are
extracted from discourses on Global Governance and the majority of the discourses
agree on these characteristics. The main reason for inclusion of this chapter is that,
throughout this study the weak points of the current system have been pointed out,
specifically in chapter five in details. So a question that would come to mind is that, if
the current system has deficiencies, how does an efficient Global Governance system
look like?

Second, Critical Qualitative method:
As it was mentioned earlier research question plays a great deal in the use of this
method in this study since it is to investigate the reasons for lack of efficient action. So
a critical lens is needed first, to discover the weaknesses so that appropriate remedies
could be designed to address them.
Chapter two: it would have a critical standpoint since it argues that, both of the
counter narratives against globalization have not been successful to create efficient
policy responses and their arguments are similar to each other. It would be suggested
that a different narrative on globalization is needed to address the current
environmental deficiencies.
Chapter four: it would make use of this method specifically in the part related to the
Ethical studies of climate change. It would introduce some major arguments of antiethical environmental discourses and deals with them in a critical manner. It would
provide plenty of reasons to prove each argument wrong and highlights their
misunderstandings as well as deficiencies.
18
Chapter five: it would be the most critical chapter of this study since its main task is
to point out the weaknesses and inefficiencies of the IEG system from the New
Institutionalist perspective. These weaknesses have been extracted from the current
discourses that perceive IEG as an inefficient governance structure. The theories of
new Institutionalism would describe the reasons for first, Incremental institutional
changes and second, Persistence of current institutional structures in details in this
chapter.

1.4) Methodological analysis

1.4.1) Introduction
Literature review suggests that, there are multiple and sometimes contradictory view
points on Qualitative method. While some scholars view it as a powerful tool, others
conceive it as unreliable, due to the degree of influence the researcher owes in this
kind of method. The discourses that are skeptical regarding the reliability of this
method often claim that, the validity of researcher’s claims or observations are highly
under question. There are multiple view points on how to assess the quality of
Qualitative research as well. In other words there is not a consensus on what the
“evaluation criteria” for Qualitative research ought to be. Merrick suggests that”
indeed, what most qualitative researchers consider strengths- a reliance on
human instrument and an acknowledgement that many truths exist-others may
see as major threats or weaknesses.(1999, p.25) The first step to judge the
quality in Qualitative research is to define the “evaluation criteria” by which it is to be
evaluated. Different philosophical standpoints have differentiated view points on
“evaluation criteria” and therefore it could be beneficial to first, have a brief review on
19
these differentiated view points and second, define the criteria, this work will be
shaped with respect to.

1.4.2) Differentiated philosophical standpoints on evaluation criteria
Merrick, 1999, has categorized different philosophical standpoints and their view on
evaluation criteria as follows:

Positivists: they argue that, the criteria chosen to measure the quality of scientific
research are the same for all kinds of research, whether Quantitative or Qualitative.
“These criteria involve assessing internal validity, external validity, reliability
and objectivity.”(p.26)

Post-positivists: the criteria which are chosen to assess Qualitative research ought to
be different from the ones chosen to assess Quantitative research. Post- positivists are
on the same page with Constructivists in this regard and claim that “internal and
external validity, reliability and objectivity translate in to trustworthiness and
authenticity.”(p.26)

Post-modernists: they believe that, no criteria should exist for assessing Qualitative
research and this is due to the nature of this kind of research as well as the world it is
trying to sketch.

Post-structuralists: they argue that, the evaluation criteria ought to be different from
what Positivists and Post-positivists claim it to be. These criteria should be
“…subjectivity,
emotionality,
feeling,
and
other
anti-foundational
factors.”(p.26)
As, it was mentioned earlier, I view my own philosophical stand point as Post-positivist
and therefore agree with what they claim the evaluation criteria ought to be. According to
20
Merrick, “Although qualitative researchers exhibit wide variation in their
definitions of, and positions on, criteria for assessing quality, they do exhibit
consensus
about
concerns
encompassed
by
trustworthiness
and
reflexivity.”(1999, p.34) So, this thesis would be shaped with respect to these two
criteria accordingly, which are trustworthiness and reflexivity.

1.4.3) Trustworthiness and Reflexivity

Trustworthiness
In order to ensure trustworthiness in Qualitative research some points need to be taken in
to consideration. First, the researcher’s philosophical stand point needs to be made clear.
Second, sources of bias have to be minimized. According to Merrick “A qualitative
approach to the problem of bias is to increase the investigators and readers
exposure to the phenomenon…by using intense interviews and by providing thick
descriptions…of the data” (p.30). This means that the more readers know about what is
going on in researcher’s mind during the research process, the better they would be able to
understand the researcher’s perspective and interpretations. The researcher has to engage
readers in every step of the project from the formulation of research question to the
conclusion. This means that clear explanations are needed on: 1.the research question or
puzzle and the importance of it 2. The theories and the way they interact with the research
question 3. The reason for selection of the methods and the manner in which they are
applied through ought the research. All in all, the researcher is the core element in
Qualitative research and therefore the trustworthiness of the work is remarkably
dependent on the trustworthiness of the researcher itself. ”Trustworthiness is more than
21
a set of procedures…it is a personal belief system that shapes the procedures in
process.”(Merrick, p.31)

Reflexivity:
As it was mentioned in the former part, since the researcher plays an important role in
Qualitative research, the reflexive aspects of the research need to be taken in to
consideration. As Merrick describes “commitment to reflexivity suggests that the
research topic, design and process, together with the personal experience of
doing the research, are reflected and critically evaluated throughout.”(1999, p.31)
The reflexive aspects of the research are important since; the research is mainly composed
of researcher’s understanding of the reality and the process through which it has been
manifested in his or her work. We are living in a world that knowledge is being
constructed and reconstructed constantly and therefore it is important to know, with
which understanding of the reality and through which process, the researcher has
come to what is represented. There are different kinds of reflexivity introduced by
different authors but I would agree with what Merrick puts emphasis on, which are
personal and functional reflexivity. Personal reflexivity is to define who you are as a
human being and how this understanding of yourself is manifested through your work.
The author’s values, philosophical standpoint, sexuality, culture and other personal
characteristics could have major influences on the research and need to be taken in to
consideration. ”Functional reflexivity entails continuous critical examination of the
practice/process
of
research
to
reveal
its
assumptions,
biases.”(Merrick, 1999, p.31 cited in Banister et al, 1994, p.151)
22
values,
and
 Chapter two: Globalization and environmental degradation
So far, it has been argued that climate change is one of the main humanitarian
challenges of 21th century. Although efforts have been taken place to minimize its
devastating effects, there is a long path of measures still ahead that need to be
considered. The main concern of this study is to find out the reasons for lack of
efficiency in environmental domain and therefore it can be viewed as a policy
analysis study to some extent. In order to make the ground ready for analyzing the
current policies, there is a need to first describe what the problem is. The problem in
this study in its most general form is climate change or global warming which has
been described in the introductory chapter. The literature review suggests that, there is
a considerable amount of scholars who believe that, Globalization is the main cause
of climate change. It is important to dig into this issue further and study the ways in
which Globalization contributes to this study’s concerns. So this chapter introduces
the main counter narratives against Globalization and reviews their arguments and
points of departure. These counter narratives are mainly against globalization which
means that, their hypothesis is as follows. “Globalization is and has been one of the
main causes of climate change mainly through opening of national borders or free
trade”. The main reason for inclusion of this chapter is; if these counter narratives
could be proven wrong then their hypothesis would also be proven wrong which
means that globalization is not the main contributor to climate change or vice versa.

2.1) Introduction
According to Roe and Eeten”...policy narratives are scenarios (stories and
arguments) that stabilize the assumptions for decision making in situations of
23
high turbulence and dynamics. Each narrative has a beginning, middle and end
(or premises and conclusions, if cast as an argument) and revolves around a
sequence of events or positions in which something is said to happen or from
which something is said to follow.”(2004, p.36) In environmental domain like any
other domain, policies are made according to the dominant narratives. Policy makers
and bureaucrats often observe the current and past current of matters and create
arguments and scenarios that fit these realities and decisions are made afterwards
accordingly. As it is obvious counter narratives shape as a tool to proof the available
narratives wrong and this is done by presenting arguments and story lines that are
contradictory to the ones declared by the narratives. In the following part, the two
main counter narratives against globalization would be introduced.

2.2) The main counter narratives against globalization
It is necessary to define the definition of globalization since there are multiple
definitions available that have similarities as well as differences. Globalization is
defined as ”the development of an increasingly integrated global economy
marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of
cheaper foreign labor markets.”(Merriam Webster, 2013) Most definitions of
globalization agree on the fact that it has led to first, Trade liberalization and second,
free flow and growth of global capital. This paper would also base its arguments on
the basis of these two main notions regarding globalization.

First, The Green counter narrative: The first groups of counter narratives are called
“Green counter narrative” which perceives economic globalization as the first and
foremost contributor to environmental destruction. They criticize WTO as the main
responsible forum since it does not take in to consider environmental concerns in its
24
regulations and policies as much as it is expected to. In order to set an example, The
International Forum on Globalization has the following view point regarding WTO in
one of its publications named Invisible Government:”...environmental havoc
created from this system has reached an unprecedented level. Global
destruction of habitat and species, expanding ozone holes, rapid climate
change, and other results previously noted are all dramatically exacerbated by
a system designed and constructed to place economic values and corporate
self-interest above all other values.”(Barker and Mander, 1999, p.4) They
mainly focus on the known and certain effects of Globalization on the environment
like the ozone depletion, extinction of species, lack of supply in fresh water, highly
polluted oceans and habitat loss. These effects are already present and continue to
affect the environment in the future.

Second, The Ecological counter narrative: The second counter narratives on
globalization are called “Ecological Counter narratives” which put emphasis on the
unknown effects of globalization on the environment. This branch is mainly based on
the precautionary principle which “…is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level
of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case
of risk”. (Europa, 2011). These counter narratives mainly put emphasis on the
unprecedented effects of globalization on the environment which would occur in the
future and there is not a certain agreement on their nature and details in the scientific
community. According to Arrow et al. ”Environmental damages, including loss of
ecological
resilience,
often
occur
abruptly.
They
are
frequently
non
reversible. But abrupt changes can seldom be anticipated from systems of
signals that are typically received by decision-makers in the world today.
25
Moreover, the signals that do exist are often not observed, or are wrongly
interpreted, or are not part of the incentive structure of societies.”(1995,
p.521)
So, “Where the green counter narrative looks at the planet and sees global
certainties and clear processes at work, ecologists know that ecosystems are
inherently complex, and thus the planet must be the most causally complex
ecosystem there is.”(Roe and Eeten, 2004, p.39)

The similarities and differences among the approaches:
As it was mentioned throughout the former parts, the main two counter narratives that
are ”Green counter narratives” and ”Ecological counter narratives” have differentiated
viewpoints in sketching the way globalization, plays as a negative factor regarding the
environment. While the first category focuses on the damages induced to the
environment in the past and at the time, the second category focuses on precautions
regarding the future irreversible harms that are often unpredictable. It is useful to
mention that, the two approaches have some common viewpoints which can be listed
as: First, they both agree on the fact that the environment is being damaged right now
and would be damaged further in the future as well. Second, both do not create
specific guidelines on how to move towards decision making to stop the harm at the
time. Third, they both agree on the fact that, the damages induced to the environment
are intolerable whether the known ones or the unknown future ones. Forth, both
approaches agree on the lack of scientific knowledge regarding the science of climate
change and point to the need for further research in this area. According to Roe and
Eeten, ”If globalization is taking place at an unprecedented rate, and who would
deny this, neither precaution nor opposition tell us much about how to deal
with the current and ongoing environmental dilemmas under massive causal
26
uncertainty. Treating environmental harm seriously means also dealing with it
in
real
time,
when
precaution
and
opposition
are
no
longer
ready
options.”(2004, p.40)

2.3) The philosophical stand point of this work on globalization:
In order to create useful policy responses in environmental domain, it is important to
have an appropriate understanding of Globalization. The philosophical standpoint of
this paper regarding globalization is as follows:

First, there is a need to decrease the harmful effects of Globalization on the
environment at the time. Many scholars believe that, change in trade patterns is
necessary and therefore WTO needs to shift its regulations in order to play a more
highlighted role in environmental protection. In order to support this argument,
“David Morris uses the example of a plastic-wrapped toothpick he came
across in the United States, labeled “made in Japan.” Morris notes that neither
of the key ingredients in a plastic wrapped toothpick, wood and petroleum, are
plentiful in Japan, but they are in the US. They had to be imported to Japan, so
that the resulting product could be in turn sent all the way across the Pacific.
Would it not, the argument goes, makes more sense to make the toothpick in
the United States where it is consumed?”(Barkin, 2003, p.9).

Second, Globalization has to be governed in ways to serve the advantages of the
system as well. It is important to understand the fact that, although Globalization is
viewed as the main contributor to environmental degradation, it can also be used as a
positive factor to stop further harm. . Esty and Ivanova set a useful example as, ”Most
multilateral
environmental
agreements
contain
provisions
related
to
technology transfer as part of the incentive packages for developing countries
to meet their obligations under the conventions ”and ”globalization is fuelled
27
by and plays a central role in the diffusion of technologies”(2004,p.15) So,
globalization is an issue which needs to be dealt with on international level and
therefore a great amount of coordination is needed among the responsible actors.
”Indeed, coordinated pollution control strategies and natural-resourcemanagement standards provide an important set of ground rules for
international commerce, serve as an essential bulwark against market failure
in the international economic system, and make it more likely that
globalization will yield broad benefits.”(Esty and Ivanova, 2004, p.17/18)

2.4) good Global Governance as the ultimate solution
As it was mentioned in the former parts of this chapter, there is a need to stop
environmental degradation even if there is a great amount of uncertainty regarding the
knowledge of climate change. Some environmental issues are capable of being
addressed by national governments while other issues create a demand for
intergovernmental cooperation. Collective action is the best way to reduce the
damages imposed by globalization to the environment as well as managing ways to
use it as a positive factor in environmental protective measures. It is often difficult to
manage coordination on global scale and the reason is”...while the number of
beneficiaries and potential contributors to a global public good may be much
larger than on the national scale, so too is the number of potential contributors
to a public bad.”(Esty and Ivanova, 2004, p.9) So, the ultimate solution is a
powerful global governance structure which”... embraces the totality of
institutions, policies, rules, practices, norms, procedures, and initiatives by
which states and their citizens (indeed, humanity as a whole) try to bring more
predictability, stability, and order to their responses to transnational
28
challenges—such as climate change.....”(UN Intellectual History Project, 2009,
p.2).

2.5) Final remarks
As it was mentioned throughout this chapter, Globalization is considered as the main
contributor to environmental degradation and therefore there is a need to reduce further
harm as soon as possible. Globalization is also considered as a positive factor in
addressing environmental concerns since it makes the transfer of data and technology
easier to the South. So, a great deal of cooperation is needed on global scale to address
complicated issues like climate change which has a trans-boundary characteristic. Global
Governance studies often claim that, by means of their guidelines collective action could
be manifested efficiently. The literature review shows that, all the labels under which
climate change could be addressed which is Security, Global Governance and Ethical
studies promise the same thing. That “same thing” is to reduce the harmful effects of
global warming but the manner in which, each choose to address this concern is highly
differentiated. The findings of this study suggest that, the problem is not about which
label to choose but the manner in which the label is going to be used in the study. A
Global Governance approach would be chosen for the rest of this study, since it gives a lot
of weight to coordination as its way to solve environmental concerns on global scale.
29
 Chapter three: Theoretical frame work of the study
So far, the research question has been pointed out, which is to find “the reasons for lack of
policy efficiency in environmental domain.” The theories of New Institutionalism like any
other theories of International Relations could play two differentiated but interconnected
roles. They could be either used as an explanatory tool in order to describe and explain
the subject area and the current state of matters or can take a normative form. Since the
main concern of this study is to explain the reasons for the status quo, it is conceived that
the descriptive or explanatory aspect of New Institutionalism would be more
beneficial. The normative form of New Institutionalism could be useful in creating
guidelines on how to create efficient policy responses and address the identified concerns.
It is important to notice that, if any kind of change in policy responses is expected to
happen, there is a need to first identify the problematic and dysfunctional areas. Without a
good understanding of “what the problem is and why has it been created”, it would be
impossible to suggest efficient remedies to solve the identified problem. So, in the
following parts the three theories of New Institutionalism which are Historical
Institutionalism, Discursive Institutionalism and Rational Choice Institutionalism will be
used as explanatory tools to describe the reasons for the status quo.

3.1) Introduction
Literature review suggests that, New institutionalism is composed of four different but
strongly linked theories. Three of them which are Historical institutionalism, Rational
choice institutionalism and Sociological institutionalism “developed in reaction to the
behavioral perspectives that were influential during the 1970s and all seek to
elucidate the role that institutions play in the determination of social and political
30
outcomes. However, they paint quite different pictures of the political world.”(Hall
and Taylor, 1996, p.936). In the following sections I would make use of Historical,
Discursive and Rational choice institutionalism to give clear explanations to the research
problem. The reasons for including Discursive Institutionalism instead of Sociological
Institutionalism is that; 1.Literature review shows that the three old theories of New
Institutionalism (HI, SI, RI) are frequently used together by authors while this
combination of two old theories plus Discursive Institutionalism has not been used too
often. 2. Since the main Research method is Discourse Analysis and the assumptions used
by Discursive Institutionalism is highly relevant to the method, I thought it might be
beneficial to choose it over Sociological Institutionalism due to this relevance.

3.2) Historical Institutionalism (HI)
“Historical institutionalism focuses on the way in which historical developments
or the context of a given situation—often in the form of institutions—structures
the current and future developments by influencing the interactions between
actors.”(Vijge, 2010, p.6) They use “path dependency” and “trajectory” in their
assumptions frequently. Path dependency is “Tendency of a past or traditional
practice or preference to continue even if better alternatives are available."
(Business Dictionary, 2012) while, Trajectory is "The way in which a process or
event develops over a period of time." (MacmillanDictionary, 2012). According to
Historical Institutionalism, institutions are capable of making great differences in
environmental trajectory. Hall and Taylor demonstrate this fact clearly when they
perceive"... the institutional organization of the polity or political economy as the
principal factor structuring collective behavior and generating distinctive
outcomes."(1996, p.937)
31
This branch of new institutionalism describes the reasons for the current status of IEG as
follows:

First, during the past thirty years, a considerable increase has been shaped in the total
number of international environmental organizations. While some scholars view this
increase as a promising factor others view it as causing more overlap and duplication
in the whole system. Historical institutionalism points to the fact that, in the
development process of IEG, a need has been shaped for the creation of small
environmental organizations to create more coordination among the existing bodies
and the reason is that, "...this is often much easier than changing or dismantling
old ones, or setting up large new ones (such as a WEO/UNEO) to coordinate
the entire system"(Vijge, 2010, p.7)

Second, power relations and inequalities between the North and south, have direct
influence on IEG reform process. There is a lack of trust dominant in the South,
regarding the reform proposals and they often conceive them as solely serving the
interests of the North. As Van describes "...The impasse has been characterized
by limited agreement on how to implement what has already been agreed – not
least in Cartagena, a widening trust gap, and the lack of a higher level shared
vision for the next decade."(2009, p.1). Since all parties have veto power,
Southern countries are capable of reserving the reform proposals that are not in their
best interest and delay any kind of agreement as much as they favor. The Hegemonic
theory assumptions can explain this situation comprehensively by giving a
comprehensive answer to the question that, (why creating a WEO is so
challenging?) According to this theory the reason is that "...dominant actor is able
to promote institutional arrangements favorable to itself through various forms
of leadership and the manipulation of incentives."(Sunday, 2009, p.120) So if
32
the creation of a new environmental organization is considered as a productive reform
proposal, it should serve the interests of the North as well, otherwise they would not
create such a powerful frame work. It is crystal clear that forming such a forum needs
the powerful states of the North to take the leading role and devote money, energy,
information and whatever it takes to build a new environmental organization.

Third, the power inequality among different international environmental forums also
contributes to some parts of the problem. This power struggle is often referred to as
“turf wars” which is "any dispute in which one party seeks to obtain increased
rights or influence."(The free dictionary, 2013). Many of the organizations that
are dealing with environmental issues cover parts of UNEP's responsibilities and do
not favor to fully follow its guidelines and give more power to this forum than the
amount it already owes. The reason could be that, many of them had taken
responsibilities even before UNEP's establishment, in dealing with environmental
concerns. “These turf wars and the reluctance of organizations to give up part
of their sovereignty, mandate or budget to a new environmental body is part of
the reason for why it is so difficult to substantially reform the IEG
system."(Vijge, 2010, p. 7)

3.3) Discursive Institutionalism (DI)
This branch of new institutionalism focuses mainly on the role, discourse is capable of
playing regarding the political realm. Discourse is referred to as “a connected series of
utterances; a text or conversation” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). Discourse can
enable actors to engage with institutions and gives them power to change or maintain
them as well. According to Vijge, "DI treats institutions not only as given (i.e. as the
33
context in which actors speak, think and act), but also as the result of the very
practices of speaking, thinking and acting." (2010, p.8)

3.3.1) “Interactive processes” and their impact on IEG reform

First, Interactive processes in environmental domain are highly fragmented. As
Marthinus Van Schalkwyk declares during one of the sessions of GMEF, "I believe
that it is not only the system that is fragmented, but also the debate on fixing
the system. This debate has been afloat without a compass on a sea of
uncertainty marked by competing agendas for far too long."(Van, 2009, p.1).
IEG reform debates have spread to different places around the globe which lead to
more inefficiency, lack of UN staff and marginalization of the South. Developing
countries do not have an opportunity to be heard since they are constantly suffering
from poor economic status and lack of financial resources to have an opportunity to be
heard.

Second, there is a great uncertainty among scholars on choosing the most appropriate
reform model. Varieties of models have been proposed on IEG reform but they are
highly different in scope as well as function. NGOs lack necessary means to reach
their full potential and are highly skeptical about the productiveness of these reform
proposals. Whalley and Zissimos express their view regarding reform proposals as,
"Our view is that these calls have not really focused on how to address central
or substantive environmental policy problems, but instead have dealt with
tangential issues, in proposals that are likely to be inconsequential in
impact."(2002, p. 2)

Third, there is a great tendency to recycle decisions in environmental domain. Issues
are often postponed to later negotiations due to the complexity; the whole system is
challenged by. This habit is referred to as recycling the decisions. Old forums pass
34
responsibilities to newer ones and expect them to implement efficiently their reform
proposals. “It shows that over the years, statements regarding
the
IEG
system, its perceived weaknesses and the goals for its reform were, instead
of building up on one another, repeated many times in different agreements
and assessments."(Vijge, 2010, p.9)

3.3.2) considering discourse as different levels of idea
Literature review suggests that, there are three different levels of idea recognized by
scholars in IR field. The first level is the policy solutions which are shaped as remedies to
the identified weaknesses. The second level is the general programs that are functioning as
a base for policy solutions. These programs are consisted of the problematic issues, long
term and short term goals, ideals, norms and the methods that are applied. The third level
is often referred to as sentiments which are “The emotional import of a passage as
distinct from its form of expression.”(The Free Dictionary, 2009) Sentiments are
referred to as, the way in which actors perceive the world around them and are the basis
for first and second level of idea. While the first and second level of idea are normally
discussed and debated among the actors, the third level is like a background that would
hardly be negotiated. (Schmidt, 2008). The second level of idea is often the most
controversial one, since it has had great effects on the whole process of IEG reform. In
order to set an example, while "The US and other JUSCANZ countries (Japan,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are of the opinion that a practical, bottomup, fragmented and decentralized approach with less bureaucracy is the best way
to organize international environmental governance. The EU and its allies on the
other hand favor a more top down and coordinated approach with their proposal
for a more powerful and full-fledged organization for the environment". (Vijge,
2010, p.9-10)
35
The reasons for the current status of the system are described as follows:

First, one of the main controversial issues regarding environmental governance is
financial concerns. It is obvious that in order to strengthen the IEG system, more
money should be dedicated to the system. The controversial fact is that, there is a
great amount of disagreement on first, if there is a need for additional resources at
first place; second, from which sources the money has to be provided and third, the
way financial resources could be spent in an effective manner. As it is apparent
from the mentioned statements, majority of disagreements stem from the first level
of idea or policy solutions. According to Vijge, "Whereas the G77 wants the
focus to be on development and capacity-building in the South with
additional financing provided, the United States is in favor of reform
that makes the UN more cost-effective and efficient without increasing
its budget."(2010, p.11)

Second, another challenging issue is UNEP's actual role and the scale of its
mandate. North and South perceive UNEP differently and therefore expect it to
cover different issues in the domain of its responsibilities. While the North
strongly believes in UNEP as a science based forum, the South emphasizes the
importance of capacity building and the responsibilities, UNEP has to take in this
regard. As it is obvious, this division among North and South is in the domain of
second level of ideas. According to UNEP, The scope of the UNEP mandate was
discussed controversially, and on one hand some States declared the fact that, part
of the draft provisions ought to enlarge UNEP’s mandate while on the other hand,
the rest felt comfortable with the way the draft resolution reflected UNEP
mandate. (2009)
36

Third, the main cause of controversy regarding the best architecture for IEG is
associated with the differences among the first and second level of idea. According
to the Informal consultations of the General Assembly on the institutional
framework for the United Nations' environment work "The Co-Chairs found
themselves in a situation, in which the attempt to move to a decision
increased
the
difficulties
in
finding
consensus."(General Assembly,
2009, p.7). According to Vijge, " the reason for why further consultations in
the immediate future would be unproductive
interests
of
the
UN
Member
was
States
that
were
the
competing
too great to
overcome."(2010, p.11)

3.3.3) Mobilization of bias as the main barrier
Discursive institutionalism defines actor's behavior as a clear manifestation of how they
perceive the world around them. It therefore refuses the claim that, actor's behavior is
fully strategic. Cultural approach has the same logic when it declares that "Culture is
treated as an independent variable; it is imported into the organization through
the membership. Its presence is believed to be revealed in the patterns of
attitudes and actions of individual organization members."(Smircich,1983, p.343).
A term was first developed by Schattschneider in 1960 as “mobilization of bias”, that is
capable of describing the absence of IEG reform clearly. The argument is that, actors are
often resistant to change in organizational system since they feel comfortable with the
system and have mastered ways to use the framework to their own advantage. So it is
obvious that nation states would not give parts of their sovereignty to a strong frame work
like a WEO, whether they are developing or developed states. The unclear point is that, if
actors are resistant to change, then “why have they built plenty of small environmental
forums during several past years?” Vijge gives a comprehensive answer to the
37
mentioned question by declaring that "...out of fear for infringement upon their
national sovereignty, governments have deliberately filled the IEG system with
small,
weak
and
underfunded
international
organizations that
have
overlapping and conflicting mandates."(2010, p.12).

3.4) Rational Choice Institutionalism (RI)
"Instead of a cultural approach, rational choice institutionalism is based on a
calculus approach.
The calculus approach holds that actors behave entirely
instrumentally and in a strategic way in order to maximize the attainment of their
own interests."(Vijge,2010, p.13) According to this branch of new institutionalism,
actors often try to maximize their own preferences and interests in collective action which
ends in outcomes that are below the optimal level. As Hall and Taylor describe the reason
for this situation: "Typically, what prevents the actors from taking a collectivelysuperior course of action is the absence of institutional arrangements that would
guarantee complementary behavior by others."(1996, p.945). So, the whole process
of IEG reform is based on the amount, nation states are willing to create change and
contribute to collective action. The amount of their willingness is also based on whether or
not any kind of reform is going to serve their interests. It is obvious that the creation of a
WEO would not serve the interests of all actors and therefore it is hard to create such a
strong forum with the current lack of political will present in the system. The reasons for
this lack of political will is often described as follows: 1. climate change is not considered
as an urgent issue to be dealt with and security or financial concerns seem to be prioritized
in the system. 2. There is a great lack of public concern regarding environmental issues
since NGOs cannot use their full potential in this domain. 3. The great amount of
uncertainties regarding global warming creates the lack of urgent and effective action.
38
Whether the solution is the creation of a WEO, UN Environment Organization or
organization for Sustainable Development the nation states are the main actors and the
degree of political will and effort they contribute to the system is highly important.
According to Biermann, “…Naturally, a UN Environment Organization as outlined
here cannot solve all problems of environmental degradation. It can only be a
partial contribution. Yet this should not result in a rejection of reform."(2011,
p.12)

3.5) A brief summary
According to Historical institutionalism (HI), there is a desire dominant in the current
state of environmental governance among different responsible bodies to stick to old
patterns of behavior and habits. A need has been identified to create new small forums to
cause coordination among different existing bodies and this is because creating new small
forums is much easier than creating a world environment organization (Vijge, 2010).
Creating a WEO needs great deal of effort from the North while it seems like it is not in
their best interest to create such a forum. Power relations play a great role in the behavior
of the existing environmental bodies since they do not favor to give up parts of their
authority to other stronger forums and therefore try their best to keep their power. In order
to put it simply historical institutionalism refers to one of the assumptions regarding
human behavior that is named comfort zone. As Canfield describes the term clearly,
"Think of your comfort zone as a prison you live in-a largely self-created
prison."(2007, p.70)It seems like the international community and responsible
frameworks prefer to stay in their comfort zone rather than taking action before it is too
late.
39
According to discursive institutionalism (DI), not only institutions have great influences
on actor's behavior and perspectives, actors also have influence on the institutional frame
work the same way. They perceive the reason for lack of any productive reform as
follows: It is difficult to reach a consensus on different reform related subjects like
financial issues due to the great differences between North and South, regarding different
levels of idea. These differences are mainly among the first and second level of idea.
While the second level of idea deals with the actor's perception of the problem, the first
level of ideas is the policy responses they create as remedies to the identified problems. It
is important to note that these different levels of ideas are highly linked to one another and
are impacted by the third level of idea as well, which would rarely be discussed between
the actors. (schimidt, 2008)
Rational choice institutionalism (RI) claims that, actors often behave strategically and try
to maximize their self-interest in every form of collective deal. This view causes
difficulties in reaching consensus and is one of the main reasons for lack of consensus on
the best reform proposal in IEG system. RI views " politics as a series of collective
action dilemmas; “situations in which, because of the absence or insufficiency of
institutional arrangements, actors act to maximize the attainment of their
preferences.(Vijge, 2010, p.13) It is important to note that reform should not be
considered as a miracle that makes the system operate efficiently forever. It has to be
viewed as the first step towards long-term reform plans and international cooperation.
40

Chapter four: Climate Change to be studied under different labels
So far, it has been suggested that globalization has contributed the most to
environmental concerns and it needs to be governed more efficiently. There are
multiple studies that suggest, their guidelines could govern climate change and claim
to know the solution to the current identified problems. So, it could be beneficial to
study each of these labels in details and view in which ways each are supposed to
govern globalization and reduce the harmful effects of global warming. Literature
review suggests that, there are three different kinds of labels under which climate
change could be studied. These labels could be listed as Security studies, Ethical
studies and Global Governance studies. Each of these studies is divided in to
multiple sub-categories and each looks at climate change from a specific angle and
therefore their perceptions of the reality and policy responses could be remarkably
different. Previously, it was suggested that, an efficient global governance approach is
capable of managing globalization since its main focus is on the ways collective
action could be facilitated. This chapter mainly shows the reasons for choosing a
global governance approach and gives a general picture of other labels as well. A
discourse analytic approach will be chosen as the main analytical tool in this chapter
since it is capable of categorizing multiple understandings of the same phenomenon
which is “climate change” in an efficient manner.
 4.1) Security studies of Climate Change

4.1.1) Introduction
Since the late 1990s, a tendency has been shaped among scholars to securitize nontraditional threats such as AIDS and human rights to cause them gain more attention.
United Nation's Security Council considered conflict related risks of climate change, for
41
the first time on 17th of April 2007. Many studies have been formed to investigate the
linkages among security and the changing climate, in the history of environmental studies.
These studies are mainly divided in to two general categories according to the discourseanalytic approach and are “Environmental Conflict Discourse” and “Environmental
Security Discourse”. Since dominant discourses shape the policy responses in every issue
area; there is a great need to clarify which category is more comprehensive and capable of
creating appropriate policy responses in the future.

4.1.2) Discourse Analysis approach
Discourse generally shapes the ways in which actors grasp the definition of the identified
problem and “Discourse analysis examines the narratives used to discuss issues
such as climate change and assumes that the language used in turn shapes the
nature of politics with in an issue area”. (Detraz and Betsill, 2009, p. 304). Some
discourses often become more dominant than others and this is because, actors prefer to
choose specific ways of understanding of the problem over the others. It is obvious that,
Policy responses are shaped to serve the purpose of dominant discourses and therefore
serve the interests of some groups more than the others. A simple review in history of the
debates on linkages among climate change and security shows that, the Environmental
Security Discourse is not a new phenomenon and has been dominant for a long time
period. Some discussions have recently been shaped which put emphasis on the
probability of formation of climate related conflicts and the so called Environmental
Conflict Discourse. So it is important to investigate, whether this emerging discourse is
capable of dominating the future policy proposals and does it add any specific dimension
to the existing concerns covered by “Environmental Security Discourse”.
42

First, the Environmental Conflict Discourse:
This approach tries to investigate the linkages among security and environment in a
narrow manner and mainly deals with traditional concepts of security. It tries to explain
the ways in which environmental degradation leads to formation of violent conflicts
within and outside nation state's borders. Environmental degradation leads to resource
scarcity and has the potential to turn in to violent conflicts among different groups inside
the states. This conflicts when occurred at large scales have the potential to turn in to
conflicts among states, especially when occurred at the same time with other stressing
factors like unprecedented flows of migrants or high levels of population growth. The
Environmental Conflict Discourse conceives nation state as the central actor and therefore
gives weight to state security more than human security. The ultimate solution proposed
by these studies is to form short-term adaptation measures which would minimize the
possibility of violent conflicts within and between states. It is useful to mention the
difference among mitigation and adaptation policies since they could be confusing.
“Climate mitigation is any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the
long-term risk and hazards of climate change to human life, property.” while
“Climate adaptation refers to the ability of a system to adjust to climate change
(including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damage, to take
advantage
of
opportunities,
or
to
cope
with
the
consequences.”(Global
Greenhouse Warning, 2010). Some regions and parts of the globe have the potential to
experience violent conflicts more than others and these are mostly the ones who already
suffer from poor economic conditions and political instability. According to HomerDixon “As a result [of resource scarcities], resource substitution and
conservation tasks will be more urgent, complex, and unpredictable, boosting the
need for many kinds of ingenuity. In other words, these societies will have to be
43
smarter technically and socially—in order to maintain or increase their well-being
in the face of rising scarcities.” (1999, p.26)

Second, the Environmental Security Discourse
As it was mentioned in the previous part, the Environmental Conflict Discourse focuses
on military security or state security while, the Environmental Security Discourse focuses
mainly on human security. According to Kofi Annan, during the international work shop
on human security in Mongolia, the definition of human security is “...far more than the
absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance,
access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has
opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential.”(United Nations, 2000) So,
generally the Environmental Conflict Discourse has a narrower perspective than the
Environmental Security Discourse since its main concern is to prevent violent conflicts.
At first glance, it seems like, the sole concern of Environmental Conflict Discourse which
is military security could be included in the domain of concerns covered by
Environmental Security Studies, since it affects the welfare of human beings as well.
Generally, each of the following discourses prescribes different kinds of policy proposals
and intends to create linkages among security and environment in totally different ways.
Since Environmental Security Discourse investigates the effects of environmental
degradation on human populations, its policies cover a broader range of concerns. It
emphasizes the effectiveness of long term adaptation and mitigation policies. It pays
special attention to the vulnerable communities whether this vulnerability is caused by
their own conduct or natural processes. The Environmental Security Discourse conceives
the ultimate solution as, “This may require a portfolio of governance mechanisms at
different scales, ranging from the local to the global, and involving both state and
44
non-state actors. It may include policies aimed at minimizing human activities that
lead to environmental degradation as well as enhancing the ability of human
populations to adapt to environmental change”.(Detraz and Betsill, 2009, p.308) .
While the Environmental Conflict Discourse favors the creation of short term adaptation
policies to avoid violent conflicts over diminished resources, the Environmental Security
Discourse tries to investigate the main causes of resource scarcity at first place and
addresses their potential effects in the future, through long term adaptation and mitigation
policies.

4.1.3) the history of environmental debates
As it was mentioned throughout the former sections, the discursive frame work of the
debates on environmental issues has direct impact on the policies chosen to address these
concerns. It is important to investigate the discourses that have been shaped the political
debates before 2007 Security Council meeting on climate change and high light the main
discursive shifts before and after 2007. Detraz and Betsill in their interesting piece of
work which is (climate change and environmental security: for whom the discourse
shifts), have traced the history of debates on climate change by going through all the
documents which have been shaped before 2007. According to their claims, they have
reviewed all the documents related to the COP meetings, UNFCCC papers, Kyoto
protocol and IPCC meetings and etc. As they claim, “We conducted several content
and discourse analyses of the historical documents to ascertain whether the
security implications of climate change had been considered before the April 2007
Security Council meeting and which of the discourses linking environment and
security (if any) have informed past international climate change debates”.(Detraz
and Betsill, 2009, p.309)
45
The following points were concluded from their research:

First, climate related conflict has not been considered as the main concern in the
history of environmental debates and it has been viewed as a small part of the whole
range of other concerns. Since different regions would experience the impacts of
global warming differently, generalizations could be misleading but West Africa, Nile
Basin and Central Asia are the ones who would suffer severely from resource scarcity,
which has the potential to cause violent conflicts. Stern describes this notion wisely
when he declares, “climate change is an externality that is global both in its
causes and consequences. Both involve deep inequalities that are relevant for
policy.”(2007, p.33)

Second, climate change has been considered as a threat multiplier and therefore the
parts of the world which have poor economic conditions and lack strong governance
structures are predicted to be the most vulnerable ones. Climate change would
multiply the existing difficulties that are already present and therefore violent conflicts
do not seem impossible in specific parts of the globe.” There are frequent mentions
of how environmental damage caused by climate change will have a negative
impact on vulnerable populations.”(Detraz and Betsill, 2009, p.310)

Third, the 2007 Security Council meeting initiated a new approach in environmental
studies when investigated the links among environmental concerns and security, with
special attention to the possibility of climate related violent conflicts. Human security
has been viewed as the main concern in majority of the studies before 2007 and lack
of access to food and water has been perceived as the main threats to human
wellbeing.

Forth, the 2007 Security Council debate and studies that shaped afterwards, have
mainly dealt with human security as the main concern. Resource deficit and a sudden
46
increase in human population which can be caused by unprecedented flows of
migrants have been recognized as the main factors that could contribute to violent
conflicts. “...We found that slightly more than one-third of the occurrences of
the word “security” made a connection between environmental degradation
and human well-being, especially in terms of adequate access to food and
water.”(Detraz and Betsill, 2009, p.310)

Fifth, the 2007 Security Council meeting has not caused a shift from Environmental
Security Discourse to Environmental Conflict Discourse. It has expanded the range of
discussed issues and includes violent conflict as one of the possible threats to human
wellbeing. It is important to note that, since violent conflict has been added to the
issues covered by Environmental Security Discourse, some degree of change in policy
responses seems necessary and reasonable. So, it should be recognized first, how the
policy proposals could change in the future, in a manner to address the new mentioned
concern (violent conflict) and second, these changes should occur with special
attention to the fact that, the environmental security discourse has to remain the
dominant discourse.

4.1.4) possible future storylines
As it was mentioned throughout the previous parts, creating linkages among
environmental issues and security concerns has been favored for a long time, since it
would be placed in the state of high politics. There are two main scenarios proposed by
scholars in the field, on the future of environmental studies under the security label.
First, Security Council could broaden its peace and security mandate and therefore
include environmental security concerns in its domain of activities. In this case, the
47
Environmental Security Discourse would still be dominant since it covers a broader range
of concerns.
Second, another possible scenario is that, the Security Council could take limited
jurisdiction on the possibility of climate related conflicts. In this case the Environmental
Conflict Discourse seems to receive more attention and therefore a discursive shift seems
unavoidable. It is crystal clear that a discursive shift to Environmental Conflict Discourse
would not be productive and the reason is that, such a shift in discourse would cause a
shift in policy responses and causes short-term adaptation policies to be dominant over
long term mitigation and adaptation measures. As it would be discussed in details later in
this work, the current status of environmental governance is not considered successful and
giving more weight to state security over human security causes the military apparatus of
states to be the main responsible forces in creating peace and security. This may lead to
more injustice considering the most vulnerable ones, since without technological and
informational assistance they are not capable of dealing with environmental disasters on
their own. According to Allenby” the national security community in most countries
is conservative, insular, heavily focused on military threats and challenges,
secretive, and powerful; it also tends to focus on short-term, obvious problems.
Culturally, such security communities are among the least likely to embrace
environmental considerations, and, when they do so, only in a mission-oriented
context.”(2000, p.13) The domination of the Environmental Conflict Discourse would
cause the most vulnerable ones to be seen as the main sources of conflict and instability,
would not create any productive solutions to assist them and pushes them further to the
limits. The rich states would meanwhile devote (whatever it takes) to strengthen their
military capacity in order to confront the possible sources of conflict (the poor states).
48

4.1.5) Final remarks
The two mentioned discourses which were Environmental Security Discourse and
Environmental Conflict Discourse are different due to the manner they perceive the
problem as well as the solutions they propose relatively. This thesis is concerned with the
way climate change is managed on global scale and therefore the Environmental Security
Discourse seems more reasonable to choose. This discourse is mainly concerned with
wellbeing of human beings round the globe and views the solution as cooperation on
global scale among the responsible actors and frame works. The unclear point is that, it
does not address in details how this cooperation has to be managed and what is the
driving force in this regard.
49
 4.2) Ethical studies of climate change
This part mainly deals with Ethical discourses on climate change and the majority of these
discourses put emphasis on Ethical principles as the basis for their claims. In order to
make it simple, this chapter introduces the main principles of Ethics that are extracted
from Ethical discourses on climate change. Some popular and misleading arguments of
anti-ethical discourses would also be introduced through the end of the chapter, since they
often cause misinterpretations and could be highly misleading.

4.2.1) Introduction
For the past three centuries, western countries have neglected the impacts of their
economic growth on the whole ecosystem. The planet was mistakenly perceived as having
the capacity to absorb all human wastes and natural resources were used in a manner that,
they were infinite. Scientists of 21 century, put emphasis on the fact that, we are
extremely dependent on the planet's ecological system and in the case we put its status in
danger, we would not be able to survive on a sick planet. The same attitudes that have
created actions which have caused climate change, are dominating policy responses to
confront it at the time. It has been suggested by many scholars in the field that, ethical
principles are capable of creating effective responses to climate change. Since “Climate
change is already seriously affecting hundreds of millions of people today and in
the next twenty years those affected will likely more than double — making it the
greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time.”(Global humanitarian
forum, 2009, p.2). Most of the studies dealing with climate change put emphasis on
human beings welfare, as the main concern and claim that all people should have “the
right to life, liberty and security of person”, while climate change causes serious
damages to these basic rights. (United Nations, 1984, Article 3)
50

4.2.2) the core principles included in Ethical Environmental Discourses

First, The principles of equity and distributive justice:
The principles of equity and distributive justice have a lot in common and therefore, they
are often studied to gather. The principle of equity mainly points to the fact that “When
two persons have equal status in at least one normatively relevant respect, they
must be treated equally with regard to this respect. This is the generally accepted
“formal equality principle” that Aristotle formulated in reference to Plato: “treat
like cases as like”.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2007)
As an example, if two people are in need of a special kind of medicine and one's need for
medicine (A) is more urgent than the other (B), due to its health status, then it would be
fair if (A) receives more of the medicine than (B). This conduct is acceptable specially,
when giving one person more medicine, does not harm the status of the other one. It is
useful to mention that, mineral resources can be owned by single companies or nations but
global atmosphere does not have the same characteristic. The Greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission that is released by a single state, have impacts on the whole atmosphere and
therefore the impacts of global warming affect all states and the ones that are usually
affected most, are the ones that have
contributed least to the production of GHG
emissions. Developed countries had created high amounts of GHG emissions in long time
period, in order to reach their recent level of prosperity and development. Since the
absorption capacity of the atmosphere is limited, the past over use of this capacity has led
to a very limited capacity at the time being. Ethical thinking supposes that 1. The
remaining capacity should be used mostly by developing and less developed countries to
reach development. 2. Developed countries should aid poor countries by transferring
wealth to these countries and pay the costs of climate change adaptation measures that,
51
these countries ought to take. It is crystal clear that the least developed countries are
fighting daily for their basic needs like food and shelter and therefore creating more GHG
emissions by them; to live a better life seems reasonable. Developed countries normally
claim that, the over use of fossil fuels has been committed by their ancestors and the
present generations should not be expected to take responsibility for what has been done
by former generations in the past. According to O'hara and Abelsohn “... if current
generations in the developed countries claim sole ownership to the assets that
they have inherited from prior generations, then they are also owners of the
liabilities associated with those assets, and they are accountable for the excess
use of atmospheric commons by prior generations.” (2011, p.29)
The contraction and convergence (C&C) approach has been suggested as a solution by
many scholars in the field. “C&C…proposes a scheduled convergence to equal per
person entitlements for everyone on the planet by an agreed date. This way,
convergence reduces the carbon shares of the developed over-emitting countries
sharply until they converge with the (temporarily rising) shares of developing
under emitting countries. The latter will be able to sell their surplus carbon
shares to wealthier nations.”(The global commons institute, 2008. p.9) . In order to
put it simply, while developed countries are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions
because of past over use of their share (contraction), the developing countries are allowed
to increase their GHG emissions because of using less than their share in the past. This
would continue till all nation states whether developed or developing, reach an equitable
per capita entitlement (Convergence).
Another suggestion often used by scholars that contributes to emission reduction in a fair
manner is the so called cap and trade system. “Under a cap-and-trade program, a limit
52
(or "cap") on certain types of emissions or pollutions is set, and companies are
permitted to sell (or "trade") the unused portion of their limits to other companies
that are struggling to comply.”(Investopedia, 2012). Taking the same logic to the
international scale suggests that, developed countries could transfer wealth, technology,
information and adaptive skills to developing and less developed countries and these
measures would be considered when calculating the related GHG emissions of the
developed countries. At first glance this suggestion seems reasonable but some scholars
have opposed this manner of thinking. The main reason is that, some believe if the ethical
approach is to be the base of our discussion, then the rich have an obligation to help the
poor since the wealth and economic status of developed countries has contributed the
most, to the current status of the planet. The developed countries have an obligation to
help the developing ones and it is a matter of obligation but not charity.
So, any ethical policy response should consider the economic status of poor countries and
they should receive allocations of GHG emissions reduction in a way that would be able
to move towards development and prosperity. Any policy response that leads to worsening
the status of marginalized ones is not acceptable from an ethical perspective. (Adam,
Rose, 1998)

Second, the principle of non-maleficence
Non-maleficence generally means not causing harms to others. In order to understand the
way this principle is addressed in ethical approaches some examples might be helpful.
According to the United Nations Environment program, nation states should “ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
(1972, principle 21). This article points to the same fact which non- maleficence
53
principle points to which is not to cause harm to others. According to the United Nations
Frame work Convention on Climate Change “The Parties should protect the climate
system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the
basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities.”(1992, Article 3). This Article points to
the fact that, future generations should be able to use the ecosystem and any kind of
damage at the time that places future generations in difficulty is prohibited. So the
principle of non-maleficence mainly states: 1. nation states should behave in ways that do
not cause harm to other nation states. 2. Future generations have the right to inherit a
healthy planet and therefore the present generation should not over exploit natural
resources and create GHG emissions in levels that harm the well-being of future
generations.

Third, the principle of free and informed consent
According to O'hara and Abelsohn “It follows from the principle of non-maleficence
that no country may put another country or its peoples at grave risk without the
consent of the latter.”(2011, p.35)” The developing countries did not consent to
being burdened with these adverse effects, nor did they cede their portion of the
atmospheric commons to the developed countries that used it for their own
ends.”(2011, p 36). Developing countries have the least influence in negotiations and
policy formation processes considering climate change. They normally do not have full
access to the data which is needed and lack high levels of expertise in order to analyze
data and form policy proposals. Moral based arguments suggest that, when rights of a
specific group are violated, the victims have the right to have access to fruitful remedies.
So, when developing countries are recognized as lacking the necessary means to fight for
54
their rights, wealthier countries have the following responsibilities. They should first,
assist them in any ways that can strengthen their situation to defend their rights. Second,
they should put all of their power in order to give an end to offence at first place.
“No community with a sense of justice, compassion or respect for basic human
rights should accept the current pattern of adaptation. Leaving the world’s
poor to sink or swim with their own meager resources in the face of the threat
posed by climate change is morally wrong.”(Human development Report,
2007/2008, p.26)

4.2.3) the main arguments of anti-ethical environmental discourses
Argument 1: The fear of economic harm causes some amount of delay, regarding
policy responses to climate change: Nation states normally claim that, if they start
the process of GHG emissions reduction, it causes harms to their economic status.
They believe that, any kind of action should be delayed till they could make sure that
there will be no possible harm to their economic status. In order to prove this
argument wrong:
Economic goals are often settled in order to make the lives of human beings better and
serve their interests. Any kind of approach that looks at human beings as means to
achieve economic goals is immoral. According to Amartya Sen, who is a Professor of
Economics in Harvard University and Nobel Laureate in Economics, "Human
development, as an approach, is concerned with what I take to be the basic
development idea: namely, advancing the richness of human life, rather than
the richness of the economy in which human beings live, which is only a part
of it." (Human development reports, 2008)
55
Argument 2: There is a great amount of uncertainty dominant in the field: There
is a lack of certainty dominant in the scientific community, on exact causes and effects
of climate change. So taking the second step towards policy making regarding the
issue, seems difficult and unnecessary. To prove this argument wrong:
To set a clear example, we as human beings are living life in a way that, are often
forced to use the available data and knowledge at the time, to make the best decisions
for the unfolded future. Any kind of delay in creating fruitful policies to deal with
climate change because of lack of knowledge about its details is like, denying a
woman's pregnancy because of lack of information about baby’s exact weight before
birth. (Mckibben, 1989, p.29)
A careful review in IPCC documents shows that, warnings about climate change have
been addressed from early 1990s and even before. Precautions about future difficulties
have also been made clear, but the effectiveness of the policy responses which address
the mentioned warnings is not satisfying. It is crystal clear that, “The Parties should
take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of
climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that
policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so
as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.”(United Nations,
1992, Article 3)
Argument 3: Lack of global consensus creates delays in policy responses, as the
consequence: There is a lack of consensus in the international system considering the
way GHG emission reduction should be allocated. This causes a delay in response to
56
climate change since a global consensus should be achieved first. To prove this
argument wrong:
First, According to Oha'ra and Abelsohn “Their current approach of maintaining
the status quo perpetuates existing inequalities and ignores the harm that the
more vulnerable countries endure due to the adverse effects of climate
change.”(2011, p.42)
Second, it is not acceptable to continue a wrong conduct because there are other
people behaving in the same manner. Developed countries often use this kind of
argument and claim that, they would contribute effectively to emission reduction when
developing countries like India or China do the same. A good example to clarify the
degree of immorality of this argument is that, if your neighbor steals money from
other neighbors, this does not mean that you also have the right to steal money. This
kind of manner does not fit in to ethical thinking in any form or shape.
Argument 4: The hope for innovation of more productive technologies in the
future:
It is obvious that in future, more cost-effective technologies would be
innovated and therefore contributing energy and money to any kind of policy response
that is based on current technologies, is not productive. To prove this argument wrong:
First, According to O'hara and Abelsohn “Even if more effective technologies
might become available in the future, there is a moral obligation to minimize all
present harm, now, to the best of our abilities.”(2011, p.43)
Second, since the developed countries have the duty to retaliate any kind of harm they
have caused to the marginalized ones, any kind of delay in action adds to the penalty.
57

4.2.4) Final remarks
Ethical studies try to influence actor’s behavior by introducing the principles of
Ethics and the ideal form would be that these principles would be applied in policy
making procedures. Some of the concerns of ethical studies such as paying more
attention to the developing countries and their needs are beneficial and need to be
taken more in to consideration. From my understanding, we are living in a world that
is unfortunately not always based on Ethics and Ethical principles and some of the
suggestions introduced by these studies seem more idealistic than realistic. However,
the unclear point is that, how can we create a situation in which; policy makers shape
their decisions with more respect to Ethical principles.
58
 4.3) Global Governance studies of climate change
This part mainly deals with the discourses that study climate change under the global
governance label. The main difference among these discourses is the definition they give
to the term global governance. So, in this part these differentiated meanings would be
described in details.

4.3.1) Introduction
Global Governance is considered as one of the key terms in literature of political science
in 21th century. “According to Frederickson and Smith, Governance refers to the
lateral and inter-institutional relations in administration in the context of the
decline of sovereignty, the decreasing importance of jurisdictional borders and a
general institutional fragmentation.”(United Nations Economic and Social council,
2006, p.2). The term global environmental governance was first addressed by Stockholm
Conference on Human Environment in 1972 and served as the foundation for later studies.
According to this document good environmental governance is defined as “... the
acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by enterprises and
institutions at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts..”(United
Nations Environment Program, 1972). In 1983 Krasner mentioned about (international
environmental regimes) which is quite similar to the definition of (global environmental
governance) in modern studies. He declared the fact that, “It is the infusion of behavior
with principles and norms that distinguishes regime-governed activity in the
international system for more conventional activity, guided exclusively by narrow
calculations of interest.” (p. 3). Modern studies put great emphasis on the interactions
among public and private sector as a method to solve the challenges of 21th century. It is
crystal clear that, from the time scholars started using the term “global governance” until
59
now, there has not been an agreement shaped on the exact definition of the term and
therefore it is beneficial to categorize its available meanings in to certain groups.

4.3.2) the main definitions of Global Governance extracted from relative
Discourses

First, Phenomenological definitions of global governance:
Phenomenological definitions of global governance mainly deal with issues related to
foreign policy or the traditional notions of international relations. They are
consisted of many subcategories but mostly conceive global governance as
“governing without sovereign authority, relationships that transcend national
frontiers. Global governance is doing internationally what governments do at
home.”(Finkelstein, 1995, p.369). The weak point regarding these notions is that,
they do not make clear differences among global governance and traditional notions of
international relations in their studies. Other scholars tend to broaden the definition of
global governance in to a term that includes social and political interactions as well.
As an example, Rosenau declares that “global governance is conceived to include
systems of rule at all levels of human activity- from the family to the
international organization- in which the pursuit of goals through the exercise
of control has transnational repercussions.”(1995, p.13). These definitions often
assume global governance as the synonym for traditional notions of politics and state
sovereignty and therefore can be misleading. According to Wilkinson “Effective
global decision- making thus needs to build upon and influence decisions
taken locally, nationally, and regionally, and to draw on the skills and
resources of a diversity of people and institutions at many levels.” (2005,
60
p.27). So every definition of global governance, in order to be comprehensive and
fruitful, should not serve merely the purpose of traditional studies of world politics
and ought to possess a broader point of view.

Second, Normative definitions of Global Governance
These notions often perceive global governance as a political architecture that is
designed to counteract the negative effects of globalization. As Biermann describes,
“Typically, this involves the call for the creation of new institutions, such as
multilateral treaties and conventions, of new and more effective international
organizations, and of new forms of financial mechanisms to account for the
dependence of current international regimes on the good will of national
governments.”(2004, p.7) This definition of global governance has been mostly
popular among European scholars although American scholars make use of it often
times. According to Gordenker and Weiss “we define global governance as efforts
to bring more orderly and reliable responses to social and political issues that
go beyond capacities of states to address individually.”(1995, p.17). All of the
mentioned studies conceive a political program or plan, as a necessary part of the term
“global governance” and agree on the following: 1. States should not be viewed as the
main drivers of international affairs and their power should be limited. 2. Necessary
actions need to be taken place in order to minimize the power inequalities between the
North and South. According to South Centre in 1997 “in an international community
ridden with inequalities and injustice, institutionalizing “global governance”
without paying careful attention to the question of who wields power, and
61
without adequate safeguards, is tantamount to sanctioning governance of the
many weak by the powerful few.”(p.32)

Third, the Empirical definitions of Global Governance
It is obvious that the term “global governance” should have different characteristics
compared to former notions of the term, in order to be able to address the challenges
of 21th century. According to Biermann “empirically, global governance is defined
by a number of new phenomena of world politics that make the world of today
different from what it used to be in the 1950s.”(2004, p.8)
In traditional studies, nation states received a great deal of attention while modern
studies tend to take in to consider the role of other actors as well. The private sector
like human rights lobby groups, networks of experts and non-governmental
organizations, should become essential parts of the global governance structure. There
should exist multiple layers of rulemaking and implementing bodies that interact with
one another. Due to the intensive effects of globalization such as economic
interdependence, nation states could not be the only influential actors anymore and an
interaction between private and public sphere seems essential. “...The emerging
global governance system is characterized by an increasing segmentation of
different
layers
and
clusters
of
rule-making
and
rule-implementing,
fragmented both vertically between supranational, international, national and
subnational layers of authority and horizontally between different parallel
rule-making systems maintained by different groups of actors. (Biermann,
2004, p.8).
62

4.3.3) Final remarks
As it was mentioned the literature review suggests that, three definitions of Global
Governance are available for studying climate change. The Phenomenological
definitions do not seem efficient since they do not set clear boundaries between Global
Governance and the traditional definitions of world politics and sovereignty. The
Normative and Empirical definitions are more efficient since they take in to consider
the characteristics of the world in 21th century and therefore are more capable of
creating efficient policy responses. As it is obvious what makes the world of 21th
century differentiated is globalization and climate change is also one of the main
consequences of globalization and the opening of national borders. While Normative
definitions view globalization as a negative factor, Empirical definitions tend to have a
broader view and include it as part of the solution as well.
It is time to choose one of the mentioned labels for the rest of the study. The result
from literature review points to the following facts: first, it is wrong to prioritize one
of these studies over another since each label (Security, Ethical or Global Governance)
has its own value and serves specific purposes. So, what makes a study productive or
powerful is the manner in which it is conducted but not the label under which it is
conducted. Second, each label looks at the story (which is climate change) from a
special angle and therefore proposes policies that address its understanding of the
problem. So, each of these labels are designed to serve specific purposes and
choosing one over the others, depends on the purpose and structure of the study as a
whole. As an example, if a study has the purpose to estimate the conflict related
consequences of climate change on national scale, the most appropriate label could be
the Security study or if a study is designed for public education, Ethical label could be
beneficial. For the rest of this study, a Global Governance approach will be chosen
63
since it often claims that, globalization and climate change are issues that need to be
addressed by collective action and this issue has been the main concern of this study.
In order to put it simply this study is about” how to facilitate collective action to
govern globalization and reduce further damage to the environment?” The
remaining unclear point is that “what does a good global governance study look like
and what characteristics it should have?” The characteristics of a good Global
Governance approach would be discussed in details later in the study.
64
 Chapter five: International Environmental Governance (IEG) and
lack of efficiency from the New Institutionalist perspective
As it was suggested in the introductory chapter, the core concern of this thesis is to
explore the reasons for lack of efficient action in environmental domain. Lack of efficient
policy responses is too broad and therefore it has been narrowed down in to two main
categories. These concerns are first, to explain the incremental institutional changes and
second, to explore the reasons behind staying in the status quo or persistence of old
institutional structures while better alternatives are available. The majority of discourses
that study environmental concerns under the New Institutionalist perspective provide
explanations on these two main concerns. These concerns would be the inefficient small
scale institutional changes as well as the reasons behind non-reform. In the following
parts, both of these concerns would be explained in details from the perspective of each
theory of New Institutionalism. This chapter could be considered as the direct interaction
between research question and theoretical frame work.

5.1) A brief history of debates on IEG reform
The history of environmental concerns goes back to the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
United Nations Conference on Human Environment took place in Stockholm in 1972 and
the result was the first Environmental World Summit. In 1992, the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development was shaped in Rio de Janeiro and the result
was the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD).” The outcome
document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)
“The
Future We Want” recognizes the need for significant mobilization of
resources from a variety of sources and the effective use of financing, in order to
65
give strong support to developing countries in their efforts to promote sustainable
development…” (United Nations Sustainable Development Platform, 2013)
Although new bodies were added to the existing structure, dissatisfaction with the whole
system was getting stronger. In 1998, the UN Task Force on Environment and Human
Settlements was formed which pointed to the fact that, the IEG system had serious
coordination deficits and a reform plan was needed for this purpose. In 1992, the United
Nations Environment Management Group (EMG) and Global Ministerial Environment
Forum (GMEF) were added to the existing bodies. In 2002, the third World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) was shaped in Johannesburg which introduced some
options for reform. In 2006, the High-Level Panel on United Nations System-Wide
Coherence was shaped which was an initiative with special focus on creating a stronger
and more efficient UN system. According to the high-level panel, the UN organizations
need to work in a more harmonious manner and UNEP needs to be upgraded which
include the renewal of its mandate. More funding needs to be dedicated to environmental
policies and coordination need to be created among them as a unit. (Ivanova 2007a; Elliot
2005) In the same year the “Delivering as One” report was shaped and afterwards the
general assembly created the informal consultative process on the institutional frame work
for the UN’s environmental activities. It pointed to the fact that”…although there was
consensus that the IEG system needs to be strengthened to improve coordination
and coherence, there was no consensus on how this could be achieved.”(Vijge,
2012, p.161)
In February of 2007, the Paris Conference was shaped and it was
conceived that, the UNEP should be upgraded to the United Nations Environment
Organization (UNEO) and President Jacques Chirac from France was one of the main
supporters of this idea. In 2008, the resolution “strengthening the environmental activities
in the United Nations system” was brought to the attention of General Assembly. In 2009,
66
formal negotiations on the mentioned resolution started to emerge. In February 2009, the
Ambassadors who were leading the negotiations view the progress very slow and
therefore stopped the negotiations in the General Assembly since their usefulness was
highly under question. In February 2009, the Belgrade Process was launched and the
Consultative Group of Ministers was shaped which focused on IEG and its deficiencies.
During one of the sessions of GMEF in 2011, the group considered reform options and
solutions that had been supported the most and the so called “Nairobi Helsinki Outcome”
was developed. In 2012, the “Zero Draft” outcome was shaped and sustainable
development was considered as the main topic of discussion. CSD was also replaced with
“intergovernmental high-level political forum” on sustainable development. UNEP’S role
was also empowered through expanding its membership to universal level as well as
increasing its financial resources.
According to Biermann et al. In spite of the high expectations from Rio+20 conferences
regarding the fact that it would lead to IEG reform, nothing promising came out. Some
delegates supporting the Nairobi-Helsinki outcomes specifically the transformation of
UNEP to UNEO, were highly disappointed. In practice nothing considerable was added to
the current state of matters compared to the previous fora and conferences. (2012) As it is
obvious by the mentioned history, the IEG system has been an issue of concern for long
term and incremental changes have been applied to the system with the hope that they
could be productive. The reality is that these small scale changes have not been very
successful and it seems like the international community favours the persistence of the
existing institutional structures. So, in the next parts of this chapter the three theories of
new institutionalism would be used to describe the following issues. First, the creation of
incremental institutional changes regarding the IEG frame work with special focus on the
inefficiencies caused by these changes. Second, the persistence of current institutional
67
structures in IEG system which can describe the reasons for non-reform or staying in the
status-quo.

5.2) Historical institutionalism

5.2.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Path Dependency:
Path Dependency is useful to describe the occurrence of incremental changes in the IEG
system throughout the years. The manner in which reform has been perceived in the
history of environmental debates has certain effects on actor’s perception of what
reform is. It seems like adding small scale forums to the IEG system in a gradual manner
has become the dominant norm of how to deal with lack of coordination and duplication
in the system. So in order to put it simply, what happens in the system is as follows: if the
system does not work well then the solution is to create a new environmental frame work
with the hope that it would address the identified deficiencies. They are mainly two set of
discourses on small scale changes; while some view these changes as efficient others
perceive them as adding more complexity to the whole system. For example, when it
comes to IEG non reform, it is often claimed that incremental institutional changes could
be worse than staying in the status quo. The main reason is that, these incremental changes
often suppress further essential reform and have a “stacking” effect rather than a
“resolving” effect. (Stone 1972 in Ivanova 2007a) The United Nations University sets a
good example in one of its reports called International Sustainable Development
Governance “Critics have argued that the CSD can create a “decoy effect” by
considering sectoral issues that have been dealt with in more specialist for a for
many years, thereby drawing attention from, or potentially conflicting with, other
international decisions”(2002, p.25)
68

5.2.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of Power
Inequalities:
Historical institutionalism uses the concept “cycle of self-reinforcing activity” to
describe the reasons for non-reform in the IEG system. The newly shaped or added forums
often tend to implement what had already been discussed by the previous forums and this
type of action resembles the so called “merry-go-round”. It seems like the same issues
have been discussed over and over again in different institutional frame works. In order to
set an example, all the institutions agree on the following points: 1. the whole system
needs to be restructured. 2. UNEP mandate needs to be empowered. 3. Overlaps and
duplications among different bodies need to be ended. 4. More cohesion and coherency
need to be created in the IEG system. Historical institutionalism describes the reasons for
lack of action as follows: ”…the path that is created represents stagnation rather
than progress towards decision-making, thereby resulting in persistence rather
than substantial change of the institutional structure, representing what may
perceive as a vicious rather than a virtuous development.”(Vijge, 2012, p.164)
The power inequalities among nation states and specifically the North- South division
have major impacts on IEG reform. It is interesting to know that the most powerful states
of the South often have viewpoints similar to the European Union and view the
establishment of a World Environment Organization as the ultimate reform plan. The
southern nation states often discuss about the creation of an organization for sustainable
development since without aid from the North, they cannot move towards saving the
environment. The reason for the mentioned division of viewpoints among Nation states is
perceived as follows by different scholars:”…First, developing nations are concerned
that an environment organization will take attention away from issues of socio-
69
economic development and thus undermine developmental issues on the
international political agenda.(Vijge, 2012, p.165) Second, developing countries are
often rich in natural resources and fear the idea of the North, perceiving these resources as
“global commons”. They prefer to keep tight their sovereign rights on these resources and
use them towards development. (Biermann, 2002) In order to put it simply, the South fears
that a powerful international environmental organization could be a legitimate frame work
for the North and other powerful southern nation states to impose their wills on them and
push them further more to the margins. So, the differentiated viewpoints among nation
states causes some amount of delay in productive action since reaching an agreement on
what has to be done seems almost impossible.
The so called Turf wars among differentiated international organizations in
environmental arena are also part of the problem. The power struggles among these
institutions has created a condition in which any step towards breaking the status-quo is
extremely difficult. For example many international organizations do not favour to give
parts of their authority to other frame works whether it is UNEP, WEO or UNEO. As
Ivanova puts it “many UN bodies have refused to accept UNEP’s mandate in
regards to overall coordination of environmental activities as they see themselves
as having institutional seniority”(2007, p.352) To sum up, the power struggles among
nation states and different responsible international organizations causes the IEG to be the
way it has been criticised to be for a long time.

5.3) Discursive institutionalism

5.3.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Socialisation
Incremental institutional changes shape due to the fact that, countries cannot obviously do
nothing about current state of IEG system and therefore take small scale reform plans in
70
order to do s.th. As Vijge describes “organizational reform is the cheapest way to let
others think that the UN is doing something. The CSD and the EMG …can thus be
called symbolic outputs.”(2012, p.166) Cultural approach is capable of explaining the
“at least do s.th” norm comprehensively. “…the cultural approach would assert that
establishing symbolic institutions is not necessarily perceived to be in the actors’
own interests, but that these institutions are nevertheless created because actors
are socialised in the institutional context, providing them with the norm to take
action.”(2012, p.166)

5.3.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of
Discursive Processes
Discursive institutionalism also focuses on the reproduction of declarations and proposals
in the IEG system and points to socialisation as an important factor in this regard. Actors
are not only socialised with institutions but with discursive processes as well and it seems
like in IEG system circling around the same ideas is an essential part of discursive
processes. Another characteristic of discursive processes is that, the debate on IEG reform
is too focused on the solution rather than finding the problem beforehand. As Marthinus
van Schalkwyk declares “When I look back on the last decade of IEG and IEG
reform, I have very mixed feelings. On the one hand I feel a strong sense of
achievement – and I will elaborate on this in a moment. But on the other hand I
also feel a strong sense of frustration - frustration with the lack of fundamental
reform, or even incremental progress, in some of our important areas of
work.”(2009, p.1) It seems like after all of the debates on IEG system the sole conclusion
has always been the generalised description that, the IEG system is incoherent and
inefficient. Another characteristic of discursive processes is that they are scattered around
71
the globe which causes high demand of UN Staff as well as incoherencies in the system as
a whole. It is also interesting to know that, most of the discussions on environmental
issues shape in the UN system and the UNEP’s governing council do not have the
authority to decide on environmental issues. So, the UN General Assembly is the only
frame in which environmental policies can be decided and other frame works like GMEF
are too weak to do so but still are reproduced. According to Vijge, “This can explain
why proposals calling for incremental changes are much more dominant than the
ones that advocate a total overhaul of the system or establishment of an
international environmental organisation.”(2012, p.167)

5.4) Rational Choice Institutionalism

5.4.1) Explaining incremental institutional change by means of Collective Action
Dilemmas
Rational Choice Institutionalism makes use of calculus approach in its explanations
regarding actor’s behaviour. They often point to newly established institutional frame
works and reveal the fact that, these institutions are established in ways that actor’s
interests and preferences would be met the most. The same logic follows the UNEP case,
which is a weak frame work that is not capable of fulfilling its mandate. It seems like
nation states would rather keep this frame work weak than improving it to a stronger
forum. In almost the majority of debates on IEG reform, nation stats are more concerned
about their national interests rather than the international environmental concerns. A good
example is the GMEF, in which the membership is narrowed down to environmental
ministers and it is not a surprise when fundamental decisions could not be made in this
frame work. “Applying the rational Institutionalist perspective would suggest that a
suboptimal outcome such as an inefficient IEG structure is in the interest of
72
nation-states
and
international
organizations
that
are
part
of
the
IEG
system.”(Vijge, 2012, p.168) Environmental issues are often not prioritized over other
concerns and nation states do not create a powerful frame work on global scale to deal
with these concerns. The reason is that, it is not in their best interest to give parts of their
authority to such a powerful frame work. Rational Choice Institutionalism perceives the
IEG system as the result of collective action dilemma. According to Soltan, Uslaner and
Hauflar “Typically, what prevents the actors from taking a collectively-superior
course of action is the absence of institutional arrangements that would guarantee
complementary behaviour by others.”(1998, p.22)

5.4.2) Explaining the persistence of institutional structures by means of Calculus
Approach:
Rational Choice Institutionalism suggests that, the best way to deal with collective action
dilemma is to upgrade the IEG institutional structure. Calculus approach on the other
hand, suggests that institutional reform is possible through voluntary agreements among
the actors involved. Improving the current state of the International Environmental
Governance or creating an Environmental Organization needs great amount of “political
will” which is currently missing in the international community. (Najam et al. 2006) IEG
reform is often not considered as an urgent issue and therefore governments give more
weight to other topics such as international security or financial crisis. Rational Choice
Institutionalism suggests that, reform could be highly costly and there are a lot of
uncertainties regarding the best reform option. As an example, France had been one of the
strong supporters of creation of a WEO but it had never considered the funding or staff
demand that is needed to accommodate this reform option. Lack of political will and
motivation is the main reason behind these immature reform proposals.
73
As Vijge describes about an interview with Levy in 2009, he declared that he had
“suspicions that they [the French] see it [pushing for a WEO/UNEO] as a costfree way to be seen on the right sight of environmental debate.”(Vijge, 2012,
p.169) It is interesting to know that, nation states are not the only ones that are worried
about losing their authority to a stronger frame work and the secretariats of environmental
agreements act in the same way. They are often worried about losing their staff or budget
to others with the simple explanation that, duplication should be avoided.
Below a table is provided which is a summary of what has been discussed in this chapter

Source: (Vijge, 2012, p.170)
74

5.5) Concluding remarks:
As it has been emphasized during this chapter, the three theories of New Institutionalism
when combined together in a study play a complementary role towards one another.
These theories have been used to describe first, the reasons for the occurrence of
incremental institutional change in IEG case and second, the reasons behind non-reform or
persistence of inefficient institutional structures. A brief summary of what has been
discussed is as follows:

First, the reasons behind incremental institutional changes:
Historical institutionalism mainly describes the reason for small scale inefficient
institutional changes through path dependency. As it has been discussed before, this kind
of small scale reform has been unproductive since it has caused a great amount of
duplication and coordination deficit in the whole system.
Rational Choice Institutionalism explains incremental institutional changes through
calculus approach. It declares that, states often intentionally create weak institutional
structures since they can keep their autonomy better in such frame works. So the problem
is perceived as the so-called collective action dilemma.
Discursive Institutionalism points to socialization and describes that institutions could
have great impacts on actor’s perception of the problem as well as the solution. The
current institutional structure has shaped the norm of “at least to do s.th” among the
actors and therefore they believe in the fact that, incremental changes are better than nonreform.
75

Second, the reasons behind non-reform or persistence of institutional structures:
Rational Choice Institutionalism uses the calculus approach to explain that, it is not in
actor’s best interest to create an environmental organization. The costs and complexities
that are included in creating such a frame work often makes actors hesitant about it. Many
scholars criticize Rational Choice Institutionalism since it does not take in to consider the
power inequalities and the complexities it creates in the system. Rational Choice
Institutionalism suggests that building an environmental organization is a matter of
voluntary agreement between actors possessing equal power and independent from one
another.
Historical Institutionalism believes that, the view point of Rational Choice
Institutionalism does not cover the whole picture, since powerful actors are capable of
creating great differences. Change can be facilitated through their willingness to create an
environmental organization and contributing financial and human resources when
necessary. So it seems like Historical Institutionalism complements Rational Choice
Institutionalism in this regard rather than contradicting it.
Discursive Institutionalism and the cultural approach suggest that the discursive
processes regarding IEG reform have direct influence on the manner in which reform is
perceived and acted upon. It seems like proposals on incremental institutional change are
much more dominant than the proposals that contain large- scale transformation in IEG
system. Discursive Institutionalism complements Historical Institutionalism’s view point
on recycling the debates in IEG system. It seems like in the institutional structure of IEG a
kind of merry-go- round approach has become the norm of behavior. Therefore the first
thing that actors tend to do when things are not going well is to reproduce the same
assessments and proposals over and over again.
76
 Chapter six: Good Global Governance or Democratic Global
Governance

6.1) Introduction
So far, it has been suggested that today’s world has differentiated characteristics
comparing to the past and it’s due to Globalization. It has been argued that Globalization
needs to be governed efficiently on global scale, since ungoverned Globalization could be
highly harmful. On one hand, lots of effort has been dedicated to the IEG system in order
to make it operate efficiently, on the other hand, the system is not operating on a
satisfactory level or at least it has not been able to reach its full potential. The theories of
New Institutionalism had been used throughout the previous parts, to explain the reasons
for lack of efficiency in this domain. The question that might come to mind is that, “what
characteristics does a good Global Governance system have? Or what is good or
democratic Global Governance?” In the following parts, some basic definitions
regarding Civil Society, Globalization, Democracy and Global Governance would be
provided. Although Globalization and Global Governance have been described in details
previously in this work, it could be useful to have a brief review.

6.2) Building the frame work for analysis
The literature review suggests that, Global Governance, Civil society and Democracy are
three different but highly related assumptions. Where ever an author describes about
Global Governance and its characteristics, the phrase Civil Society appears somewhere in
the text. The reason is that, Civil Society is capable of playing major roles in
77
democratizing the Global Governance system. Following is a brief explanation regarding
each concept:

First, Civil Society: Civil Society like any other notion in political realm has evolved
through time and has changed and improved remarkably. To set some examples, in
16th century British scholars perceived Civil Society as equivalent to nation state while
in current notions it contrasts the state . In 19th century Hegel’s understanding of Civil
Society included the market as well while more modern definitions view it as a nonprofit sector. ( Cohen and Arato, 1992)
The most recent definitions of civil Society often describe it as “… a political space
where voluntary associations explicitly seek to shape the rules (in terms of
specific policies, wider norms and deeper social structures) that govern one or
the other aspect of social life.”(Scholte, 2001, p.6) Civil Society is capable of
having multiple characteristics or functions which could be confusing to some
degrees. As an example, Civil Society groups could have a Radical characteristic
which means that their purpose is radical change of the current state of matters. Others
could have a Reformist characteristic which purpose is a revision in the current state
of matters. Some Civil Society groups could have a Conformist characteristic which
means that their main purpose is to reinforce the existing laws and regulations. It is
interesting to know that sometimes Civil Society groups are capable of having a
mixture of these characteristics. Another interesting aspect of Civil Society is its scale.
In earlier Gramsciam notions, Civil Society is restricted to national scale while in the
globalized world of 21th century this scale has changed considerably. As an example,
a non-western and sometimes district political party anywhere in the world could be
defined as Civil Society.( Hann and Dunn, 1996) So Civil Society and its scale has
78
changed from national to global scale which makes it efficient enough to address
issues like climate change which also have a global characteristic. All in all it is
important to bear in mind “By strict criteria, however, veritable civil society
activities pursue neither public office (so excluding political parties) nor
pecuniary gain (so excluding firms and the commercial mass media).”(Scholte,
2001, p.6)

Second, Democracy: Democracy like civil society or any other notion in political
science has evolved through time and has taken differentiated meanings. In order to
set an example: we have Ancient Athenian democracy, Modern Liberal democracy,
Representative democracy, National democracy and Cosmopolitan democracy. Each
of the mentioned kinds of democracy has their own assumptions and understandings
of what democracy is, but they all share some common ground. As Scholte puts it,
“Through democracy, members of a given public – a demos – take decisions
that shape their destiny jointly, with equal rights and opportunities of
participation, and without arbitrarily imposed constraints on debate.” (2001,
p.7) So, the definition of democracy changes when the context in which it is being
studied, changes as well. Globalization is a phenomenon that has caused great
changes in the world system and therefore there is a need for a reconstructed form of
democracy. This new notion of democracy will be able to address the challenging
issues that are caused due to globalization. (Archibugi and Held, 1995)
All in all, it is interesting to figure out the role this reconstructed form of democracy
could play, in relation to other notions like Civil Society or Global Governance.
79

Third, Globalization or Globality:
As it was discussed earlier in details, there are differentiated view points on
Globalization.
Globalization
is
mainly
defined
as
supraterritoriality
or
deterritorialisation which means, territorial identities and governments still play an
important role in international affairs but less highlighted than before. The result from
literature review shows that, some scholars use the word Globality while others use
Globalization and both of these words share same assumptions to great extent. It
seems like Globality is referred to, the change in social geography or is what
Globalization has grown in to and continues to grow in the future. ( Coleman and
Porter, 2000) For example, telecommunications, climate change, electronic finance or
mass media encompass the world simultaneously and show the fact that Globalization
has also grown in to s.th that was not predictable beforehand. As Scholte puts it “The
point is not that Globality has taken over from territoriality, but that
territoriality no longer has the monopoly on social geography that it exercised
fifty years ago. We no longer live in a territorialist society. Rather, territorial
spaces now co-exist and interrelate with global spaces.”(2001, p.9) So,
Globalization like any other notion has transformed through time and the Globality or
Globalization which the world of 21th century is experiencing has differentiated and
unique characteristics. Therefore it should be considered more than just opening of
national borders but what it has grown in to and the effects this unpredictable
growth has and continue to have on the planet.
It is useful to mention that, the whole humanity does not have the same experience
regarding Globalization. For example, on region level North America, North East Asia
and Western Europe are much more connected to the rest of the world. On class level
80
wealthy people, educated people and professionals use technology and internet more
than the poor and therefore are more connected to the rest of the world.

Forth, Governance:
As it was discussed in the former part, the definition of Globalization has changed
considerably and therefore a change in the word which refers to its regulation is
needed as well. So instead of talking about government or territorialist modes of
regulation, we ought to choose an updated definition which is capable of addressing
globalization in 21th century. The literature review suggests that instead of traditional
notions of government, the notion Governance is expected to regulate globalization in
an efficient manner. (Baylis and Smith, 1997) National governments are not the only
actors in international system and multiple levels of authority have been created. This
is because national governments are not capable of regulating some issues that have
trans-boundary characteristics like climate change on their own. This is because it
does not matter how much a state decreases its GHG emissions while, the neighbor
states are doing nothing about it or increasing their GHG production. It is interesting
that, “States – especially more powerful states – continue to exert considerable
influence over regional and transworld governance arrangements. However,
suprastate mechanisms have also acquired initiatives and impacts that elude
close and constant monitoring and control by national governments .”(Scholte,
2001, p.11)
So, when talking about Global Governance, there is no single authority to refer to and
it is in fact multiple layers of actors or authorities that regulate the world in
cooperation with one another. This cooperation serves the interest of states to great
81
extent since as an example; the global criminal networks help states to reduce crime
within their borders through collaboration with other states.

6.3) Democracy as a challenging issue in Global Governance
Governance on global scale is highly different from territorial forms of governance
and when it comes to governance on global scale, the democracy criteria is often
absent. The governance of global finance, global ecology and global communications
is not democratic since it is not based on the consent of those affected by these
structures. The current global governance in environmental domain lacks
transparency, accountability and consultation which describe well the reasons for the
status quo. Globalization has created a democracy crisis in global governance which
is mainly in form of structural problems or institutional deficiencies. (Held, 1995)

Structural problems
First, it is often mistakenly assumed in the scientific community that, if national
governments regulate their internal affairs with respect to democracy, democratic
global governance would be created as the result. One of the main structural problems
is that, there is a lack of consistency between supraterritorial spaces and territorial
self- determination. Global relations are more complicated than often perceived and
having a bunch of states that regulate their affairs democratically would not
automatically lead to democratic global governance.
Second, a great transformation has been created regarding the perception of demos or
the public. Demos were perceived as people that live their lives in the same nation
state’s borders. So according to this perception of demos, democracy was considered
as self-determination for the nation state and its population. Globalization has created
82
a great transformation in the perception of demos. According to Scholte “As a result,
contemporary world politics involves communities including substate and
transstate ethno-nations (including indigenous peoples) and a host of
transborder
solidarities
(inter
alia
on
lines
of
class,
religion
and
sexuality).”(2001, p.13) So, a cosmopolitan bond has been shaped among the people
round the globe which causes them to consider themselves as part of humanity as a
whole.

Institutional Deficiencies
Considering Democracy on institutional level, there is a great lack when it comes to
intergovernmental institutions. Setting some examples could be beneficial in this
regard. G7 which is the main responsible forum in economic management on global
scale, its seats are mostly occupied by states which their whole population is less than
10 percent of the whole humanity. Other good examples are BIS and OECD which
their rules and regulations have impact on the whole world but many states are
excluded when it comes to its membership. IMF and World Bank have a universal
membership which seems promising at first but the so-called Quota regime is
problematic. The five largest stakeholder states have the privilege to owe 40 percent of
the votes and this is while the 23 states of Francophone Africa owe 1 percent share of
the votes altogether. (IMF, 2001) So, as it was discussed throughout this work
regarding environmental governance, it seems like the concerns regarding
participation and accountability are present in most governance structures. The only
difference is the degree of concern but not whether there is a concern or not. Some
scholars suggest that, like the regional institutions in Central America or Europe,
elected representative assembles could solve the problems of accountability and
83
participation. As Scholte describes, “For one thing, hundreds of millions of
would-be global citizens are not equipped to vote in world-scale competitive
multiparty elections: they have never heard of the agencies concerned, let
alone understand their mandates and modus operandi.” (2001, p.15)
So, the question that comes to mind is that, 1. Is it correct to claim that governance on
global scale is inherently authoritarian? 2. If civil society is supposed to assure democracy
in governance structures, how and in which ways it would do so?

6.4) Civil Society and Democratic Global Governance
It is suggested that, Civil Society has the potential to create good or democratic Global
Governance system; through the measures it is capable of taking. It is also important to
know that, Civil Society like any other notion could be destructive as well. Civil Society
could be viewed as a force that assures the legitimacy criteria of global governance on
one hand and on the other hand its own legitimacy needs to be taken into deep
consideration. The following points explain the ways in which Civil Society could play as
a positive force.
1. Civil Society groups are capable of improving the democratic aspects of Global
Governance through increasing public awareness or public education. The public
are the ones that would be affected by the rules and regulations and therefore need
to have a clear understanding about them. They should be informed regarding laws
and regulations that are trans-world and have a clear understanding of the reasons
for the creation of such regulations. To set some examples, Civil Society groups
can raise public awareness from school level up to higher educational frame works
84
through multiple measures. They can create information kits, visual presentations,
workshops, and websites and circulate newsletters.
2. Another effective measure civil society can take in contributing to a more
democratic Global Governance is through giving voice to stakeholders.
Stakeholder is considered as “a person or group not owning shares in an
enterprise but affected by or having an interest in its operations, such as
the employees, customers, local community, etc.”(Dictionary.com, 2009)
According to Scholte, “In particular, civil society organizations can hand the
microphone to social circles like the poor and women who tend to get a
limited
hearing
through
other
channels
(including
constitutional
representative assemblies).”(2001, p.17) So Civil Society activities can give
power to stakeholders and shift policy making towards participatory democracy.
3. Civil Society groups are capable of adding fuel to the debates on Global
Governance. Democratic Global Governance is manifested through repeated
overview and discussion of differentiated policy proposals. Civil Society can also
provide differentiated methodologies and proposals to address concerns like
climate change. Civil Society participation is essential since they are capable of
making specific concerns more highlighted. As an example, they give a lot of
weight to environmental concerns, poverty issues and debt reduction in the South.
As Scholte claims, “… if we posit that openings for dissent are as necessary
to democracy as securing of consent, then civil society can offer sites for
objection and challenge.”(2001, p.17)
4. Civic mobilization is capable of increasing the transparency aspect of Global
Governance. Often times, the ones that are affected by the policies and regulations
do not have clear understanding of them. They are not aware of the decisions that
85
are made in institutional frame works; do not have a clue about which options
were on the table and why specific policies or regulations have been prioritized
over the others. According to Scholte, “Civic groups can also interrogate the
currently popular official rhetoric of ‘transparency’ by asking critical
questions about what is made transparent, at what time, in what forms,
through what channels, on whose decision, for what purpose, and in whose
interest.”(2001, p.18)
5. Civil society can also have an accountability function which means that through
their activities, they can make the institutions and national governments
accountable for their conducts. They can also play a great role in monitoring the
implementation aspect of rules and regulations. They can estimate the
effectiveness of the policies in question and press for corrective measures.

6.5) Concluding Remarks
As it was mentioned through this chapter, Global Governance, Civil Society and
Globalization are three different but highly related notions. It has been suggested that
Globalization has had huge impacts on the world as a whole and therefore territorial
definitions of government are not capable of regulating it any more. A Global
Governance approach which is composed of multiple layers of actors and decision
makers which operate in a harmonious manner could be the ultimate solution. As it
has been discussed throughout this work the current Global Governance systems
specifically in environmental domain have great deficiencies. Some of these
deficiencies are due to institutional weak points while others are due to structural
problems. It is apparent that, the current status of Governance structures has a
Democracy crisis which means that they lack accountability, transparency and
86
legitimacy. Civil Society groups have promised to play as a remedy to these
deficiencies and make Global Governance more democratic or efficient. The
challenging issue is that while Civil Society groups can assure the legitimacy factor in
Global Governance, their own legitimacy remains under question.
87
 Final Conclusion:
As it has been explained throughout the work, climate change is one of the main threats to the
lives of human beings in 21th century. A brief review in the history of environmental debates
shows that a lot of measures have been taken place in order to improve the current status of the
system. In spite of all of these measures climate change is still a threat which needs to be dealt
with more effectively. It has been argued that, Globalization is the main contributor to climate
change through the opening of national borders. So Globalization needs to be governed in ways
that its negative effects on the environment will be decreased while, it would also be used as a
positive force in environmental protection measures. The main concern of this work has been to
find out the reasons for lack of efficiency in dealing with climate change on global scale.
Theories of New Institutionalism have been used to describe the reasons for the current state of
matters.
Historical
Institutionalism,
Discursive
Institutionalism
and
Rational
choice
Institutionalism provide differentiated reasons for the status quo in environmental domain. They
have been used to gather in this work since they play a complementary role towards one
another. It has been argued that, Globalization has had significant effects on the whole planet and
it has grown in to s.th that was not predictable beforehand. So, in order to govern
environmental issues, a shift in its Global Governance system is needed. This transformation
would create a better or more democratic Environmental Global Governance in the future. One
of the main forces in democratizing Global Governance is Civil Society and the differences it
creates. It is important to realize that, on one hand the Institutional frame work is responsible for
monitoring the conduct of nation states and on the other hand, Civil Society engagement is
needed in order to assure the democratic characteristic of the responsible institutions.
 Bibliography

About.com,
2012,
Environmental
issues
[on
line]
Available
at:
<
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandhealth/a/gw_deaths.htm <[Accessed
date 2012/06/16]

About.com,
2013,
Critical
theory
[online]
Available
http://sociology.about.com/od/C_Index/g/Critical-Theory.htm<[Accessed
at:<
date
2013/06/05]

Adam, Rose, 1998. Burden Sharing and Climate Change Policy beyond Kyoto:
implications for developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 3(3),
(pp 347-409)

Allenby, Braden. R, ( 2000) Environmental Security: Concept and Implementation,
International Political Science Review, 21(1), pages 5–21

Andresen, Steinar, 2007, The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions, Fridtjof
Nansen Institute [online] Available at:< http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/SA-IEA-2007-1.PDF
< [Accessed date 2012/07/04]

Annan. A, Kofi, 2005. In larger freedom: towards development, security and human
rights for all: executive summary of the report of the secretary general. United Nations
publications

Answers,
2012,
Westphalian
state
system
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.answers.com/topic/westphalian-state-system <[ Accesed date 2012/06/21]

Archibugi. D and Held. D (eds),1995, Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New
World Order .Cambridge: Polity

Arrow, Kenneth, et al. 1995, Economic growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment.
Science, New Series, 268(5210), (pp 520- 521)

Attfield, Robin, 2009. Mediated responsibilities, global warming, and the scope of ethics.
Journal of social philosophy, 40(2), (pp 225-236)

Australian Government publishing Service, 1990, Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts
Assessment.
[on
line]
Available
<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_II/ipcc_far_wg_II_full_report.pdf
at:
<[Accessed
date 2012/06/16]

Banister, p , Burman, E, Parker, I, Taylor, M and Tindall, C, 1994, Qualitative methods
in psychology, Bristol: Open University Press
89

Barett, Scott, 2008. Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement. Oxford Review
of Economic Policy, 24(2), (pp 239-258)

Barker, Debi and Mander, Jerry, 1999, Invisible Government, International Forum on
Globalization.
[online]
Available
at:<
http://www.ifg.org/pdf/Invis%20Govt.pdf<
[Accessed date 2013/07/16]

Barkin. J, Samuel, 2003,The counterintuitive relationship between globalization and
climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), (pp 8-13)

Baylis, John and Smith, Steve, 1997, the Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction
to International Relations. Oxford University Press, (pp. 13-30)

Bernstein, Steven, 2005, Globalization and the requirements of good environmental
governance. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 4(3-4), (pp 645- 679)

Biermann, F, 2002, Strenghtening Green Global Governance in a Disparate World
Society: Would a World Environment Organization benefit the South? International
Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2(4), (pp. 297-315)

Biermann, Frank, 2004. Global Environmental Governance: Conceptualization and
Examples, Global Governance Working Paper No 12, [online]. Available at:

<http://glogov.net/images/doc/WP12.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/06/21]

Biermann, Frank, 2011, The case for a United Nations Environment Organization
(UNEO),
Stake
Holder
Forum
[online].
Availavle
at:<
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/WEO%20Biermann%20FINAL.pdf
<
[Accessed date2012/07/21]

Biermann, Frank and Pattberg, Philipp, 2008, Global Environmental Governance: Taking
Stock, Moving Forward, Institute for Environmental studies [online] Available at:
<http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.050707.085733<
[Accessed date 2012/01/23]

Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen , S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., et
al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science,
335, [pp 1306-1307]

Beauchamp, Tom. L and Childress, James. F, 2001, Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th
edition, New York: Oxford University Press

Burn, J. Thomas, 2000, review, Human Ecology Review [online]. Available
at<http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her71/71bookreviews.pdf<
Accessed date 2012/12/10]
90
[

Burrell, Gibson and Morgan, Gareth (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis, Hants: Ashgate

BusinessDictionary.com,
2012,
Globalization
[online]
Available
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/globalization.html
at:
<
<[Accessed
date
[online]Available
at:<
2012/06/29]

BusinessDictionary.com,
2012,
Path
dependency
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/path-dependency.html < [Accessed date
2012/07/16]

Business Dictionary.com, 2012, Verification [online] Available at:<
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/verification.html<
[Accessed
date
2012/07/07]

Business
Dictionary.com,
2012,
Externalities
[online]
Available
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/externalities.html
at:
<
< [Accessed date
2012/06/29]

Canfield, Jack, 2007, the success principles: how to get from where you are to where you
want to be. New York: HarperCollins Publishers

Carter, Chris and Clegg, R. Stewart and Kornberger, Martin, 2008. S-A-P Zapping the
field. Strategic Organization, 6(1), (pp. 107-112)

Charnovitz, Steve, 2002, A world environment organization, United Nation's university
institute of advanced studies project of IEG reform [online]. Available at:<
http://archive.unu.edu/inter-linkages/docs/IEG/Charnovitz.pdf
<
[Accessed
date
2012/07/11]


Cohen, L. Jean and Arato, Andrew, 1992, Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge:
MIT Press
Coleman. D, William and Porter, Tony, 2000. ‘International Institutions, Globalisation
and Democracy: Assessing the Challenges’. Global Society, 14(3), (pp. 388-390)

Detraz, Nicole and Betsill, Michele. M, 2009,
International
Studies
Perspective,
[on
For whom the discourses shifts,
line].
Available
at:
<http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/political_science/shared/political_science/9957/
Detraz%26Betsill%202009.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/06/08]

De Ville, Ferdi, 2011, EUROPEAN UNION REGULATORY POLITICS IN THE
SHADOW OF THE WTO: A CRITICAL HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALIST
PERSPECTIVE, Centre for EU Studies; Department of Political Science; Ghent
91
University, [online]. Available at:< http://www.euce.org/eusa/2011/papers/7i_deville.pdf
< [Accessed date 2012/07/09]

Dictionary.com, 2009, Stakeholder [online] Available at: <
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stakeholder< [Accessed date 2014/05/13]

Dingwerth, Klaus and Pattberg, Philipp, 2006, Global Governance as a perspective on
world
politics,
Global
Governance
12
[online].
at<http://www.glogov.net/images/doc/GG12_2_Dingwerth_Pattberg1.pdf<
Available
[Accessed
date 2012/12/08]

Donald. A, Wilhite, 2001, Drought: A Global Assessment, London: Routledge hazards
and disasters series.

Downing, T. E., and K. Baker. 2000. Drought discourse and vulnerability. Pages 213–230
in D. A. Wilhite, editor. Drought: a global assessment. Routledge, London, UK.

Dupont, Alan, 20078, the strategic implications of climate change. Survival: Global
Politics and Strategy, 50(3), (pp. 29-54)

Education.com,
2012,
Holistic
approach
[online]
Available
at:<
http://www.education.com/definition/holistic-approach/ < [Accessed date 2012/07/21]

Elliot, L. (2005). The United Nations’ record on Environmental Governance: An
assessment. In F. Biermann and S. Bauer (Eds.), A World Environment Organization:
Solution or Threat for effective international Environmental Governance? (pp.27-65).
Burlington, USA: Ashgate

Esty, C. Daniel and Ivanova, Maria, 2004, Globalization and environmental protection: a
global governance perspective, Yale School of Foresty & Environment. Working Paper
No.0402,
[online].
Available
at:
http://envirocenter.yale.edu/uploads/workingpapers/0402%20esty-ivanova.pdf
<
<
[Accessed date 2012/06/29]

Esty, C. Daniel, (2004), Environmental protection in the information age, New York
University Law Review, 79(1), ( pp 115-211)

Esty, C. Daniel, 1994, greening the GATT: Trade, environment and the future,
Washington DC: Institute for International Economics

Etchart, Alejo, 2012, Lessons from GATT/WTO for enhancing UNEP, Stake Holder
Forum,
[online].
Available
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/Lessons%20from%20GATTWTO%20for%20enhancing%20UNEP.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/07/06]
92
at:<

Europa,
2011,
The
precautionary
principle
[online]
Available
at:<
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm<
[Accessed date 2013/07/16]

Finkelstein, S. Lawrence, 1995. what is global governance?.Global Governance, 1(3) ,
(pp 367-372)

Garnaut climate change review, 2011, update paper three: Global emissions trend.
[online]
Available
at:
<
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-
papers/up3-global-emissions-trends.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/07/06]

General Assembly, 2009. informal consultations of the general assembly on the
institutional framework for the united nation's environment work. [online] Available at:<
http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/PDFs/ReportIEG100209.pdf
<
[Accessed
date
2012/07/17]

Gerring, John, 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for?. The American
Political science Review, 98(2)

Ghosh, Arunabha, 2010, Developing countries in the WTO trade policy review
mechanism. World Trade Review, 9(3), (pp 419-455)

Ghosh, Arunabha and Woods Ngaire, 2009, Governing Climate Change: lessons from
other governance regimes. Global Governance Programme, [online]. Available at:<
http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/Working-paper-GhoshWoods-Oct-2009.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/07/07]

Global Greenhouse Warming, 2010, Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, [on line]
Available at : < http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-mitigation-andadaptation.html <[Accessed date 2012/06/08]

Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009. Human Impact Report: Climate Change. [on line]
Available at: <
http://www.ghf-ge.org/human-impact-report.pdf < [Accessed date
2012/06/15]

Gordenker, Leon, and Thomas G. Weiss, (1995).
Pluralizing Global Governance:
Analytical Approaches and Dimensions. Third World Quarterly, 16(3), (pp 17-47)

GRAEGER, NINA, 1996. Review Essay: Environmental security?. Journal of Peace
Search, 33(1), (pp 109-116)

Grof, Tamas, 2009, Greening of Industry under the Montreal protocol, United Nations
Industrial
Development
Organization
93
[online].
Available
at:
<http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Greening_of_industr
y_under_the_Montreal_Protocol.pdf< [Accessed date 2013/02/01]

Gupta, Aarti, 2010,Transparency in global environmental governance: A coming age?.
Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), (pp 1-9)

Haas, M. Peter, 2004, addressing the global governance deficit. Global Environmental
Politics, 4(4), (pp 1-15)

Hall.A, Peter and Taylor. R.C, Rosemary, 1996,Political science and the three new
Institutionalisms,
Political
Studies
[online]
Available
at:<http://chenry.webhost.utexas.edu/core/Course%20Materials/Hall%26TaylorPolStuds/
9705162186.pdf< [Accessed date2013/04/29]

Hann. C and Dunn.E (eds),1996, Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, London:
Routledge

Halden, Peter, 2007, the geopolitics of climate change: challenges to the international
system. [on line] Available at < http://www.foi.se/upload/projects/Africa/FOI-R--2377-SE.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/06/09]

Hall, A. Peter and Rosemary C.R. Taylor, 1996, political science and the three new
institutionalisms. Political Studies, XL(IV), (pp. 936-957)

Held, D, 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to
Cosmopolitan Governance ,Cambridge: Polity

Helm, Dieter and Hepburn, Cameron, 2009, the economics and politics of climate
change. New york: Oxford University Press

Homer-Dixon, Thomas. F. (1999), Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Hotimsky, Samy and Cobb Richard and Bond, Alan, 2006, Contracts or scripts? A
critical review of the application of institutional theories to the study of environmental
change,
Ecology
and
Society
[online].
Available
at:<
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art41/ < [Accessed date 2013/06/18]

Human Development Reports, 2007/2008, fighting climate change: human solidarity in a
divided
world.
[online]
94
Available
at:<
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_Summary_English.pdf< [Accessed date
2013/07/14]

Human development reports, 2008. About human development. [on line] Available at:
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/ < [Accessed date 2012/06/16]

International Monetary Fund, Annual Report 2001, making the Global Economy work for
all. Washington, DC: IMF

International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012, what is sustainable
development? [on line] Available at: < http://www.iisd.org/sd/ < [Accessed date
2012/06/29]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis
report.
[on
line]
Available
at:
<
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf <[Accessed date: 2012/06/15]

IPCC, 1990, Climate Change : IPCC Impacts Assessment ;Report prepared for IPCC by
Working Group II. [online] Available at:<
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_II/ipcc_far_wg_II_full_report.pdf< [Accessed
date 2013/07/14]

IPCC, 2007.A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
Summary
for
Policymakers.[online]
Available
at:<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf< [Accessed date
2013/04/29]

Ivanova, Maria, 2007, Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: a story of
compromise and confrontation, Springer [online] Available at:<
http://environmentalgovernance.org/cms/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/Ivanova_Designing-UNEP_2007.pdf< [Accessed date
2013/12/09]

Ivanova, M.H (2007a). Appendix 3: International Environmental Governance workshop,
session 2: Options and implications. In A. Hoare and Tarasofsky (Eds.), (2007, July).
International Environmental Governance. (pp. 20-33). Report of a Chatam House
Workshop. Chatam House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), London

Investopedia,
2012,
Cap
and
Trade
[on
line]
Available
at:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cap-and-trade.asp <[Accessed date 2012/06/15]
95
<

Jamieson, Dale, 1992. Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, technology &
human values, 17(2), (pp 139-153)

Juez.
Alba,
Laura,
Practice.[online]
2009.Perspectives
Available
on
Discourse
Analysis:
Theory
and
at:<http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-0597-1-
sample.pdf< [Accessed date 2012/04/29]

Karlsson, Sylvia, 2002, The north-south knowledge devide: consequences of global
environmental governance. Global environmental governance [online] Available at:<
http://people.reed.edu/~ahm/Courses/Reed-POL-372-2011S3_IEP/Syllabus/EReadings/06.2/06.2.Karlsson2002The-North-South.pdf
<[Accessed
date 2012/07/18]

Kavalski, Emilian. (2011). From the cold war to global warming: observing complexity
in IR. Political studies review, 9 (1), (pp 1-12)

Krasner, D. Stephen, 1983, International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Langley, Paul, 2001, Transparency in the making of global environmental governance.
Global Society, 15(1), (pp 73-92)

Lynch. Patrick and Holden. T, Mary and, 2004, Choosing the appropriate methodology:
understanding research philosophy, The marketing review [online] Available at:<
http://repository.wit.ie/1466/1/Choosing_the_Appropriate_Methodology_Understanding_
Research_Philosophy_(RIKON_Group).pdf< [Accessed date 2013/01/18]

MacmillanDictionary,
2012,
Trajectory
[online]Available
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/trajectory
<
[Accessed
at:<
date
2012/07/16]

Mahoney, J. 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society 29:507–
548.

Mason, Michael, 2008. Transparency for whom? Information disclosure and power in
global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), (pp 8-13)

McKibben, Bill. 1989, The End of Nature, New York: Random House.

Merriam. B, Sharan, 2002, Introduction to qualitative research, Available at:<
http://stu.westga.edu/~bthibau1/MEDT%208484%20Baylen/introduction_to_qualitative_research/introduction_to_qualitative_research.pd
f< [Accessed date 13/07/30] in Merriam. B, Sharan , 2002, Qualitative research in
practice: examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: JOSSEY-BASS (PP 3-17)
96

Merriam Webster, 2013, Globalization [online]
Available at: <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/globalization< [Accessed date 2013/02/10]

Merriam Webster, 2013, Trust [online] (last time updated 2002) Available at:<
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust< [Accessed date 2013/06/28]

Merriam Webster, 2013, Ontology [online] Available at: < http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ontology< [Accessed date 2013/07/13]

Merriam Webster, 2013, epistemology [online] Available at:< http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/epistemology< [Accessed date 2013/07/13]

Merrick, Elizabeth, 1999, chapter three: An exploration of quality in qualitative research:
are
“reliability”
and
“validity”
relevant?
[online].
Available
at:
<http://gaderummet.dk/Karl%20Marx/Merrick%20-%20An%20Exploration.pdf<
[Accessed date 2013/06/29] in Kopola, Mary and Suzuki. A, Lisa, 1999, “using
qualitative methods in psychology, Sage: London (PP 25-36)

Michalopoulos, Constantine, 2010, THE PARTICIPATION OF THE DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES IN THE WTO, author is the special economic adviser of WTO & on
secondment
from
World
Bank,
[online].
Available
at:
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.8978&rep=rep1&type=p
df < [Accessed date 2012/07/09]

Najam, Adil and Papa, Mihaela and Taiyab, Nadaa, 2006, Global environmental
governance: a reform agenda. [e-book] Manitoba, International Institute for Sustainable
Development. Available at: < http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/geg.pdf < [Accessed date
2012/06/29]

Najam Adil and Christopoulou, Ioli and Moomaw, R. William, 2004, The emergent
system of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), (pp 2335)

Nordås, Ragnhild and Gleditsch. Petter. Nils. (2007). Climate Change and Conflict.
PoliticalGeography, 26(6), (pp. 627–638.)

Office of the high commisioner for human rights, 2007. “Climate Change and Human
Rights”, Address by Ms. Kyung-wha Kang Deputy High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights .[ on line]
Available
at:
<
http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=200&LangID=
E <[Accessed date 2012/06/16]
97

O'hara Patrick. Dennis and Abelsohn .Alan, 2011, Ethical response to climate change,
Ethics and the Environment, 16(1), (pp 25-50)

Oran, R. Young, 2008. The architecture of global environmental governance: Bringing
science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), (pp 14-32)

Our Ocean Planet, 2012, Tragedy of the commons [online] (last time updated August 6TH
2007)
Available
at:<
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-
book/tragedyofthecommons.htm <[Accessed date 2012/06/29]

Oxford
Dictionaries,
2013,
discourse
[online]
Available
at:<
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discourse< [Accessed date 2013/07/14]

Oxford
Dictionaries,
2013,
Narrative
[online]
at:<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/narrative<
Available
[Accessed
date
2013/02/10]

Oxford University Press, 1995, our global neighbourhood: report of the commission on
global
governance.
[press
release]
January
1996,
Available
at:
<http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/chap1.htm < [Accessed date 2012/06/20]

Paterson, Matthew and Humphreys, David and Pettiford Lloyd, 2003. Global
Environmental Politics, 3(2), (pp 1-10)

Paterson, Matthew, 1999. Interpreting trends in global environmental governance.
International Affairs, 75(4), (pp 793-802)

Peshkin. A, 1988, In search of subjectivity-one's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), (pp
17- 22)

Pettigrew. M. Andrew, 1979, on studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(4), (pp. 570-581)

Podesta, John and Ogden, Peter, 2007. The security implications of climate change. The
Washington Quarterly, 31(1), (pp 115-138)

Political Dictionary, 2013, Triangulation [online] (last time updated 2013) Available at:<
http://politicaldictionary.com/words/triangulation/< [Accessed date 2013/06/28]

Powell. W, Walter and DiMaggio. J, Paul, 1991, The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis. Chicago: The university of Chicago press

Riessman. Kohler, Catherine, 2003, Narrative Analysis, Narrative, memory and every
day
life[online]
Available
at:<http://cmsu2.ucmo.edu/public/classes/Baker%20COMM%205820/narrative%20analy
sis.riessman.pdf< [Accessed date 2013/04/29]
98

Roe, Emery and Eeten, Van. Michel, 2004. Three- Not Two- major environmental
counter narratives to Globalization. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), (pp36- 53)

Rosenau, N. James, 1995, governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance,
1(1), ( pp 13-43)

Scheffran, J. (2009), The gathering storm: is climate change a security threat?, Security
Index, 87(2), (pp. 21-31. )

Schimidt, A. Vivien, 2008, Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas
and Discourse. Annual review of political science, 11(1), (pp 303-326)

Schmidt, Gavin and Archer, David , 2009.climate change,Too much of a bad thing,
News and Views, 458(7242),(pp 1117-1118)

Schimitter, C. PHILIPPE, 2002, NEO-NEO FUNCTIONALISM, for publication in:
Wiener, Antje and Thomas Diez, eds. European Integration Theory, oxford: Oxford
university
press
(2003,
in
preperation),
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Schmitter/NeoNeoFun
ctionalismRev.pdf <[Accessed date 2012/06/21]

Scholte. Aart, Jan, 2001, Civil Society and democracy in Global Governance. University
of Warwick, Working paper NO 65(01), (PP. 1-23)

Search Software Quality, 2012, peer review [online](last time updated 2012) Available
at:<http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/peer-review < [Accessed date
2012/07/07]

Security Council SC/9000, 2007. Security Council holds first-ever debate on impact of
climate
change.
[press
release]
17
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9000.doc.htm
April,
Available
at:
<
[Accessed
date
2012/06/08]

Sharma, Ajay, 2011, Global climate change: what has science education got to do with
it?, Science and Education,21(1), (pp33-35)

Siebenhuner, Brend, 2008. Learning in international organizations in global
environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(4), (pp 92-116)

Smircich, Linda, 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28(3), (pp 339-358)

Soltan, Karol and Uslaner. M, Eric and Haufler, Virginia, 1998, Institutions and Social
order. Michigan: University of Michigan
99

South Centre, 1997, For a Strong and Democratic United Nations, A South perspective
on UN reform, 2nd edition, New York: Zed Books ltd

Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, 2007, Equality[on line] Available at:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/ < [Accessed date: 2012/06/15]

Stern, Nicholas. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stinchcombe, A. L. 1968. Constructing social theories. Harcourt, Brace % World, New
York, New York, USA.

Sunday, E. N. Ebaye, 2009, Regimes as mechanisms for social order in international
relations, Center for general studies cross river university of technology; Calaber [online]
Available ar:< http://www.academicjournals.org/ajpsir/pdf/Pdf2009/Apr/Ebaye.pdf <
[Acessed date 2012/07/16]

The
free
Dictionary,
2009,
Sentiment
[online]Available
at:<
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentiment < [Accessed date 2013/07/14]

The free Dictionary, 2012, Reciprocity [online] (last time updated 2012) Available at: <
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reciprocity < [Accessed date 2012/07/11]

The
free
Dictionary,
2013,
turf
war
[online]
Available
at:<
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/turf+war< [Accessed date 2013/07/14]

The Global Commons Institute, 2008. Carbon count down: The campaign for contraction
&
convergence.[on
line]
Available
at:
<
http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Carbon_Countdown.pdf <[Accessed date 2012/06/15]

The International Campaign to ban landmines, 2013, A global network in some 100
countries working for a world free of landmines [online] Available at:<
http://www.icbl.org/intro.php< [Accessed date 2013/07/17]

Transportation Dictionary, 2012, special and differential treatment [online] (last time
updated
2008)
Available
at:<http://www.transportation-
dictionary.org/Special_and_Differential_Treatment] < [Accessed date 2012/07/09]

United Nations, 1948. United Nation's Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. [on line]
Available
at:
<http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.universal.declaration.of.human.rights.1948/portrait.a4.pdf
< [Accessed date 2012/06/15]

United Nations Environment program, 1972, Declaration of the United Nations
Conference
on
the
Human
100
Environment.
[online]
Available
at:<
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentID=97&ArticleID=1
503< [Accessed date 2013/07/14]

United Nations, 1992, report of the united nations conference on environment and
development
[online]
Available
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
at:
<
<
[Accessed
2012/06/15]

United Nations, 1992, The United Nations Frame work Convention on Climate Change.
[online] Available at:< http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf< [Accessed
date 2013/07/15]

United Nations Office at Geneva, 1997, Anti-personnel landmines convention [online]
(last
time
updated
2009)
Available
at:
<
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/CA826818C8330D2BC125718000
4B1B2E?OpenDocument < [Accessed date 2012/07/06]

United Nations, SG/SM/7382, 2000. SECRETARY-GENERAL SALUTES
INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON HUMAN SECURITY IN MONGOLIA. [ press
release] 2000/05/08, Available at:
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000508.sgsm7382.doc.html < [Accessed
date 2012/06/08]

United Nations University, 2002, International Sustainable Development Governance,
The question of reform key issues and proposals.[online] Available at:<
ww.ias.unu.edu/binaries/ISDGFinalReport.pdf< [Accessed date 2013/12/09]

United Nations Economic and social Council, 2006. Definition of basic concepts and
terminologies in governance and public administration. [online] Available at:
<http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022332.pdf <
[Accessed date 2012/06/20]

United Nations Human Rights, 2007, “Climate Change and Human Rights”, Address by
Ms. Kyung-wha Kang Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. [online] Available at:<
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=200&LangID
=E< [Accessed date 2013/07/15]

United Nations Development Program, 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human
solidarity
in
a
divided
world.
101
[on
line]
Available
at:
<
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf
<
[Accessed
date2012/06/15]

United Nations Environment Program, 2009, Annual report; seizing the green
opportunity
[online]
Available
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_2009_ANNUAL_REPORT.pdf<
at:<
[Accessed
date
2013/07/14]

United Nations intellectual history project, 2009, the UN’s role in global
governance, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies.[online] Available at:<
http://www.unhistory.org/briefing/15GlobalGov.pdf< [Accessed date 2013/07/16]

United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, 2010. The ethical
implications of global climate change. [on line]
Available at: < http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001881/188198e.pdf < [Accessed
date 2012/06/19]

United Nations Conference on Sustainable development, 2012, The future we want- zero
draft of the outcome document [online] (last time updated 22 June 2012) Available at:
<http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?menu=144#Vc < [Accessed date 2012/07/11]

United Nations Environment Program, 2012, The World Commission on Dams [online]
Available at: <http://www.unep.org/dams/WCD/ < [Accessed date 2012/06/21]

United Nations Sustainable Development Platform, 2013, Intergovernmental Committee
of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing [online] Available at:<
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1558< [Accessed date
2013/11/07]

Van , M. Schalkwyk, (2009), Keynote address by Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South
African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, at the plenary Ministerial
consultations on International environmental governance: help or hindrance? Twentyfifth session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum,
Nairobi
[online]
Available
at:<
http://www.unep.org/GC/GC25/Docs/Final_UNEP_speech_IEG%5B1%5D_18_feb_09.p
df < [Accessed date 2012/07/16]

Vijge, J. Marjanneke, 2010, Towards a world environment organization: identifying the
barriers to international environmental governance reform, Global Governance working
paper [online] Available at:< http://www.glogov.org/images/doc/WP40.pdf < [Accessed
date 2012/07/16]
102

Vijge. J, Marjanneke, 2012, The promise of new institutionalism: explaining the absence
of a World or United Nations Environment Organization. Wageningen University and
Research Center, 13(1), (pp.153-176)

Voigt, Christina, 2005. from climate change to sustainability: An essay on sustainable
development, legal and ethical choices, Worldviews, 9(1), (pp 112-137)

Whalley, John and Zissimos, Ben, 2002, Making environmental deals: the economic case
for a world environmental organization, Global Environmental Governance [online]
Available
at:<
http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/v-
z/whalley.pdf < [Accessed date 2012/07/17]

Walsh, Russell ,2003, The methods of reflexivity, The Humanistic Psychologist, 31(4),
(pp. 51-66)

Weiss. G, Thomas, 2009, The UN's role in Global Governance, UN Intellectual History
Project,
Briefing
Note
Number
15,
[online].
Available
at:<http://www.unhistory.org/briefing/15GlobalGov.pdf< [Accessed date 2013/02/10]

Wilkinson, Rorden, 2005, the global governance reader. New York: Routledge

Wilkinson, Sue, 1988, the role of reflexivity in feminist psychology, Woman’s studies
international forum, 11(5), (pp. 493-502)

Wolfe, Robert, 2007, Can the Trading System Be Governed? Institutional Implications of
the WTO’s Suspended Animation, The Centre for International Governance Innovation,
[online].
Available
at:
<http://post.queensu.ca/~wolfer/Papers/WolfeWTO.pdf
<
[Accessed date 2012/07/09]

Your
Dictionary,
2012,
prisoner's
dilemma
[online]
Available
http://www.yourdictionary.com/prisoner-s-dilemma < [Accessed date 2012/07/09]
103
at:<