Contestation in the UNFCCC

Miriam Prys-Hansen, K. Hahn, M. Lellmann, Milan Röseler
{"title":"Contestation in the UNFCCC","authors":"Miriam Prys-Hansen, K. Hahn, M. Lellmann, Milan Röseler","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198843047.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses contestation surrounding the issue of climate finance and its regulation in global climate regime, within the institutional boundaries of the UNFCCC. It focuses on the BRICS and several pivotal NGO coalitions, including the Climate Action Network and the International Chamber of Commerce. Using techniques of qualitative content analysis, the chapter outlines the shifts on positions and conflict lines over time as a result of a change in status of at least some of the BRICS states. While the chapter shows that the BASIC coalition (formed by Brazil, South Africa, India, and China as part of the Copenhagen summit in 2009) has lost cohesion, the results also present the BRICS states as defenders, rather than challengers, of the institutional status quo, particularly when it comes to the continued relevance of the central norm of the UNFCCC original treaty, the ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’. Particularly the conflict over who should take on the responsibility to pay for mitigation divides the community of transnational NGOs, which has been shown to lower their overall impact.","PeriodicalId":346828,"journal":{"name":"Contested World Orders","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contested World Orders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843047.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This chapter analyses contestation surrounding the issue of climate finance and its regulation in global climate regime, within the institutional boundaries of the UNFCCC. It focuses on the BRICS and several pivotal NGO coalitions, including the Climate Action Network and the International Chamber of Commerce. Using techniques of qualitative content analysis, the chapter outlines the shifts on positions and conflict lines over time as a result of a change in status of at least some of the BRICS states. While the chapter shows that the BASIC coalition (formed by Brazil, South Africa, India, and China as part of the Copenhagen summit in 2009) has lost cohesion, the results also present the BRICS states as defenders, rather than challengers, of the institutional status quo, particularly when it comes to the continued relevance of the central norm of the UNFCCC original treaty, the ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’. Particularly the conflict over who should take on the responsibility to pay for mitigation divides the community of transnational NGOs, which has been shown to lower their overall impact.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《联合国气候变化框架公约》中的争论
本章分析了在《联合国气候变化框架公约》的制度范围内围绕气候融资问题及其在全球气候制度中的监管的争论。它的重点是金砖国家和几个关键的非政府组织联盟,包括气候行动网络和国际商会。本章使用定性内容分析技术,概述了至少部分金砖国家地位变化所导致的立场和冲突线随时间的变化。虽然这一章表明,“基础四国”联盟(由巴西、南非、印度和中国组成,是2009年哥本哈根峰会的一部分)已经失去凝聚力,但结果也表明,金砖国家是制度现状的捍卫者,而不是挑战者,特别是当涉及到《联合国气候变化框架公约》原始条约的核心规范“共同但有区别的责任”的持续相关性时。特别是在谁应该承担缓解责任的问题上,跨国非政府组织之间产生了分歧,事实证明,这种分歧降低了它们的总体影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contestation Overshoot Rising Powers, NGOs, and Demands for New World Orders The Contestation of the IMF Cleavages in World Politics Conclusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1