Abstract
We start with two puzzles: first, how to explain the European Union (EU)'s decline as a climate change leader at the Copenhagen summit? Second, how to understand the partial revival of its leadership position at the Durban climate summit? We advance a twofold explanation, focusing on changes in relative power relations among major powers but also on negotiation strategies and coalition building. In Copenhagen, the EU had a normative agenda and unrealistic expectations and thereby failed to forge any bridge-building coalitions. In Durban, it had moved towards a pragmatic strategy, attuned to the realities of changing power constellations. The EU approached developing countries that shared its desire for a legally binding regime covering all major emitters and probed compromises with veto players, such as China and the US. This bridge-building strategy was combined with a conditional pledge to agree to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol. In sum, the EU acted as a ‘leadiator’, a leader-cum-mediator.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the JEPP referees for their constructive comments.
Additional information
Karin Bäckstrand and Ole Elgstrüm are Professors in the Department of Political Science at Lund University, Sweden.