States, coalitions, and the legalization of the global climate regime: negotiations on the post-2020 architecture

References

• Abbott, K.W., et al., 2000. Legalization and world politics: an introduction. International Organization, 54 (3), 401–419. doi:10.1162/002081800551316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, K.W. and Snidal, D., 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54 (3), 421–456. doi:10.1162/002081800551280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldy, J.E., et al. 2003. Addressing cost: the political economy of climate change. In: J.E. Aldy, eds. Beyond Kyoto: advancing the international effort against climate change. Arlington: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 85–110.
   Google Scholar
• Bailer, S. and Weiler, F., 2015. A political economy of positions in climate change negotiations: economic, structural, domestic, and strategic explanations. Review of International Organizations, 10 (1), 43–66. doi:10.1007/s11558-014-9198-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, R., Rittberger, V., and Wagner, W., 1998. Power and power politics: neorealist foreign policy theory and expectations about German foreign policy since unification. Tübinger Arbeistpapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedenforschung, Nr. 30a, Available from: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/47204 [Accessed 15 Oct 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Bélanger, L. and Fontaine-Skronski, K., 2012. ‘Legalization’ in international relations: a conceptual analysis. Social Science Information, 51 (2), 238–262. doi:10.1177/0539018412437110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaxekjaer, L.Ø. and Nielsen, T.D., 2014. Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 15 (6), 751–776. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.965656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodansky, D., 2011. A tale of two architectures: the once and future U.N. climate change regime. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1773865 [Accessed 26 Oct 2015]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1773865
   Google Scholar
• Bodansky, D. and Diringer, E., 2014. Building flexibility and ambition into a 2015 climate agreement. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Available from: http://www.c2es.org/publications/building-flexibility-ambition-2015-climate-agreement [Accessed 25 Oct 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Bodansky, D. and Rajamani, L. 2015. Key legal issues in the 2015 climate negotiations. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Available from: http://www.c2es.org/publications/key-legal-issues-2015-climate-agreement [Accessed 26 Oct 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Boekle, H., Rittberger, V., and Wagner, W., 1999. Norms and foreign policy: constructivist foreign policy theory. Tübinger Arbeistpapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedenforschung, Nr. 34a, Available from: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/47193 [Accessed 15 Oct 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, S., 1997. Dueling realisms. International Organization, 51 (3), 445–477. doi:10.1162/002081897550429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagnet, Y., et al., 2014. Improving transparency and accountability in the post-2020 climate regime: a fair way forward. ACT 2015 Working Papers, Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Dolšak, N., 2009. Climate change policy implementation: a cross-sectional analysis. Review of Policy Research, 26 (5), 551–570. doi:10.1111/ropr.2009.26.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ENB, 2017. Earth negotiation bulletin: climate change (Volume 12). Available from: http://enb.iisd.org/enb/vol12/ [Accessed 14 Mar 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, L., and Amin, A.-L., 2014. Aligning finance to deliver climate ambition and climate resilience in a 2015 climate agreement. ACT 2015 Working Papers, Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Genovese, F., 2014. States’ interests at international climate negotiations: new measures of bargaining positions. Environmental Politics, 23 (4), 610–631. doi:10.1080/09644016.2014.904068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, J., et al., 2000. Legalization and world politics: an introduction. International Organization, 54 (3), 385–399. doi:10.1162/002081800551262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R.O., 1993. Ideas and foreign policy: an analytical framework. In: J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds. Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Grundig, F., 2006. Patterns of international cooperation and the explanatory power of relative gains. International Studies Quarterly, 50 (4), 781–801. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00425.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, W., et al., 2010. The architecture of the global climate regime: a top-down perspective. Climate Policy, 10 (6), 600–614. doi:10.3763/cpol.2010.0161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J. and Roach, B., 2013. Environmental and natural resource economics: a contemporary approach. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, K. and Sundstrom, L.M., 2010. Introduction: global commons, domestic decisions. In: K. Harrison and L.M. Sundstrom, eds. Global commons, domestic decisions: the comparative politics of climate change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., and Rittberger, V., 1997. Theories of international regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herold, A., et al., 2014. The development of climate negotiations in view of Lima (COP 20). European Parliament, Directore General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: economic and Scientific Policy. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/507493/IPOL-ENVI_ET(2013)507493_EN.pdf [Accessed 5 Oct 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Hochstettler, K. and Milkoreit, M., 2015. Responsibilities in transition: emerging powers in climate change negotiations. Global Governance, 21 (2), 205–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhne, N., Li, L., and Larkin, J., 2014. Characteristics of mitigation commitments. ACT 2015 Working Papers, Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hovi, J., Sprinz, D.F., and Underdal, A., 2014. Bottom-up or top-down? In: T.L. Cherry, J. Hovi, and D.M. McEvoy, eds. Toward a new climate agreement: conflict, resolution and governance. London: Routledge, 167–180.
   Google Scholar
• Hurrell, A. and Sengupta, S., 2012. Emerging powers, North-South relations, and global climate politics. International Affairs, 88 (3), 463–484. doi:10.1111/inta.2012.88.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Climate change 2001: mitigation. Available From: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ [Accessed 15 Oct 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Katzenstein, P.J., Jepperson, R.J., and Wendt, A., 1996. Norms, identity, and culture in national security. In: P.J. Katzenstein, R.J. Jepperson, and A. Wendt, eds. The culture of national security: norms and identity in world politics. New York: Columbia Press, 32–75.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig-Archibugi, M., 2004. Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign and security policy. International Organization, 58 (1), 137–174. doi:10.1017/S0020818304581055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Viňa, A.G.M. and Guiano, C.T., 2015. The 2015 climate agreement: concepts and considerations on its legal architecture. Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Legro, J.W. and Moravcsik, A., 1999. Is anybody still a realist? International Security, 24 (2), 5–55. doi:10.1162/016228899560130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesage, D. and van de Graaf, T., eds., 2015. Rising powers and multilateral institutions. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G., 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14 (3), 227–249. doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, J., et al., 2014. Race to the top: driving ambition in the post-2020 international climate agreement. ACT 2015 Working Papers, Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Oberthür, S., 2014. Options for a compliance mechanism in a 2015 climate agreement. ACT 2015 Working Papers, Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Oberthür, S. and Ott, H.E., 1999. The Kyoto protocol: international climate policy for the 21st century. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Okerere, C., 2010. The politics of interstate climate negotiations. In: M.T. Boykov, ed. The politics of climate negotiations: a survey. London: Routledge, 42–61.
   Google Scholar
• Okerere, C.H., Baral, P., and Dagnet, Y., 2015. Options for adaptation and loss & damage in a 2015 climate agreement. Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Transformation 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Pettenger, M.E., ed., 2013. The social construction of climate change: power, knowledge, norms, discourses. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C.H., 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C.H.C., Drass, K.A., and Davey, S., 2006. Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona. Available from: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/software.shtml. [Accessed 15 Jun 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Rittberger, V., Zangl, B., and Kruck, A., 2012. International organization. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C., 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schreus, M.A. and Tiberghien, Y., 2010. European Union leadership in climate change: mitigation through multilevel reinforcement. In: K. Harrison and L. McIntosh Sundstrom, eds. Global commons, domestic decisions: the comparative politics of climate change. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 23–66.
   Google Scholar
• Slapin, J.B., 2008. Bargaining power at Europe’s intergovernmental conferences: testing institutional and intergovernmental theories. International Organization, 62 (1), 131–162. doi:10.1017/S0020818308080053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprinz, D. and Vaahtoranta, T., 1994. The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48 (1), 77–105. doi:10.1017/S0020818300000825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiberghien, Y. and Schreus, M.A., 2010. Climate leadership, Japanese Style: embedded symbolism and Post-2004 Kyoto protocol politics. In: K. Harrison and L. McIntosh Sundstrom, eds. Global commons, domestic decisions: the comparative politics of climate change. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 139–167.
   Google Scholar
• Ulfstein, G. and Voigt, C.H., 2014. Rethinking the legal form and principles of a new climate agreement. In: T.L. Cherry, J. Hovi, and D.M. McEvoy, eds. Toward a new climate agreement: conflict, resolution and governance. London: Routledge, 183–198.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC, 2017. Submissions from parties. Available from: http://unfccc.int/documentation/submissions_from_parties/items/5900.php [Accessed 14 Mar 2017].
   Google Scholar
• van Asselt, H., Sælen, H., and Pauw, P., 2015. Assessment and review under a 2015 climate change agreement. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Available from: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:797336/FULLTEXT01.pdf [Accessed 22 Dec 2015].
   Google Scholar
• van Schaik, L. and Schunz, S., 2012. Explaining EU activism and impact in global politics: is the Union a norm- or interest-driven actor? Journal of Common Market Studies, 50 (1), 169–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vezirgiannidou, S.-E., 2008. The Kyoto agreement and the pursuit of relative gains. Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 40–57. doi:10.1080/09644010701811483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamin, F. and Depledge, J., 2004. The international climate change regime: A guide to rules, institutions, and procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar