Fragmentation and diversification of climate change governance in international society
| Author | Eero Palmujoki |
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0047117812473315 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Relations
27(2) 180 –201
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117812473315
ire.sagepub.com
Fragmentation and
diversification of climate
change governance in
international society
Eero Palmujoki
University of Tampere
Abstract
This article examines the discourses on the fragmentation and diversification of environmental
governance through frames offered by the English School (ES) of International Relations (IR)
scholars in order to apply their frame to climate change governance. It argues that the ES
approach emphasises the pluralist starting-points of international law and governance. This
article does not try to analyse pros and cons of fragmentation and diversification; rather, it
examines whether the society is ‘thin’ or ‘thick’ regarding climate change governance. To what
extent can the climate change practices established be spoken of as primary institutions? This is
significant in order to weigh the future developments of governance. In the last section of the
article, this discussion is realised by examining the developments of climate change governance
both within and without the context of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change
(UNFCCC).
Keywords
climate change governance, English School, international society, primary institution, UNFCCC
Introduction
This article examines global climate change governance from the theoretical standpoints
offered by the English School (ES) of International Relations (IR). I am especially
Corresponding author:
Eero Palmujoki, School of management, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland.
Email: eero.palmujoki@uta.fi
473315IRE27210.1177/0047117812473315International RelationsPalmujoki
2013
Article
Palmujoki 181
interested in the fragmentation/diversification discourse that relates to climate change
governance. There are two sources of this discourse that encourage the ES perspective.
First, the debate among international legal scholars on the fragmentation of international
law, which reflects the diverse developments of international society and the attempts at
its legal regulation, forms an important interface with the ES and its recent debates.
Second, there is a discourse in IR (herein called ‘institutionalist’) that is concerned with
the fragmentation of environmental governance. This institutionalist discourse is largely
centred on major projects, including the Global Governance Project (GGP), the
International Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Project and the sub-
sequent Earth System Governance (ESG) Project.1
I believe that the use of ES theory is of great significance in the analysis of the issues
of global climate change governance and the aforementioned discourses for two rea-
sons. The ES is interested in the dynamics of norms, principles and institutions, includ-
ing international law, which constitute international society. Both of its trends, pluralism
and solidarism, focus on rule-based IR as do international law and the institutionalist
approach. Second, recent discussions within the ES have come close to the concept of
governance by amalgamating state and non-state actors in the discussion of interna-
tional and world society. This article is an attempt to examine the issues of the fragmen-
tation/diversification of global governance by taking advantage of these recent
theoretical developments in the ES. It focuses on the disciplinary effort of placing the
ES debate within environmental governance. It does not focus on the way in which
climate change will shape the future distribution of power; this would be an important
part of the ES’s state-based and state-focused practices of order, but it instead pays
attention to the way the practices are moulded in the interaction of climate change gov-
ernance. The ES concepts are used not only to make judgements on the value of frag-
mentation/diversification but also to appraise both the kind of international society
around climate change governance and its developing prospects.
The argument and the content of the article are as follows. In the first section, I
examine the positions that IR institutionalists and international law scholars, both uni-
versalists and pluralists, take on the issues of the fragmentation and diversification
of global governance and international law. I argue that the majority of the IR insti-
tutionalists follow the universalist law scholars’ idea of fragmentation.2 Next, I exam-
ine the nature of international society and world society with reference to different law
scholars’ interpretations, taking advantage of the concept of primary institutions. In
this section, I seek to argue that despite certain vagueness of the ES, its affinity to
pluralist international law interpretation is closer than that of universalists. In the last
section of the article, I apply this discussion to the context of climate change govern-
ance within and without the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in order to establish possible post-Kyoto climate change governance. I
suggest that post-Kyoto climate change governance creates action and establishes
practices by referring to the characteristics of a post-national situation, where the dif-
ferences between intergovernmental, transnational and business/civil-society initia-
tives are blurred. These characteristics refer, in the terms used by the ES, to the
possibility of strengthening world society.
To continue reading
Request your trial