Three Models of Global Climate Governance: From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12617 |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
Three Models of Global Climate Governance:
From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond
David Held
Durham University
Charles Roger
Institut Barcelona d‘Estudis Internacionals
Abstract
The Paris Agreement has emerged as one of the world’s most important international treaties. Many believe that it offers a
new approach to the problem of climate change, can contribute significantly to the goal of reducing emissions, and may hold
lessons for how to govern other cross-border issues. As a result, it has been the focus of considerable debate among scholars
and policy makers. But how precisely does Paris seek to govern global warming and is it likely to work in practice? We
address this question by contrasting the Paris ‘model’of climate governance with earlier ones associated with the Kyoto Pro-
tocol and Copenhagen Accord. These models have taken different approaches to the problem of governing climate change,
each with attendant advantages and limitations. The Paris model advances upon earlier efforts in certain respects, but also
blends elements from earlier models. We then lay out the central axes of the debate that has emerged about the future of
the Paris model, and discuss research illuminating how it may operate in practice. The agreement’s success will depend on
how the agreement is implemented, and on how the UNFCCC process interacts with the complementary approaches to cli-
mate governance appearing beyond it.
Policy Implications
•A holistic approach is needed in order to understand the Paris Agreement; that is, what is distinctive and important about
it can only be grasped within the historical context of the climate negotiations and shifts in the central axes of climate
policy dialogue.
•While the Paris Agreement is concluded, the ‘rulebook’in which it is to be embedded has yet to be written. It is impera-
tive now to focus on how the transparency mechanisms, compliance mechanisms and the regular global stocktake will
operate in practice.
•The development of a dynamic global climate governance ‘ecosystem’, including further elaboration of the UNFCCC pro-
cess and specification of the role of nonstate actors, from cities to multinational corporations, in meeting climate goals, is
essential in order for the Paris Agreement to succeed.
•Civil society groups need to adjust their advocacy and advisory activities towards a focus on the implementation and
operationalization processes that are ongoing at the international level.
The Paris Agreement is the most important international
treaty to be reached by the global community in recent
years. The problem it seeks to address is arguably the most
pressing and difficult issue of our time. Left uncontrolled,
climate change will have vast and deeply disruptive implica-
tions for humankind across the world. To forestall the worst
of these, radical action to lower global emissions is urgently
needed (Stern, 2009). Yet, to do so, states must resolve an
immensely challenging –some say ‘wicked’–collective
action problem (Barrett, 2008; Levin et al., 2012). Largely,
due to the complexities involved, made even more intract-
able by disagreements over historical injustices and respon-
sibility for global warming, the negotiations under the
(UNFCCC) stagnated for over twenty years (Gupta, 2014). In
2015, however, states managed to overcome some of their
most important differences, adopting a new mechanism for
limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that was more
ambitious than many had expected.
By breaking the cycle of inaction, the Paris Agreement
undoubtedly marked a turning point in the climate regime.
After years of delay and the apparent breakdown of negoti-
ations at Copenhagen, climate governance has been put on
a new footing. It has shifted from a negotiation phase to
one focused more squarely on articulating and implement-
ing what states have agreed. However, what makes the Paris
Agreement even more notable is the fact that it was negoti-
ated within an international context characterized by ‘grid-
lock’and mounting global risks (Hale et al., 2013; Held and
Roger, 2013). Climate change is, in fact, only one of many
major contemporary cross-border issues, including financial
crises, nuclear proliferation and global pandemics, that seem
Global Policy (2018) 9:4 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12617 ©2018 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 9 . Issue 4 . November 2018 527
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial