Country differentiation in the global environmental context: Who is ‘developing’ and according to what?

Author:

Farias Deborah Barros LealORCID

Abstract

AbstractSeveral multilateral treaties and International Governmental Organizations have introduced different legal obligations for countries based on the developing/developed (or equivalent) dichotomy. Such differentiation can (re)produce a range of material and symbolic consequences for those labelled developing or developed. Much has been researched about this topic in the environmental regime yet an important gap remains: what does this differentiation look like empirically? This article answers this question through a qualitative analysis that compares about two dozen multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) on (1) how they specify what makes a country be developing (or not) and (2) the result of this choice, that is, exactly which countries are labelled developing under each MEA. The research reveals at least four important points: (1) the absence of any converging approach to classifying countries in the global environmental context; (2) almost 1 out of 4 countries in the world have mixed classification (developing or developed depending on the MEA); (3) ‘switching’ groups is relatively infrequent, but can be both moving to or away from the developing label; and (4) most countries with mixed classifications appear to be comfortable in the situation. This research contributes to a finer-grained understanding of differentiation in global environmental governance.

Funder

University of New South Wales

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Political Science and International Relations,Economics and Econometrics

Reference56 articles.

1. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.

2. Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., Koubi, V., & Spilker, G. (2013). Is there a “Depth versus Participation” Dilemma in International Cooperation? Review of International Organizations, 8, 477–497.

3. Blaxekjær, L., & Nielsen, T. D. (2015). Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 15(6), 751–766.

4. Bodansky, D. (1993). The United Nations framework convention on climate change: A commentary. Yale Journal of International Law, 18, 451–558.

5. Bortscheller, M. J. (2009). Equitable but ineffective: How the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities hobbles the global fight against climate change. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 10, 49.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3