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