| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
142876
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The ability of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to negotiate an effective agreement for the post-2020 period is highly dependent on whether developing countries should take on binding mitigation commitments. This analysis combines an historical with a discursive institutionalist perspective to trace the conflict around developing country mitigation that accompanies the climate change regime since its inception. The article shows that early decisions on the subject matter shaped the regime until now. At the same time, the discourse and more recent decisions concerning developing country mitigation indicate gradual changes nevertheless. In particular, the Conferences of the Parties in Bali 2007 and Durban 2011 produced outcomes that changed the institutional architecture of the regime significantly. The development of the climate regime regarding developing country mitigation is hence marked by both periods of change and stasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178563
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negoti- ations, India has repeatedly pushed for urgent international action on climate change, while simultaneously refusing to limit its own emissions, frustrating other participating countries. The extant economic and strategic interest-based expla- nations do not sufficiently explain some key anomalies in India’s international climate policy and have justified such contradictions in India’s diplomatic dis- course as realpolitik or pragmatic diplomacy. We argue that in order to facilitate India’s meaningful participation in the international climate change regime, we need to engage with these contradictions and understand India’s aspirations for moral and material leadership that stem from the complex interaction between economic and strategic interests and ideational factors. We posit that India’s anti-colonial discourse that repudiated Western materialism, along with its de- sire to be a moral power in global politics coupled with its desire to mimic the western standard of living, creates a development dilemma for India’s postcolo- nial identity in the global climate change regime. India’s continuous attempt to resolve this dilemma has produced specific frames–projecting itself as a victim, mistrust of the West, framing the Earth’s CO2 carrying capacity as extended sovereign territory, and national exceptionalism–in the climate change discourse. These frames are consistent with India’s broader foreign policy discourse as a postcolonial nation and have coalesced India’s claim to moral leadership, seek commitments from developed countries to do their part, and simultaneously play- ing a limited role in the international climate regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|