Transition coalitions: toward a theory of transformative just transitions
In: Environmental sociology, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 315-330
ISSN: 2325-1042
20 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Environmental sociology, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 315-330
ISSN: 2325-1042
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 63, Heft 2, S. 296-309
ISSN: 1468-2478
In: Review of international political economy, Band 24, Heft 6, S. 1052-1075
ISSN: 1466-4526
In: Global governance: a review of multilateralism and international organizations, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 247-274
ISSN: 1942-6720
In: Global governance: a review of multilateralism and international organizations, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 247-274
ISSN: 2468-0958, 1075-2846
World Affairs Online
In: Global environmental politics, Band 14, Heft 4, S. 75-96
ISSN: 1536-0091
In: GEC-D-23-00816
SSRN
In: Global environmental politics, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 94-116
ISSN: 1536-0091
World Affairs Online
In: Environmental politics, Band 29, Heft 3, S. 435-456
ISSN: 1743-8934
In: Journal of world-systems research, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 372-398
ISSN: 1076-156X
The article examines the changing nature of politics in the United Nations climate negotiations through the lens of ecologically unequal exchange theory, focusing on the lead up to and aftermath of the 2015 Paris negotiations. We identify and discuss three areas of tension that have emerged within the G-77 coalition: tensions within the global semi-periphery, tensions between the semi-periphery and periphery, and tensions within the periphery. Together, these tensions challenge the main link of solidarity in the G-77 coalition: the idea that all countries in the global South share a common predicament in the global system, with the North solely to blame. Drawing upon this case, we offer three related insights to develop ecologically unequal exchange theory. First, theory and empirical work must better consider the role of the semi-periphery, and divisions within the semi-periphery, in reproducing ecologically unequal societies. Second, theory should account for how fragmentation between the periphery and semi-periphery may produce distinct challenges for peripheral states to resist governance forms which intensify ecologically unequal exchange. Third, theory should better account for the ways in which ecologically unequal exchange as mobilized as a collective action frame reflects and diverges from the real-world distribution of environmental goods and bads in the world system.
The article examines the changing nature of politics in the United Nations climate negotiations through the lens of ecologically unequal exchange theory, focusing on the lead up to and aftermath of the 2015 Paris negotiations. We identify and discuss three areas of tension that have emerged within the G-77 coalition: tensions within the global semi-periphery, tensions between the semi-periphery and periphery, and tensions within the periphery. Together, these tensions challenge the main link of solidarity in the G-77 coalition: the idea that all countries in the global South share a common predicament in the global system, with the North solely to blame. Drawing upon this case, we offer three related insights to develop ecologically unequal exchange theory. First, theory and empirical work must better consider the role of the semi-periphery, and divisions within the semi-periphery, in reproducing ecologically unequal societies. Second, theory should account for how fragmentation between the periphery and semi-periphery may produce distinct challenges for peripheral states to resist governance forms which intensify ecologically unequal exchange. Third, theory should better account for the ways in which ecologically unequal exchange as mobilized as a collective action frame reflects and diverges from the real-world distribution of environmental goods and bads in the world system.
BASE
In: Global environmental politics, Band 13, Heft 1, S. 49-68
ISSN: 1536-0091
Finance for developing countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change now tops the international climate negotiation agenda. In this article, we first assess how adaptation finance came to the top of the agenda. Second, drawing upon Amartya Sen's (2010) "realization-focused comparison" theory of justice, we develop a definition of adaptation finance justice based upon the texts of the 1992 UNFCCC and its subsidiary bodies. From this perspective, we assess three main points of contention between countries on both sides of the North-South divide: The Gap in raising the funds, The Wedge in their distribution, and The Dodge in how they are governed. Overall, we argue that while some ambiguity exists, the decisions of the UNFCCC provide a strong basis for a justice-oriented approach to adaptation finance. However, in practice, adaptation finance has reflected developed country interests far more than the principles of justice adopted by Parties.
In: Global environmental politics, Band 13, Heft 1, S. 49-68
ISSN: 1526-3800
World Affairs Online
World Affairs Online
In: Social movement studies: journal of social, cultural and political protest, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 161-176
ISSN: 1474-2837