Past research has posited that effective leadership is an essential ingredient in reaching international agreements and overcoming the collective action problems associated with responding to climate change. Despite its fundamental importance for leadership relationships, the demand side of the leadership equation has been comparatively neglected in the literature. In this study, we answer several related questions that are vital for understanding the leadership dynamics that impact the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. Are there any leaders in the field of climate change and, if so, who are they? How do followers select climate leaders? What factors are important to them? Using unique survey data collected at four consecutive United Nations (UN) climate summits, Conference of Parties (COP) 14–17, this article investigates which actors are actually recognized as playing a leadership role in the UNFCCC negotiations and probes how followers select leadership candidates in this issue area. The survey findings reveal a fragmented leadership landscape, with no one clear-cut leader, and spotlight that if an actor seeks to be recognized as a leader, it is crucial to be perceived as being devoted to promoting the common good.
This article utilises a leadership perspective to analyse the ambiguous outcome of the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen (COP-15). Considering follower perspectives and using survey data gives a fuller picture of the importance of leadership in international negotiations and of the role played by leadership the COP-15. In addition to the insights generated concerning the dynamics that led to the Copenhagen Accord, we contribute to the scholarship by illustrating the importance of an analytical framework that incorporates the demand and supply sides of leadership, the interplay of leadership visions and forms, and the fit between these elements. The implications for future UNFCCC climate negotiations are considered. (Environmental Politics / FUB)
There is widespread consensus that effective leadership will be required in order to successfully address the climate change challenge. Presently there are a number of self-proclaimed climate change leaders, but leadership is a relationship between leaders and followers. An actor aspiring to be a leader needs to be recognized as such. Despite its fundamental importance for leadership relationships, the demand side of the leadership equation has been comparatively neglected by past research. In this study we are looking for leaders by analyzing the perceptions of climate change leadership among UNFCCC COP-14 participants. Our results show that the climate change leadership mantle will have to be worn by more than one actor. Among the leadership candidates the EU was most widely recognized as a leader, however, only a small minority reported that they saw the EU as the only leader. The data also show that the US and the G77 thus far have failed to impress potential followers and it was China that clearly emerged as the second strongest leadership candidate.
While some of the future impacts of global environmental change such as some aspects of climate change can be projected and prepared for in advance, other effects are likely to surface as surprises -- that is situations in which the behaviour in a system, or across systems, differs qualitatively from expectations. Here we analyse a set of institutional and political leadership challenges posed by 'cascading' ecological crises: abrupt ecological changes that propagate into societal crises that move through systems and spatial scales. We illustrate their underlying social and ecological drivers, and a range of institutional and political leadership challenges, which have been insufficiently elaborated by either crisis management researchers or institutional scholars. We conclude that even though these sorts of crises have parallels to other contingencies, there are a number of major differences resulting from the combination of a lack of early warnings, abrupt ecological change, and the mismatch between decision-making capabilities and the cross-scale dynamics of social-ecological change. Adapted from the source document.
Global Interactions in the Early Modern Age is an interdisciplinary introduction to cross-cultural encounters in the early modern age (1400–1800) and their influences on the development of world societies. In the aftermath of Mongol expansion across Eurasia, the unprecedented rise of imperial states in the early modern period set in motion interactions between people from around the world. These included new commercial networks, large-scale migration streams, global biological exchanges, and transfers of knowledge across oceans and continents. These in turn wove together the major regions of the world. In an age of extensive cultural, political, military, and economic contact, a host of individuals, companies, tribes, states, and empires were in competition. Yet they also cooperated with one another, leading ultimately to the integration of global space
AbstractThis article examines the nexus between the EU's goal of being a leading actor on the world stage in devising a global solution to the threat of climate change and the performance of its Member States in meeting their climate change obligations. In doing so the article will discuss the concept of EU leadership, examine the modes of leadership the EU has employed in pursuing its climate protection objectives, scrutinize the extent to which EU Member States are actually living up to their Kyoto obligations and analyse how the EU's own performance, credibility and legitimacy in this area affects its aspirations to be a key norm‐entrepreneur in the establishment of a post‐2012 climate change agreement. The article concludes with a balance sheet of some of the Union's key successes and failures and closes by highlighting some potentially inconvenient truths that might frustrate the EU's climate protection aspirations.
This article probes the warning‐response failures that left the city of New Orleans vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes and the inability of local, state, and federal authorities to mount an adequate response to the consequences unleashed by Hurricane Katrina. Through an empirical exploration with the help of three broad explanatory 'cuts' derived from the relevant interdisciplinary literature – psychological, bureau‐organizational, and agenda‐political – the authors seek to shed light on the sources of failure that contributed to the various levels of governments' lack of preparedness and the inadequate collective response to a long‐predicted, upper‐category hurricane. The article concludes by addressing the question of whether the vulnerabilities and problems that contributed to the Katrina failure are amenable to reform.