Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article elaborates on the place of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also known as Rio+20) in a forty-year trajectory of international sustainable development negotiations, particularly through the processes placed in motion during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit event. The negotiation of the final UNCSD document also can be evaluated in its own right, and the article examines this process in the second section, keeping in mind the negotiating system in which the talks took place. The final section focuses on the process as a post-agreement negotiation and considers the role of the twenty-year milestone negotiations in shaping the sustainable development regime. The article explores in particular the role that consensus negotiated agreements have played as the regime's decision-making procedure, and how this procedure has faltered as the complexity – including the number of issues, actors and obligations incorporated into the regime – has increased. Two elements from the Rio+20 outcome – a "take-it-or-change-it" facilitation approach of the Brazilian hosts and the adoption of a process to create "sustainable development goals" as a different means to focus international expectations – are presented as new directions for decision making in the regime's next rounds of regime governance and regime adjustment negotiations.

This article elaborates on the place of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also known as Rio+20) in a forty-year trajectory of international sustainable development negotiations, particularly through the processes placed in motion during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit event. The negotiation of the final UNCSD document also can be evaluated in its own right, and the article examines this process in the second section, keeping in mind the negotiating system in which the talks took place. The final section focuses on the process as a post-agreement negotiation and considers the role of the twenty-year milestone negotiations in shaping the sustainable development regime. The article explores in particular the role that consensus negotiated agreements have played as the regime's decision-making procedure, and how this procedure has faltered as the complexity -- including the number of issues, actors and obligations incorporated into the regime -- has increased. Two elements from the Rio+20 outcome -- a 'take-it-or-change-it' facilitation approach of the Brazilian hosts and the adoption of a process to create 'sustainable development goals' as a different means to focus international expectations -- are presented as new directions for decision making in the regime's next rounds of regime governance and regime adjustment negotiations. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) Deborah Saunders Davenport, Global Environmental Negotiations and U. S. Interests (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006); (2) Matthew J. Hoffmann, Ozone Depletion and Climate Change: Constructing a Global Response (Albany, NY: State U New York Press, 2005); & (3) David Humphreys, Logjam: Deforestation and the Crisis of Global Governance (London: Earthscan, 2006).

AbstractThis article analyzes negotiations in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention to Combat Desertification and focuses on discussions related to technology transfers from the North to the South. These transfers and the financial flows that the private sector could bring with it are closely related to what was believed to be a bargain reached in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. During subsequent negotiations, delegates from developed and developing countries have followed a fairly predictable 'script' on these issues – developed countries generally insist that the private sector, as the owner of the technology, must be involved in its transfer, while developing countries have insisted the governments of developed countries should honor their past commitments and promote these transfers. This study describes the development of the script under the three negotiating bodies at Rio, examines the variables that have contributed to the development of the script and, based on this analysis, identifies opportunities to move the talks forward.

Attaining durable peace (DP) after a civil war has proven to be a major challenge, as many negotiated agreements lapse into violence. How can negotiations to terminate civil wars be conducted and peace agreements formulated to contribute to lasting peace? This question is addressed in this study with a novel data set. Focusing on justice, we assess relationships between process (procedural justice [PJ]) and outcome (distributive justice [DJ]) justice on the one hand and stable agreements (SA) and DP on the other. Analyses of fifty peace agreements, which were reached from 1957 to 2008, showed a path from PJ to DJ to SA to DP: The justice variables were instrumental in enhancing both short- and long-term peace. These variables had a stronger impact on DP than a variety of contextual- and case-related factors. The empirical link between justice and peace has implications for the way that peace negotiations are structured.

This article draws on principal-agent theories in the international organization literature and postagreement negotiation analysis in the negotiation literature to examine a case of international development negotiations among parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The role of the 'collective principal' - the negotiating body of state actors that creates an international organization - is described and the analysis examines subsequent negotiations when the parties, as principal, do not coalesce into a collective actor regarding the mandate for the organization - or agent - they created. The article suggests that postagreement negotiation analysis provides an understanding of the vehicle through which the 'principal' provides 'collective' oversight of the agent, and examines what we label the 'regime interpretation' negotiations involved with this case. Adapted from the source document.

"Forests and Desertification" published on by Oxford University Press.