Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consensus rationales in negotiating historical responsibility for climate change
Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research . Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, Sweden .ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1912-5538
2016 (English)In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, ISSN 1567-9764, E-ISSN 1573-1553, Vol. 16, no 2, 285-305 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article explores strategies in consensus-making processes in international climate diplomacy. Specifically, it examines the consensus-making politics, in the case of negotiating historical responsibility within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so, analytical concepts from the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe are utilized to look for rationales that underpin discursive structures as well as agreement. To conclude, three rationales have dealt with conflicts over historical responsibility. While the first rationale hid conflict behind interpretative flexibility, the second reverted to “reasoned consensus,” excluding perspectives commonly understood as political rather than scientific. The third rationale has enabled equivocal use of the concept of historical responsibility in several parallel discourses, yet negotiators still stumble on how to synthesize these with a potential to foster future, more policy-detailed, consensuses with higher legitimacy. Understanding the history and current situation of negotiations on historical responsibility from this perspective can help guide policy makers toward decisions that avoid old pitfalls and construct new rationales that generate a higher sense of legitimacy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2016. Vol. 16, no 2, 285-305 p.
Keyword [en]
Climate negotiations, Consensus, Legitimacy, Historical responsibility
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107221DOI: 10.1007/s10784-014-9258-1ISI: 000372245400006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-107221DiVA: diva2:722927
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2011-779Swedish Energy Agency, P35462-2
Note

Funding agencies: Formas [2011-779]; Swedish Energy Agency [P35462-2]

Available from: 2014-06-09 Created: 2014-06-09 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(812 kB)