Search

This contribution examines how the roles of the European Union (EU) in the governance of the atmosphere – the global ozone and climate regimes – as a contested Global Space have evolved over time. To do so, it first combines theoretical considerations regarding foreign policy roles and global justice. It then traces EU role conceptions and role performance in these regimes from their inception until today. The article argues that, as the two regimes have matured, the EU has increasingly been adopting the role of a 'spacifier', pursuing a substantive justice position dedicated to fully protecting the atmosphere ('leaving the space in peace') while actively striving to reconcile other actors' positions. This role embodies the EU's simultaneous quest for embracing the European Green Deal's socio-ecological transformation agenda while becoming a geopolitical actor. It can be interpreted as an expression of 'principled pragmatism' under the conditions of the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the diplomatic relations between China, India and the EU in the development of the international climate regime. It analyses whether and to what extent multiple bilateralism, that is, bilateral relations that are embedded into a broader multilateral negotiation setting in a way that any actor - in its bilateral relations with one actor - takes account of its bilateral relations with other (key) actors, has been a strategy employed by each of the three players. Comparing their positions and behavior during the periods leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen and 2015 Paris climate summits, it provides clear evidence of a shift to multiple bilateralism, particularly in the cases of China and the European Union. This strategic turn contributed positively to the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The choice for multiple bilateralism is explained with reference to internal and external driving forces. The article concludes by arguing that multiple bilateralism - involving China, India, the EU and other key emitters - holds the potential to develop into a networked form of co-leadership that can effectively advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement despite US disengagement from the global climate regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the historical dynamics of the relationship between China and the European Union (EU) in global climate governance. The evolution of this relationship is traced through three time periods: the early days of the United Nations (UN) climate regime (1992–2001), the road to the Copenhagen summit (2001–2009) and the post-Copenhagen phase with the launch of the Durban Platform (2009-present). The contribution aims to expose two of the major structural changes that define current global climate governance dynamics, i.e., globalization and the rise of China, and identify key challenges for an increased collaboration between China and the EU. It is concluded that the EU and China are gradually emerging as strategic partners in global climate governance, but that severe uncertainties regarding the future of the climate regime persist. In order to translate practical bilateral cooperation into more tangible outcomes in the multilateral sphere, a fine balance will have to be struck between traditional Chinese sensitivities regarding sovereignty and economic development, and the EU's desire for an international agreement with ambitious mitigation targets.Environmental Practice 15:190–200 (2013) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the relations between the different layers of government in Belgium with regard to a typical multi-level issue, i.e. climate change. It addresses the question to which degree the characteristics of Belgian federalism shape those intergovernmental relations. Three major characteristics are identified: the constitutionally ‘dual’ but de facto ‘cooperative’ federalism, the Europeanization of competences and of relations, and the executive and politicized character of federalism. The impact of those characteristics are studied with regard to crucial cases in recent decision-making on (i) domestic climate change policy in Belgium and on (ii) the position and representation of Belgium in the international climate change debate. It is observed that intergovernmental relations on climate change are to a high degree institutionalized. That is the consequence of the fragmentation in many of the competence areas important for climate change (e.g. environment, energy, transport). The different cooperation mechanisms are based on consensus, as a consequence of the principle of no hierarchy between the two levels of government. Since climate change is a highly sensitive issue involving important interests, consensus-based decision-making has led to lengthy and difficult discussions. In the complex Belgian setting, the EU is often the number one reason to bring the different governments around the same table. Intergovernmental relations on climate change policy in Belgium are triggered by formal requests by the EU to take a stance or deliver certain policy outputs on specific issues. Yet international requirements and deadlines are unable to break domestic gridlock due to political stalemates. Intergovernmental relations are completely controlled by political parties and ministerial cabinets. That becomes problematic in a context of political asymmetry, where the distinct levels of government are ruled by different coalitions. In the case of climate change, the opposition between conservative and progressive climate goals has meant that Belgium was unable to take a stance in recent debates, and it increases the probability of policy failures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers information on the European Union external policy before and after the Lisbon treaty. It states that environmental issues, like climate change and energy security, where defined as adequacy of supply at a reasonable price. It mentions that the attempt for forming a coherent EU external approach on natural gas arose when collapse of the Soviet Union prompted the opening up of new energy markets in former Republics.