Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Procedural Justice in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change pp 1–27Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter

Abstract

Multilateral efforts at the global level are yet to produce meaningful action on climate change. In light of this inaction, many have questioned whether the UNFCCC is an appropriate forum for coordinating action, and many alternative arrangements have arisen to fill the regulatory void. Part of this criticism suggests that there is a perceived lack of fairness in the UNFCCC. Whilst academic discussion has traditionally focused on the issue of distributive fairness in this context, very little has been said about procedural fairness. To this end, this book considers what is needed for fairness in the decisions of the UNFCCC. It analyses several principles of procedural fairness in order to develop practical policy measures for fair decision-making in the UNFCCC. This includes measures that determine who should have a right to participate in its decisions, how these decisions should take place, and what level of equality should exist between these actors. In doing so, it proposes that procedural fairness is a fundamental feature of a multilateral response to address climate change. By showing that procedural fairness is most likely to be achieved through the inclusive process of the UNFCCC, it also shows that global efforts to address climate change should continue in this forum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The remainder of this book draws from the Assessment Reports of the IPCC, in particular: Banuri et al. 1995; Bashmakov et al. 2001; Toth et al. 2001; Gupta et al. 2007; Halsnæs et al. 2007; Stavins et al. 2014.

  2. 2.

    For further discussion, see: IPCC 2007; Caney 2009; OECD 2012.

  3. 3.

    Small island nations are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. See: Yamano et al. 2007.

  4. 4.

    There is not complete consensus on this matter. Some argue that it would be better to pursue other policy options aside from mitigation. See, for example: Schelling 1997; Lomborg 2001; Nordhaus 2009.

  5. 5.

    For discussion: Bodansky 1993, 2001; Yamin and Depledge 2004; Depledge 2005.

  6. 6.

    For criticism of COP15, see: Dubash 2009, p. 8; IISD 2010; Winkler and Beaumont 2010, p. 640. For discussion of COP16, see: King et al. 2011. For commentary on the Durban Platform, see: Fu-Bertaux and Ochs 2012. For the outcomes of COP17, see: UNFCCC 2011.

  7. 7.

    For more on climate change initiatives outside of the UNFCCC, see: Jagers and Stripple 2003; Pattberg and Stripple 2008; Biermann 2010; Bulkeley and Newell 2010.

  8. 8.

    The MEF facilitates dialogue among 17 countries (MEF 2013).

  9. 9.

    For a description of public-private agreements, see: Gupta et al. 2007, p. 761. For discussion, see: Bulkeley and Newell 2010; Bäckstrand 2008.

  10. 10.

    This section draws on the discussions from: Höhne et al. 2002, p. 34; Aldy et al. 2003; Bodansky and Chou 2004; Aldy and Stavins 2007, 2010.

  11. 11.

    Gupta et al. refer to these as ‘desirable’ criteria (Gupta et al. 2007, p. 750). These are also referenced in other IPCC Assessment Reports (see: Bashmakov et al. 2001, p. 407). Other authors who refer to these criteria include: Aldy et al. 2003, p. 374; Aldy and Stavins 2010, p. 2–3; Winkler and Beaumont 2010, p. 642.

  12. 12.

    Here, I follow: Toth et al. 2001, p. 668, footnote 40.

  13. 13.

    Torvanger and Ringius 2002, p. 224; Höhne et al. 2002, p. 34; Ghosh 2010, p. 3.

  14. 14.

    Depledge and Yamin 2009.

  15. 15.

    Biermann et al. 2011.

  16. 16.

    Gupta et al. 2007; Harstad 2009. Arunabha Ghosh also discusses some features that may improve multilateral negotiation dynamics (Ghosh 2010, p. 4).

  17. 17.

    For example: Waldron 1999.

  18. 18.

    Exceptions include: Adger et al. 2006; Grasso 2010.

  19. 19.

    See: Dubash 2009, p. 8; Bäckstrand 2010, p. 1.

  20. 20.

    Those who argue that there is an intrinsic value to democracy include: Beitz 1989; Cohen 1997; Waldron 1999.

  21. 21.

    For the UNFCCC Rules of Procedure on voting, see: UNFCCC 1996, Rule 42.

  22. 22.

    Prominent accounts include: Shue 1992; Caney 2006; Miller 2008.

  23. 23.

    For the Aarhus Convention, see: UN 1969, 1998.

  24. 24.

    For example, see: Chimni 2004; Kingsbury et al. 2005; Habegger 2010.

  25. 25.

    See: Keohane 2003, p. 132; Held 2004, p. 66; Besson 2009, p. 64.

  26. 26.

    Zürn 2000; Nye 2001; Keohane 2006.

  27. 27.

    For an argument that climate change is a unique problem, see: Toth et al. 2001, p. 603.

  28. 28.

    Note that the reason for not using the most recent IPCC reports for citation is that many of the arguments referenced here are covered in earlier IPCC Reports and the authors of more recent reports cite these older publications.

  29. 29.

    For example: Banuri et al. 1995, p. 117; Paavola 2005.

  30. 30.

    Adger et al. 2003.

  31. 31.

    See: Cohen 1989, p. 91; Benhabib 1996, p. 68; Gutmann and Thompson 1996.

  32. 32.

    For studies on deliberative democracy in relation to climate change, see: Dryzek and Niemeyer 2006; Dryzek and Stevenson 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Stevenson 2011.

  33. 33.

    Bäckstrand et al. 2010.

  34. 34.

    Klinsky and Dowlatabadi 2009, p. 96.

  35. 35.

    The following account is based on the discussions in: Rawls 1971; Daniels 1996; McDermott 2008.

  36. 36.

    Daniels 1996, p. 103.

  37. 37.

    Buchanan 2004, p. 55; Mason 2004, p. 265; Ypi 2010, p. 538.

  38. 38.

    For more on this discussion, see: Mason 2004, p. 265; Swift 2008, p. 365; Hamlin and Stemplowska 2012, p. 51.

  39. 39.

    See Stephen Gardiner’s commentary on institutional inadequacy (Gardiner 2011, p. 28).

  40. 40.

    Chayes and Chayes 1995.

  41. 41.

    For more on this point, see Barrett 2003; Lawrence 2014.

  42. 42.

    See: Blake 2001; Griffin 2008.

  43. 43.

    Shue 1992; Miller 2005, p. 75.

  44. 44.

    Grasso 2010, p. 61; Müller 2010; Winkler and Beaumont 2010, p. 646.

  45. 45.

    Yamin and Depledge 2004, p. 443.

  46. 46.

    Dimitrov 2010; Biermann et al. 2011.

References

  • Adger, W.N., K. Brown, et al. 2003. Governance for sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ analysis of environmental decisions. Environment and Planning 35: 1095–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W.N., J. Paavola, et al. 2006. Fairness in adaptation to climate change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albin, C. 2001. Justice and fairness in international negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albin, C. 2003. Getting to fairness: Negotiations over global public goods. In Providing public goods: Managing globalization, ed. I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven, and U. Mendoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldy, J.E., and R.N. Stavins. 2007. Architectures for agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldy, J.E., and R.N. Stavins. 2010. Post-Kyoto international climate policy: Implementing architectures for agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldy, J.E., S. Barrett, et al. 2003. Thirteen Plus One: A comparison of global climate policy architectures. Climate Policy 3: 373–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, R.J. 2004. Democracy is not intrinsically just. In Justice and democracy, ed. K. Dowding, R.E. Goodin, and C. Pateman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2006. Democratising global governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. European Journal of International Relations 12(4): 467–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2008. Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics 8(3): 74–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. 2010. Democratizing global governance of climate change after Copenhagen. In Oxford handbook on climate change and society, ed. J. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K., J. Khan, et al. 2010. The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance, ed. K. Bäckstrand. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banuri, T., K. Goran-Maler, et al. 1995. Equity and social considerations. In Economic and social dimensions of climate change, Contribution of working group III to the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. J.P. Bruce, L. Hoesung, and E. Haites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. 2003. Environment and statecraft. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S., and R.N. Stavins. 2003. Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3: 349–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashmakov, I., C. Jepma, et al. 2001. Policies, measures, and instruments. In Climate change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitz, C.R. 1989. Political equality: An essay in democratic theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. 1996. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, S. 2009. Institutionalizing global Demoi-cracy. In Legitimacy, justice and public international law, ed. L.H. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. 2010. Beyond the intergovernmental regime: Recent trends in global carbon governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 284–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt, and F. Zelli. 2009. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics 4: 14–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, et al. 2010. Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., K. Abbott et al. 2011. Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: Key insights from the earth system governance project. Earth System Governance Working Paper No. 17. Lund/Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, M. 2001. Distributive justice, state coercion, and autonomy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 30(3): 257–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. 1993. The United Nations framework convention on climate change: A commentary. Yale Journal of International Law 18(2): 451–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. 2001. The history of the global climate change regime. In International relations and global climate change, ed. U. Luterbacher and D.F. Sprinz. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. 2007. Legitimacy. In The Oxford handbook of international environmental law, ed. D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, and E. Hey. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D., and S. Chou. 2004. International climate efforts beyond 2012: A survey of approaches. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti, V., and J. Frankel. 2012. Politically feasible emissions targets to attain 460 ppm CO2 concentrations. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(1): 86–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A.E. 2004. Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: Moral foundations for international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A.E., and R.O. Keohane. 2006. The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics and International Affairs 20(4): 412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H., and P. Newell. 2010. Governing climate change. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caney, S. 2006. Cosmopolitan justice, rights and global climate change. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 19: 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caney, S. 2009. Climate change, human rights and moral thresholds. In Human rights and climate change, ed. S. Humphreys and M. Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chasek, P., and L. Rajamani. 2003. Steps toward enhanced parity: Negotiating capacities and strategies of developing countries. In Providing public goods: Managing globalization, ed. I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Goulven, and F. Mendoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes, A., and A.H. Chayes. 1995. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, B.S. 2004. International institutions today: An imperial global state in the making. The European Journal of International Law 15(1): 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity: Normative analysis of the state, ed. A. Hamlin and P. Petit. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1997. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., and H. Schroeder. 2011. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy 14(2): 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. 1996. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depledge, J. 2005. The organization of global negotiations: Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depledge, J., and F. Yamin. 2009. The global climate change regime: A defence. In The economics and politics of climate change, ed. D. Helm and C. Hepburn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, R.S. 2010. Inside UN climate change negotiations: The Copenhagen conference. Review of Policy Research 27(6): 795–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwerth, K. 2005. The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the world commission on dams? Global Governance 11(1): 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., and S.J. Niemeyer. 2006. Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 634–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., and H. Stevenson. 2011. Global democracy and earth system governance. Ecological Economics 70(11): 1865–1874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., and H. Stevenson. 2012a. The discursive democratization of global climate governance. Environmental Politics 21(2): 189–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., and H. Stevenson. 2012b. Legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: A deliberative democratic approach. Critical Policy Studies 6(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubash, N.K. 2009. Copenhagen: Climate of mistrust. Economic & Political Weekly XLIV(52): 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foti, E., L. de Silva, et al. 2008. Voice and choice: Opening the door to environmental democracy. Washington, DC: Word Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T. 1995. Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu-Bertaux X, and A. Ochs. 2012. An uncertain mandate from Durban. Worldwatch Institute. www.worldwatch.org/node/9491

  • Gardiner, S. 2011. A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnaut, R. 2009. The garnaut report. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, A. 2010. Making climate look like trade? Questions on incentives, flexibility and credibility, Policy brief for centre for policy research. Chanakyapuri: Dharma Marg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. 2014. The new climate economy. Available at: http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/global-commission.

  • Grasso, M. 2007. A normative ethical framework in climate change. Climate Change 81: 223–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasso, M. 2010. Justice in funding adaptation under the international climate change regime. Dordrecht/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasso, M. and J. Timmons Roberts. 2013. A fair compromise to break the climate impasse. Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2013–02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.W. 2008. On human rights. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., D.A. Tirpak, et al. 2007. Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habegger, B. 2010. Democratic accountability of international organizations: Parliamentary control within the council of Europe and the OSCE and the prospects for the United Nations. Cooperation and Conflict 45(2): 186–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsnæs, K., P.R. Shukla, et al. 2007. Framing issues. In Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, A., and Z. Stemplowska. 2012. Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review 10: 48–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, W., C. Stockwell, et al. 2010. The architecture of the global climate regime: A top-down perspective. Climate Policy 10(6): 600–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harstad, B. 2009. Rules for negotiating and updating climate treaties. Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harstad, B. 2010. How to negotiate and update climate agreements. In Post-Kyoto international climate policy: Implementing architectures for agreement, ed. J.E. Aldy and R.N. Stavins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. 2004. Global covernant. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhne, N., C. Galleguillos, et al. 2002. Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries. The German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. 2009. A leadership of twenty (L20) within the UNFCCC: Establishing a legitimate and effective regime to improve our climate system. Global Governance 15(4): 435–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huq, S. 2006. Equity in national adaptation programs of action (NAPAs): The case of Bangladesh. In Fairness in adaptation to climate change, ed. M.R. Khan, N.W. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M.J. Mace. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD. 2010. Earth negotiations bulletin: Summary of the cancun climate change conference. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12(498): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 1990. IPCC special report on participation of developing countries. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2001. Third assessment report: Climate change 2001. In Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. R.T. Watson and The Core Writing Team. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2007. Fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger. Geneva: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation, Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. In Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M, 1535 pp. Midgley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC WGIII. 2014. Technical summary. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagers, S.C., and J. Stripple. 2003. Climate governance beyond the state. Global Governance 9(3): 385–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I., and J. McGee. 2013. Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics 13(3): 56–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. 2003. Global governance and democratic accountability. In Taming globalization, ed. D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. 2006. Accountability in world politics. Scandanavian Political Studies 29(2): 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D., K. Richards, et al. 2011. International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps. In Smith school of enterprise and the environment. Oxford: The University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, B., N. Krisch, et al. 2005. The emergence of global administrative law. Law & Contemporary Problems 68(3&4): 15–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinsky, S., and H. Dowlatabadi. 2009. Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy 9: 88–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S.D. 1982. Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization 36: 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. 2014. Justice for future generations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, M.A., and K. Michonski. 2010. Harnessing international institutions to address climate change, Council of foreign relations working paper. New York: Council of Foreign Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg, B. 2001. The sceptical environmentalist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, A. 2004. Just constraints. British Journal of Political Science 34: 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. 2008. Analytical political philosophy. In Political theory: Methods and approaches, ed. D. Leopold and M. Stears. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEF. 2013. Major economies forum on energy and climate. http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/.

  • Miller, D. 2005. Against global egalitarianism. The Journal of Ethics 9: 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 2008. Global justice and climate change: How shall responsibilities be distributed? In Tanner lectures on human values . Delivered at Tsinghua University, Beijing, March 24–25, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, B. 2010. Copenhagen 2009; failure of final wake-up call for our leaders. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies EV49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W.D. 2009 Economic issues in a designing a global agreement on global warming. Keynote address prepared for: Climate change: Global risks, challenges, and decisions. Copenhagen, Denmark, March 10–12, 2009. http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Copenhagen_052909.pdf.

  • Nye, J.S. 2001. Globalization’s democratic deficit: How to make international institutions more accountable. Foreign Affairs 80(4): 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2012. OECD environmental outlook to 2050: The consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en.

  • OHCHR. 2009. Report of the office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/AnalyticalStudy.pdf.

  • OHCHR and UNEP. 2012. Human rights and the environment, Rio + 20. Joint Report United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner and UNEP. OHCHR/UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, J. 2005. Seeking justice: International environmental governance and climate change. Globalizations 2(3): 309–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattberg, P., and J. Stripple. 2008. Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements 8(4): 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philibert, C., and J. Pershing. 2001. Considering the options: Climate targets for all countries. Climate Policy 1: 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, G. and S. Rayner (2007a). The wrong trousers: Radically rethinking climate policy. Joint discussion paper of the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford and the MacKinder Centre for the Study of Long-Wave Events, London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, G., and S. Rayner. 2007b. Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449: 973–975.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani, L. 2000. The principle of common but differentiated responsibility and the balance of commitments under the climate regime. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 9(2): 120–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. and M. Thompson. 1998. Cultural discourses. In Human choice and climate change, ed. S. Rayner and E. Malone. Columbus: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. 1997. The cost of combating global warming: Facing the trade offs. Foreign Affaris. 76: 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. 1999. Environmental justice and the new pluralism: The challenge of difference for environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. 1992. The unavoidability of justice. In The international politics of the environment: Actors, interests and institutions, ed. A. Hurrell and B. Kingsbury. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavins, R., et al. 2014. International cooperation: Agreements and instruments. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, ed. O. Edenhofer et al. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N.H. 2007. The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. 2011. Representing “The Peoples”? Post-neoliberal states in the international climate negotiations. Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance. Working Paper (2011/1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, A. 2008. The value of philosophy in nonideal circumstances. Social Theory and Practice 34(3): 363–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torvanger, A., and L. Ringius. 2002. Burden differentiation: Criteria for evaluation of burden-sharing rules in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics; Law and Economics 2(3): 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, F.L. 1999. Fair weather? Equity concerns in climate change. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, F.L., M.J. Mwandosya, et al. 2001. Decision making frameworks. Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1969. Vienna convention on the law of treaties. United Nations Treaty Series 1155: 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (The Aarhus convention). United Nations 2161: 447.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 1992. United Nations framework convention on climate change. Convention: Text.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 1996. Oraganizational matters: Adoption of rules of procedure. FCCC/CP/1996/2. Conference of the parties second session, Geneva, July 8–19, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 1997. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 2011. The Durban platform. Draft decision -/CP.17 Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 2012. Report of the conference of the parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 November to 8 December 2012. UNFCCC/CP/2012/8.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 2013 Report of the conference of the parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 2014. Lima call for climate action. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, D. 2006. Toward effective international cooperation on climate change: Numbers, interests and institutions. Global Environmental Politics 6(3): 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vihma, A., and K. Kulovesi. 2012. Strengthening global climate change negotiations; Improving the efficiency of the UNFCCC process. Nordiske Arbejdspapirer Nordic Working Papers. Nordic Council of Ministers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, H., and J. Beaumont. 2010. Fair and effective multilateralism in the post-Copenhagen climate negotiations. Climate Policy 10(6): 638–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamano, H., et al. 2007. Atoll island vulnerability to flooding and inundation revealed by historical reconstruction: Fongafale Islet, Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu. Global and Planetary Change 57: 407–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamin, F., and J. Depledge. 2004. The international climate change regime: A guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ypi, L. 2010. On the confusion between ideal and non-ideal in recent debates on global justice. Political Studies 58: 536–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M. 2000. Democratic governance beyond the nation state. European Journal of International Relations 6(2): 183–221.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London, UK

    Luke Tomlinson

Authors
  1. Luke Tomlinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tomlinson, L. (2015). Introduction. In: Procedural Justice in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17184-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation