SPECIAL SECTION - Ricerca sull'intelligenza artificiale specializzata al MIT

SPECIAL SECTION

Methodological Innovation in the Study of
Global Environmental Agreement Making
Edited by Hannah Hughes, Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya,

and Alice B. M. Vadrot

Forum

Being There: International Negotiations as
Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics

(cid:129)
Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas

Astratto
This forum traces the emergence of international negotiations as study sites in the ﬁeld of
global environmental politics, from its early days until the present. It sets the scene for the
research articles in this special section, outlining why their contributions are timely, E
takes advantage of advances in methods and conceptual analysis. The articles in this special
section suggest the value of direct observation and ethnography in driving conceptual inno-
vation and understanding how power and inﬂuence are exercised in such settings (including
by the traditionally powerless). In doing so, they encourage debate over and offer new
insights into processes the GEP ﬁeld has been studying for close to ﬁfty years.

The study of global environmental politics (GEP) and multilateral environmen-
tal agreements (MEAs) has become increasingly broad in the last ﬁfteen to twenty
years. Early studies of MEAs and environmental regimes tended to focus on
interstate behavior and the role of international institutions (Haas et al. 1993;
Kay and Jacobson 1983; Kay and Skolnikoff 1972). The focus soon shifted away
from individual MEAs toward issue-based governance regimes that encompassed
all the “rules, norms, principles and decision-making procedures” within a par-
ticular issue area, including but going beyond MEAs (Downie 2005; Hurrell and
Kingsbury 1992; Haggard and Simmons 1987; Krasner 1983; Young 1994,

Global Environmental Politics 19:2, May 2019, doi:10.1162/glep_a_00505
© 2019 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas (cid:129) 5

among others). Authors quickly realized that regimes were institutional venues
commanding analytic attention and that enabled nonstate actors to acquire and
exercise inﬂuence (Haas 1989; Young 1991). Subsequent work focused on the
effectiveness and impacts of international regimes and global environmental
governance more generally (Bernauer 1995; Haas et al. 1993; O’Neill 2017,
chapter 5), although this has fallen off in recent years (Andresen 2013). More
recent scholarship has analyzed the shape and impacts of the participation by
multiple actors, and by different groups of actors, in MEA negotiations, including
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), science and epistemic communities,
international secretariats, and the private sector, in addition to the more tradi-
tional states and international organizations (Betsill and Corell 2008; Biermann
and Siebenhüner 2009; Jinnah 2014; Kanie et al. 2014; Levy and Newell 2005;
O’Neill 2017; O’Neill et al. 2004).

More recently, scholars have looked at MEAs as a system (Orsini et al.
2019). Some treat them as political contexts that shape the political
opportunity space for actors (Alter and Meunier 2009; Biermann et al. 2009;
Keohane and Victor 2011; Raustiala and Victor 2004), while others treat them
as complex systems requiring distinctive modes of analysis (Kim and Mackey
2014; Orsini et al. 2013, 2019; Young 2017). These intriguing features of MEAs
call for new approaches. Complexity calls us to focus on the understandings of
the negotiators and participants in MEAs, to get a handle on their emergent prop-
erties and capacities to reproduce and/or strengthen regimes over time.

There has in recent years been a convergence of interest in the dynamics of
summitry and their implications and in how individuals and organizations in-
ﬂuence outcomes on the ﬂoor. Academics have become so numerous at inter-
national environmental negotiations that they now have their own category of
NGO, the “RINGO” (research international NGO). These attendees are most
likely there to advise on their area of expertise or to take advantage of a unique
conﬂuence of relevant actors to advance research on a speciﬁc topic. But some
are there to study the actual negotiations, using multilateral environmental ne-
gotiations, and the interpersonal, intergroup dynamics at and around meetings
as the sites and/or objects of research.

If we problematize international environmental negotiations and meet-
ings as venues where regime actors update their own understandings, often
through interactions with others, our attention is drawn to the techniques by
which actors promote their interests and interact with others. Methods that have
been presented to capture parts of this process include narratives and discourses
(Alker 1996; Esguerra 2014), network analysis (Verde 2013; Victor et al. 2018),
and participatory-action research (Reitan and Gibson 2012). Inoltre, there
are studies that draw on the indispensable work of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin
team (Chasek and Wagner 2012)—and ﬁrsthand accounts of lead diplomats
and administrators (Benedick 2007; Tolba 1992). Others have examined the im-
portance of theater in international negotiations (Death 2011) and of summit
fatigue (VanDeveer 2003).

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

6 (cid:129)

International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics

The pieces in this special section shed light on the process by which mar-
ginalized groups seek to exercise inﬂuence in large conference settings. Speciﬁ-
cally, they add to this literature by circumventing a focus on interstate dynamics,
drawing our attention instead to the “powerless” and to new forms of inter-
action, contention, and “moments of inﬂuence” ( Witter et al. 2015). In this,
they echo early critical literatures in the ﬁeld (per esempio., Conca 2005, 2006; see also
the essays in Lipschutz and Conca 1993; Wapner 2003; Martello 2001) and con-
ceptual writings about the multiple dimensions or faces of power (Barnett and
Duvall 2005; Gaventa 1980; Lukes 1974; Wrong 1988).

In 2014, a special issue of this journal was devoted to collaborative
event ethnography (CEE) at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) del
Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya in 2010.1 CEE deploys large
teams of researchers at international meetings to observe submeetings, side
events, hallway interactions, and so on, to build collective ethnographic
accounts of, Per esempio, roles of speciﬁc actors or the diffusion of speciﬁc
norms or ideas across the conference (Campbell et al. 2014).

Many existing accounts do not engage with making the invisible or intan-
gible aspects of negotiations visible, such as observing interpersonal interactions
at meetings within a global environmental COP or in the hallways, aiming to
capture the subtler dynamics of these particular diplomatic processes and the
ways many more actors than originally assumed ﬁt into the process. The CEE
project was an exception, although the sheer size of its team and the ground
it needed to cover made it hard to raise funding needed for ongoing attendance
at that scale. Another challenge is simply the sheer number of meetings and pro-
cesses at the sub-COP level. Important decisions happen everywhere, but now
we are starting to have means to make sense of the why, who, and how, not just
in this collection but in ongoing work by other scholars.

The four articles in this special section offer very different insights into
these questions, while maintaining MEA negotiations as their study site. All seek
to make conceptual innovations: identifying and tracking weighted concepts
and deliberative ecologies, reconceptualizing inﬂuence to make Indigenous
Peoples’ power visible, and taking feminist intersectional approaches to CEE.
In this regard, all of the articles are attempting to challenge and unpack the
power embedded in research to shape what comes into view and what scholars
perceive as more or less important.

The articles by Hughes and Vadrot and by Suiseeya and Zanotti in this sec-
tion present results derived from time spent observing meetings on site. Hughes
and Vadrot’s article focuses on interactions in one room (metaphorically) at a
meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystems Services. This “single-room” approach allows them to anchor what

1. Lisa Campbell, Noella Gray, and Catherine Corson, eds. Studying Global Environmental Meet-
ings to Understand Global Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at
the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Special Issue,
Global Environmental Politics 14 (3), 2014.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas (cid:129) 7

might otherwise be too diffuse an analysis of a weighted concept’s take-up and
the contestation around it. Suiseeya and Zanotti’s article travels through COP 21
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
(held in Paris 2015), accompanying Indigenous Peoples’ representatives and
following social media and other external interactions.

Pickering’s article zooms out and observes MEA negotiations as an inter-
locking set of systems, viewed holistically. Paterson’s article sees the sites of
negotiations as an opportunity for harvesting network data to more fully de-
scribe that networked politics involved in international negotiations and pro-
vide richer explanatory accounts.

Why Now?

One of the questions that emerges from these papers is, why now? Why is this a
propitious time in general to pay attention to research design and methodolog-
ical approaches and to new (or newly popular) sites of research (O’Neill et al.
2013)? There are three sets of answers to this question.

Primo, the nature of large-scale conferences has attracted more attention
from researchers, particularly in the environmental area, starting with the huge
numbers of nonstate actor participants at the 1992 Earth Summit. Something
about the current shape and structure of COPs and related meetings—their
dynamism and the density and diversity of actors in attendance—transcends
their direct objectives and allows them to become venues for much broader
ﬁelds of inquiry within a brief and intense time frame of two weeks or less. Questo
is particularly true of the “mega”-conferences and negotiating processes—the
UNFCCC, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and summits such as Rio
+20. These negotiations now attract opportunities to leverage broader, more
diverse and subtler forms of inﬂuence and create new interactions or alliances
(Suiseeya and Zanotti, on Indigenous Peoples’ organizations at COP 21).

While attention to conference diplomacy had been highlighted since 1968
(Haas 2002; Kaufmann 1968) and had been a feature of the research on UN
Conference on humans and the Environment (UNCHE), held in Stockholm,
Sweden in 1972 (Ivanova 2010), attention has mounted given the ease of access
to megaconferences, their increased frequency in the environmental realm, E
the emergence of civil society “parallel summits” at UNCED 1992 and beyond.
At the individual regime level, the proliferation of types of actors as represented
by the alphabet soup of ofﬁcial UN Observer designations (O’Neill 2019) also
highlighted the diversity of voices present. The differences between regimes in
this respect raise fascinating but understudied research questions (with a few
exceptions, per esempio., Jinnah 2014).

Secondo, recent years have seen a transdisciplinary turn in GEP that has
encompassed the interpretive social sciences and humanities as well as more
work that looks to integrate ecology and conservation sciences. The ﬁeld of

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

8 (cid:129)

International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics

international relations (IR) more generally has become more open to inter-
pretive techniques imported from the humanities, although often treated as
an additional way of adding granular appreciation of causal mechanisms in
multimethods research. Scholars who are trained in and willing to deploy
ethnography—such as the CEE group (but maybe others)—have pushed
approaches that take observing and drawing inferences from human interac-
tions seriously, even if the time frame is two weeks rather than months to years.
Observing and documenting a moment of unanticipated crisis in what looked
like routine discussions over a document related to biodiversity and culture
becomes an opportunity to deploy insights from Bourdieu’s sociological theory.
What others might identify as linguistic or discourse analysis, along with that of
body language and expression, would not be possible to conduct without the
actual presence of researchers (Hughes and Vadrot). This is something trained
journalists can do, but the connection to theory, such as observing and explain-
ing the real-world trajectory of a concept, such as biocultural diversity, means
new scholarly contributions can go further toward informing understandings of
global political outcomes.

This turn has also fostered inclusion of the marginalized—e.g., Indigenous
Peoples—in studies of international politics and integration of vertical scale into
analysis, from local to global (Suiseeya and Zanotti). Allo stesso modo, multi-sited
ethnography (and ﬁeldwork) that takes the global seriously has become more
common in geography and political ecology (Bair 2005). Social-ecological sys-
tems scholarship (Ostrom and Cox 2010) has opened the doors for new var-
iants on systems theory (Pickering). Related to this point are the insights into
the political strategies and techniques available to groups traditionally re-
garded as weak and the role of contingency in deploying inﬂuence in large,
complex institutional settings (Barnett and Duvall 2005; Katzenstein and
Seybert 2018).

By leveraging the use of symbols and coordinating pressure in multiple
physical locales, Indigenous Groups successfully put respect for human rights
into the Paris Agreement preamble. In the case of biodiversity, Indigenous
Groups followed similar campaign strategies. In biodiversity, we also see the
residual effect of decisions about organizing concepts that were used to frame
deliberations. Such analysis not only describes the ways in which traditionally
marginalized groups seek to inﬂuence discussions but also helps identify tactics
and techniques not often associated with speciﬁc negotiated outcomes.

Third, we are witnessing innovations in terms of available methodological
tools and technologies (O’Neill et al. 2017). Online tools and applications en-
able more sophisticated network analysis and visualizations. There is more em-
phasis on collaborative research—and ﬁeldwork—in qualitative GEP. The very
size and complexity of the negotiations themselves require collaborative work:
listening to or watching sessions, coordinating ﬁndings and notes, adapting as
they go, and compressing a year’s work of ethnographic ﬁeldwork into two short
weeks. There is more openness on the part of qualitative (social science)

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas (cid:129) 9

scholars to adopt these approaches and tools and to grapple with “big data” and
transdisciplinary communication.

The following four articles deploy a wealth of methods: process tracing,
network analysis, ethnography, discourse analysis, linguistic analysis, systems
theory, and visualization. This diversity reﬂects the need for multiple tools
and frameworks to meet the challenges of today’s environmental problems.
While the methods selected by these authors are not, in and of themselves,
new, they draw on a range of approaches that have rarely been applied in
GEP and/or IR theory. The methods also reveal surprising outcomes and help
to account for the thorough interpretive and explanatory mechanisms. For in-
stance, we see the appearance of principles proposed by Indigenous People or-
ganizations in the preamble to the Paris Agreement, which expressly embraces
human rights goals. The authors provide direct evidence of network linkages
rather than ascribing them or inferring them from evidence from organizational
charts and participation lists. This provides greater insight into group dynamics
than black boxing them in discussions of outcomes and correlating them with
hypothesized independent variables. Inoltre, we see the path-dependent
effects of consolidated ideas in regime negotiations. This combination, along
with these three “why now” factors, underlies why this symposium makes
strides forward in ways of addressing global environmental problems, Quale
could only be done by working at and within environmental negotiations.

Contributions, and Moving Forward

It is helpful to locate this enterprise in the broader context of GEP and IR. While
we commonly recognize that actual negotiations are rife with multiple actors,
have unclear and shifting interests, and are subject to contingency, conventional
approaches still aspire to explaining outcomes. The following articles come from
more interpretive roots and are focused on understanding and describing the pro-
cesses of negotiation. They offer a granular focus on those who wield inﬂuence,
and how.

The authors in this collection suggest the utility of applying unconventional
methods as a way of revealing previously invisible actors and structures and
allowing for conceptual innovation and diffusion. The studies are grounded in
familiar venues for many GEP scholars—the meeting halls and corridors of
international environmental meetings—but focus attention on dynamics
and marginalized groups often neglected by mainstream approaches and
research designs that privilege the powerful actors in the international system. Such
calls are echoed in the broader ﬁeld of IR theory. For instance, a small but recent
literature in IR on ethnography (per esempio., Brigden 2016; Montsion 2018; Sabaratnam
2017) builds on its earlier emergence and use in feminist IR theory (Vrasti 2008).
Three factors could help push such approaches further in terms of
inﬂuencing GEP scholarship and entering into conversation with IR theory,
factors that counter common critiques of such approaches. The ﬁrst is to stress

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

10 (cid:129) International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics

the value added of new, different, or unconventional methods. Per esempio,
how do ethnographic approaches provide additional insight compared with,
Dire, participant observation? The second is contingency. In a discipline becom-
ing more obsessed with generalizability and predictive theory, how does one
address their critiques that humanities approaches may stress events that are
singular, or relationships—networks—that may be ﬂeeting, and depend on
the individuals within them. A third is highlighting politics, Infatti, engaging
with “old school” arguments and hypotheses about GEP and the dynamics of
negotiations. How would one weigh competing hypotheses about the sources of
collective agreement on bargaining texts: by the weighted concepts themselves
or the power of the parties promoting those concepts?

The articles in this special section suggest the value of direct observation
and ethnography in driving conceptual innovation and understanding how
power and inﬂuence are exercised in such settings. In doing so, they encourage
debate over and new insight into processes the GEP ﬁeld has been studying for
close on ﬁfty years.

Kate O’Neill is an associate professor in the Department of Environmental
Scienza, Policy, and Management at the University of California, Berkeley.

Peter M. Haas is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Riferimenti

Alker, Hayward R. 1996. Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for

International Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Alter, Karen J., and Sophie Meunier. 2009. The Politics of International Regime Complex-

ità. Perspectives on Politics 7 (1): 13–24.

Andresen, Steinar. 2013. International Regime Effectiveness. In The Handbook of Global
Climate and Environmental Policy, edited by Robert Falkner. London, UK: John Wiley.
Bair, Jennifer. 2005. Global Capitalism and Commodity Chains: Looking Back, Going

Forward. Competition and Change 9 (2): 153–180.

Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in International Politics. Interna-

tional Organization 59: 39–75.

Benedick, Richard E. 2007. Scienza, Diplomacy and the Montreal Protocol. In Encyclope-
dia of Earth, edited by Cutler J. Cleveland. Washington, DC: Environmental Infor-
mation Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Bernauer, Thomas. 1995. The Effect of International Environmental Institutions: How

We Might Learn More. International Organization 49 (2): 351–377.

Betsill, Michele M., and Elisabeth Corell, eds. 2008. NGO Diplomacy: The Inﬂuence of
Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge,
MA: CON Premere.

Biermann, Frank, and Bernd Siebenhüner, eds. 2009. Managers of Global Change: IL

Inﬂuence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas

(cid:129) 11

Biermann, Frank, Philipp Pattberg, Harro van Asselt, and Fariborz Zelli. 2009. The Frag-
mentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Globale
Environmental Politics 9 (4): 14–40.

Brigden, Noelle K. 2016. Improvised Transnationalism: Clandestine Migration at the
Border of Anthropology and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly
2 (1): 434–354.

Campbell, Lisa, Catherine Corson, Noella J. Gray, Kenneth I. MacDonald, and J. Peter
Brosius. 2014. Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global
Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the Tenth Confer-
ence of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental
Politics 14 (3): 1–20.

Chasek, Pamela S., and Lynn M. Wagner, eds. 2012. The Roads from Rio: Lessons Learned from

Twenty Years of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Conca, Ken. 2005. Environmental Governance after Johannesburg: From Stalled Legali-
zation to Environmental Human Rights? Journal of International Law and Interna-
tional Relations 1 (1–2): 121–138.

Conca, Ken. 2006. Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution

Building. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

Death, Carl. 2011. Summit Theatre: Exemplary Governmentality and Environmen-
tal Diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics 20 (1):
1–19.

Downie, David Leonard. 2005. Global Environmental Policy: Governing through
Regimes. In The Global Environment: Istituzioni, Law and Policy, edited by Regina
S. Axelrod, David Leonard Downie, and Norman J. Vig. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Esguerra, Alejandro. 2014. The Politics of Beginning: An Inquiry into Transnational

Governance in Action. PhD diss., Freie Universität Berlin.

Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Verde, Jessica. 2013. Order out of Chaos: Public and Private Rules for Managing Carbon.

Global Environmental Politics 13 (2): 1–15.

Haas, Peter. 1989. Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean

Pollution Control. International Organization 43 (3): 377–403.

Haas, Peter M. 2002. UN Conferences and Constructivist Governance of the Environ-

ment. Global Governance 8 (1): 73–91.

Haas, Peter M., Robert O. Keohane, and Marc A. Levy, eds. 1993. Institutions for the Earth:
Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
Haggard, Stephen, and Beth Simmons. 1987. Theories of International Regimes. IO

41 (3): 491–517.

Hurrell, Andrew, and Benedict Kingsbury, eds. 1992. The International Politics of the

Environment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Ivanova, Maria. 2010. UNEP in Global Environmental Governance: Design, Leadership,

Location. Global Environmental Politics 10 (1): 30–59.

Jinnah, Sikina. 2014. Post-treaty Politics: Secretariat Inﬂuence in Global Environmental

Governance. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

Kanie, Norichika, Steinar Andresen, and Peter M. Haas, eds. 2014. Improving Global
Environmental Governance: Best Practices for Architecture and Agency. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Katzenstein, Peter J., and Lucia Seybert, eds. 2018. Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain
and Unexpected in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12 (cid:129) International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics

Kaufmann, Johann. 1968. Conference Diplomacy: An Introductory Analysis. Amsterdam,

Netherlands: Kluwer.

Kay, David A., and Howard K. Jacobson, eds. 1983. Environmental Protection: The Interna-

tional Dimension. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld Osmun.

Kay, David A., and Eugene B. Skolnikoff, eds. 1972. World Eco-crisis: International Orga-

nizations in Response. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Keohane, Robert O., and David G. Victor. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate

Change. Perspectives on Politics 9 (1): 7–24.

Kim, Rakhyun E., and Brendan Mackey. 2014. International Environmental Law as a
Complex Adaptive System. International Environmental Agreements 14: 1–20.
Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Levy, David L., and Peter J. Newell, eds. 2005. The Business of Global Environmental

Governance. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

Lipschutz, Ronnie D., and Ken Conca, eds. 1993. The State and Social Power in Global

Environmental Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lukes, Steven. 1974. Energia. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
Martello, Marybeth Long. 2001. A Paradox of Virtue? “Other” Knowledges and Environment-

Development Politics. Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 114–141.

Montsion, Jean Michel. 2018. Ethnography and International Relations: Situating Recent
Trends, Debates and Limitations from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Journal of
Chinese Sociology 5 (9): 1–21.

O’Neill, Kate. 2017. The Environment and International Relations. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

O’Neill, Kate. 2019. Architects, Agitators, and Entrepreneurs: International and Non-
governmental Organizations in Global Environmental Politics. In The Global Envi-
ronment: Istituzioni, Legge, and Policy, 5th ed., edited by Regina S. Axelrod and Stacy
D. VanDeveer, 35–67. Los Angeles, CA: Sage/CQ Press.

O’Neill, Kate, Jörg Balsiger, and Stacy VanDeveer. 2004. Actors, Norms and Impact: Recente
International Cooperation Theory and the Inﬂuence of the Agent-Structure Debate.
Annual Review of Political Science 7: 149–175.

O’Neill, Kate, Erika Weinthal, Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya, Steven Bernstein, Avery S. Cohn,
Michael W. Stone, and Benjamin Cashore. 2013. Methods and Global Environmental
Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38: 441–471.

O’Neill, Kate, Erika Weinthal, and Patrick Hunnicutt. 2017. Seeing Complexity: Visuali-
zation Tools in Global Environmental Politics and Governance. Journal of Environ-
mental Studies and Sciences 7 (4): 490–506.

Orsini, Amandine, Philippe Le Prestre, Peter M. Haas, Malte Brosig, Philipp Pattberg,
Oscar Widerberg, Laura Gomez-Mera, Jean-Frédéric Morin, Neil E. Harrison,
Robert Geyer, and David Chandler. 2019. Complex Systems and International
Governance. International Studies Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1093/isr/viz005.

Orsini, Amandine, Jean-Frédéric Morin, and Oran Young. 2013. Regime Complexes:
A Buzz, a Boom or a Boost for Global Governance? Global Governance 19: 27–39.
Ostrom, Elinor, and Michael Cox. 2010. Moving beyond Panaceas: A Multi-tiered Diag-
nostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis. Environmental Conservation 37 (4):
451–463.

Raustiala, Kal, and David G. Victor. 2004. The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic

Resources. International Organization 58 (2): 277–309.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Kate O’Neill and Peter M. Haas

(cid:129) 13

Reitan, Ruth, and Shannon Gibson. 2012. Environmental Praxis, Climate Activism and the

UNFCCC: A Participatory Action Research Agenda. Globalizations 9 (3): 395–410.

Sabaratnam, Meera. 2017. Symposium: Walking with Migrants: Ethnography as Method
in International Relations. Harvard Dataverse 1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/
WUK8AN.

Tolba, Mostafa K., ed. 1992. The World Environment 1972–1992: Two Decades of Challenge.

London, UK: Chapman and Hall.

VanDeveer, Stacy. 2003. Green Fatigue. Wilson Quarterly, Autumn, 55–59.
Victor, Jennifer Nicoll, Alexander H. Montgomery, and Mark Lubell, eds. 2018. IL
Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Vrasti, Wanda. 2008. The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations.

Millennium 37 (2): 279–301.

Wapner, Paul. 2003. World Summit on Sustainable Development: Toward a Post-Jo’burg

Environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 3 (1): 1–10.

Witter, Rebecca, Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya, Rebecca L. Gruby, Sarah Hitchner, Edoardo
M. Maclin, Maggie Bourque, and J. Peter Brosius. 2015. Moments of Inﬂuence in
Global Environmental Governance. Environmental Politics 24 (6): 894–912.
Wrong, Dennis H. 1988. Energia: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Young, Oran R. 1991. Political Leadership and Regime Formation: On the Development
of Institutions in International Society. International Organization 45 (3): 281–308.
Young, Oran R. 1994. International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless

Società. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Young, Oran R. 2017. Governing Complex Systems. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
9
2
4
1
8
1
8
3
7
9
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
5
0
5
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Scarica il pdf