Deliberative Ecologies: Complexity - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

Deliberative Ecologies: Complexity
and Social–Ecological Dynamics in
International Environmental
Negotiations

(西德:129)
Jonathan Pickering*

抽象的
Theories of complex systems can yield valuable insights for understanding the increas-
ingly intricate networks of actors, 机构, and discourses involved in international
environmental negotiations. While analysis of regimes and regime complexes has shed
light on macro-level structures and relationships in global environmental politics, 系统-
temic analysis has gained less traction in making sense of micro-level interactions—such
as communicative exchanges among participants—that occur within the sites of negoti-
ation and how those interactions shape (and are shaped by) the broader dynamics of
governance systems. This article shows how the conceptual lens of “deliberative ecolo-
gies” can bridge these levels of analysis by integrating theories of deliberative systems
with ideas from complexity theory and social–ecological systems analysis. Drawing on
evidence from United Nations climate change and biodiversity conferences between
2009 和 2018, I show how methods such as discourse analysis and process tracing
can help to apply a deliberative ecologies perspective and thereby advance understanding
of how discourses and deliberative practices diffuse through negotiating sites and how
deliberation interacts with the social–ecological dynamics of those sites.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Multilateral environmental conferences attract scholars of global environmental
politics in much the same way as ecologists are drawn to mass congregations of
migratory animals. Just as monarch butterﬂies travel by the millions each year
to the Monarch Butterﬂy Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, delegates travel by the

*Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a workshop on “Call for Methodological
Diversity: Understanding the Inside of Environmental Agreement Making” at the University
of California Berkeley and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, 大学
堪培拉. For comments and reading suggestions I am especially grateful to Hannah Barrowman,
Pierrick Chalaye, Wendy Conway-Lamb, John Dryzek, Selen Ercan, Hannah Hughes, Mike Jensen,
Luke Kemp, Rakhyun Kim, Jonathan Kuyper, Kimberly Marion Suiseeya, Simon Niemeyer, Kate
奥尼尔, Matthew Paterson, Hayley Stevenson, and Alice Vadrot. This research was supported
under the Australian Research Council’s Laureate Fellowship funding scheme (project number
FL140100154, led by John Dryzek).

Global Environmental Politics 19:2, 可能 2019, 土井:10.1162/glep_a_00506
© 2019 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

62 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

thousands to annual or biennial United Nations (和) environmental confer-
ences from Cancún to Kigali and Katowice. A daunting challenge facing re-
searchers who observe these events is to make sense of the complex ways in
which individuals interact with one another and to understand the broader sys-
temic effects that those interactions produce. International environmental nego-
tiations teem with delegates, 话语, 文本, 图片, and performances, all of
which interact with one another in manifold and often unpredictable ways
(O’Neill et al. 2013). This unpredictability has arguably been ampliﬁed by
the growing participation of nonstate actors in negotiations, the emergence of
transnational environmental governance initiatives, a media landscape trans-
formed by the explosion of online communication, and rising instability in
the Earth system processes themselves that negotiations seek to address (Betsill
等人. 2015; Dauvergne and Clapp 2016; Young 2017).

A substantial body of work has emerged that seeks to understand global
environmental governance from the perspective of complex systems and to
identify strategies for governing complexity in this area (for earlier examples,
see Young 2002; Najam et al. 2004; Biermann 2007). Systemic analyses have
yielded important insights on macro-level structures and dynamics, 例如
the formation of “regime complexes” (Keohane and Victor 2011), regime inter-
玩 (Oberthür and Stokke 2011), and regime fragmentation (Biermann et al.
2009). 然而, existing research in this vein has proved less adept at delivering
ﬁner-grained accounts of the dynamics of communication, 力量, and material
ﬂows occurring within negotiating sites, even though these sites remain central
to understanding how broader systems for global environmental governance
emerge and function (Okereke et al. 2009). At a micro-level, ethnographic stud-
ies of negotiating sites are vital for understanding the inner workings of agree-
ment making (Campbell et al. 2014; Marion Suiseeya and Zanotti, this issue).
然而, analyses of this kind have drawn on a limited selection of theoretical
frameworks to contextualize their ﬁndings, such as the politics of knowledge,
规模, and translation (Campbell et al. 2014).

Complex systems perspectives can complement and enhance site-based
analysis by helping to understand how micro-level interactions within negotiat-
ing sites shape—and are shaped by—the broader dynamics of global environ-
mental politics. 然而, a key challenge is to navigate tensions between the
structural orientation of macro-level approaches and the more agent-oriented
emphasis of site-based approaches (Büscher 2014, 132).

One promising response is to harness recent research on deliberative
democracy that views environmental negotiations as “deliberative systems,” that
是, systems whose components are interconnected by deliberation (or reasoned
dialogue) and other forms of communication about a set of political concerns
(Mansbridge et al. 2012). Importantly for the study of environmental agreement
制作, the deliberative systems approach can span site-based analysis of com-
municative interaction and macro-level evaluation across a diverse range of
actors and institutions.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 63

This article aims to show how the emergent concept of “deliberative ecol-
ogies” can enrich scholarly understanding of environmental negotiations by
integrating concepts from complexity theory and ecology with analysis of
deliberative systems. The idea of deliberative ecologies came to prominence
in Mansbridge et al. (2012), which has been a touchstone for the expansion
of research on deliberative systems. The authors argue,

A deliberative systemic approach also suggests looking for “deliberative
ecologies,” in which different contexts facilitate some forms of deliberation
and avenues for information while others facilitate different forms and
avenues. (6)

The authors do not set out a conceptual framework for studying deliberative
ecologies, nor has subsequent research sought to do so. 尽管如此, their tan-
talizing references to this idea suggest that a deliberative ecologies perspective
can open up new theoretical vistas for the study of environmental agreement
making in two ways. 第一的, a deliberative ecologies perspective can tap into a rich
vein of concepts from ecology—the study of relationships between living organ-
isms and their environment—that can help researchers understand how partic-
ipants in negotiations interact. 第二, this perspective can bring to the fore the
interconnected social and ecological (“social–ecological”) systems in which ne-
gotiating sites operate and help us to understand the extent to which the course
of negotiations is shaped by those systems. My aim is not so much to inaugurate
a new ﬁeld of “deliberative ecology” in the singular (alongside political or or-
ganizational ecology and the like) as it is to highlight the value of a plurality of
ecological understandings of deliberative systems.

The analysis begins with a critical overview of literature that employs
complexity theory and deliberative systems to understand global environmental
治理. I then outline how a deliberative ecologies perspective could help
to overcome key limitations of existing systemic approaches. 最后, I illustrate
how two methods—discourse analysis and process tracing—could enhance
empirical understanding of how deliberative ecologies operate. Throughout
the article, I offer examples from multilateral biodiversity and climate gover-
南斯, drawing on ﬁrsthand observations of conferences of the parties (COPs)
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC;
2009, 2010) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; 2016,
2018) as well as on media and scholarly accounts of COPs during the period
2009–2018.

Complex Systems Perspectives on Environmental Agreement Making

A core premise shared by ecologists, deliberative theorists, and observers of
international environmental negotiations alike is that the systems they study
are complex. To lay the groundwork for articulating what a deliberative ecolo-
gies perspective has to offer as an integrative concept spanning these ﬁelds, 这

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

64 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

section clariﬁes what complex systems are, how negotiating sites can be under-
stood as complex systems, and how research has grappled with complexity in
global environmental governance.

Complex Systems: Characteristics and Properties
A system can be deﬁned very broadly as “a set of things … interconnected in such
a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time” (Meadows
2008, 2). While earlier phases of the sprawling transdisciplinary body of research
on systems (or “systems thinking”) were often marred by structural rigidity or
notions of functionalism (Duit et al. 2010), more recent developments—often
grouped under the banner of complexity theory—present a more nuanced and
dynamic account of how agents interact to produce systemwide behavior
(米切尔 2009; Cairney 2012, 347).

In their analysis of how complexity theory can inform the study of inter-
国家机构, Orsini et al. (2019, 3) deﬁne complex systems as “open
系统——即, exchanging information with their environment—that include
multiple elements (units) of various types intricately interconnected with one
another and operating at various levels.” Complexity results partly from the
number of interacting elements in the system, although this property is insufﬁ-
cient to make a system complex (like an ecosystem) rather than merely compli-
cated (like a jigsaw puzzle).

A common thread in systems thinking is the idea that systems demonstrate
recurring properties across widely varying contexts, from ant colonies and rainfor-
ests to the human brain, political institutions, and the internet (see generally
Meadows 2008; 米切尔 2009; Young 2017; Orsini et al. 2019). These properties
包括:
(西德:129) emergence, where systemwide behavior emerges, often unpredictably, 从

the interactions among its elements;

(西德:129) self-organization, where systems form and evolve in the absence of a central

authority or externally imposed order;

(西德:129) path dependence, or the sensitivity of a system’s long-term behavior to its

initial conditions;

(西德:129) nonlinear dynamics, where a change of a given magnitude in one part of the
system may produce a disproportionately large or small change elsewhere in
系统, partly due to feedback effects within the system; 和

(西德:129) adaptation, 学习, and coevolution as agents adjust their behavior in

response to interactions with others in the system.

Although some applications of complexity theory run the risk of reductionism in
their search for commonalities across heterogeneous systems, more nuanced ap-
proaches employ systems concepts with a greater appreciation of the contextual
speciﬁcity and diversity of the systems they study (Meadows 2008, 35).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 65

Environmental Negotiations as Nested Complex Systems

One virtue of complex systems perspectives is their ability to apply a common
set of concepts to analyze multiple scales and cross-scale interactions. 也许
the broadest unit commonly used in systemic analysis of global environmental
politics is (1) the “international system” comprising nation-states (华尔兹 1979).
This system—like many other complex systems—contains other systems or
subsystems nested within it (数字 1). 这些包括 (2) broad thematic areas
of global governance, such as the governance of the environment (Kim and
Mackey 2014, 10), 活力, or security, and within those areas (3) the governance
of individual environmental concerns, whether in tightly integrated regimes or
more loosely integrated “regime complexes,” such as those for climate change
(Keohane and Victor 2011) or biodiversity, comprising (4) one or more treaty
身体 (such as the UNFCCC or CBD) or international organizations (IOs,
such as the Global Environment Facility). Many of the innovative applications
of complex systems ideas to global environmental politics in recent years—
particularly those employing ideas of complex adaptive systems—deal with
级别 2-4 (看, 例如, Hoffmann 2005; Kim and Mackey 2014; Orsini et al.
2019). Within each of these systems, there may be further subsystems associated
和 (5) organizational units such as the COP to a treaty or a subsidiary body

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

数字 1
Nested Systems in Global Governance and International Environmental Negotiations

笔记: text in italics shows examples of systems at each level.

66 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

under the COP.1 Finally, systems could comprise (6) a meeting of one or more
of these organizational units; and so on down to (7) negotiations on an indi-
vidual agenda item, (8) a negotiating bloc, 或者 (9) a single delegation.

As this nonexhaustive list shows, global environmental governance sys-
tems operate across widely varying scales, with corresponding implications for
analysis of negotiating sites. 如图 1 说明, these sites (A) constitute
systems in their own right, (乙) are nested within larger systems that form the
“environment” within which the sites operate, 和 (C) have other systems
nested within them. While some systems may be clearly bounded in time or
space or by organizational or legal stipulation, in other cases, it may be hard
to say unambiguously what lies inside or outside a system’s boundaries. 更多的-
超过, as elaborated in later sections of this article, each of these systems is
embedded within social-ecological systems at different scales.

The Microdynamics of Negotiating Sites

Thinking about a negotiating site as a system can sensitize site-based research to
properties that are often studied at the macro-level (例如, self-organization, emer-
根杰斯, or nonlinear change), which may help to explain sudden shifts, persistent
blockages, or other dynamics that unfold during the course of a conference and
subsequently produce broader ripple effects through environmental regimes.
The next section (Deliberative Ecologies in International Environmental Agreement
制作) gives several examples of how nonlinear dynamics may be evident in
negotiating sites.

Applying a systemic perspective to negotiating sites need not involve a
conceptual mismatch in the sense of using a fundamentally structure-oriented
lens to understand agent-driven processes (Bousquet and Curtis 2011, 52;
Cairney 2012). Individual actors—such as presidents or chairs of negotiations,
executive secretaries of treaty secretariats, or heads of state—may have a prom-
inent role in guiding environmental negotiations to their conclusion (Tallberg
2010). But this is consistent with the view that their role is both constrained and
enabled by the negotiating structures and system characteristics within which
they work, including rules of procedure, ﬂows of information, and conﬁgura-
tions of power among negotiating blocs (Büscher 2014).

Even if systemic perspectives can be scaled down and used to navigate
tensions between structure and agency, there remains the challenge of showing
how thinking about negotiating sites as complex systems can help to address
important research questions in global environmental politics. I turn next to
a promising example of such an approach.

Subsystems could also be deﬁned around core governance functions of a regime such as goal-
环境, review and ﬁnancing (看, 例如, Pickering et al. 2017). These systems may span one or
more treaty bodies or organizational units, and for simplicity they are not depicted separately
图中 1.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Deliberative Systems in Global Environmental Governance

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 67

Deliberative systems approaches offer a valuable way to make sense of how
varying degrees of democratic legitimacy emerge from the complex interactions
among different modes and sites of political communication, which range from
parliamentary debates and town hall meetings to talkback radio and social
媒体. An important insight emerging from this work is that the democratic
legitimacy of the system as a whole is not reducible to the deliberative quality
of each individual part (Mansbridge et al. 2012). Systemic legitimacy may not
demand that every part of the system satisfy all criteria of good deliberation at
一次, 例如, that all affected parties be included and that participants pro-
vide publicly justiﬁable reasons for their arguments (善于 2008). 反而,
one can envisage a division of deliberative labor where different components
perform different functions and compensate for one another’s limitations, 或者
at least have the potential to do so.

Stevenson and Dryzek’s (2014) Democratizing Global Climate Governance
remains the high-water mark for deliberative systems analysis of global environ-
mental politics. Although their book focuses on climate change, its approach is
equally applicable to agreement making on other issues. Drawing on participant
observation as well as document analysis and interviews, Stevenson and Dryzek
investigate how environmental discourses feature in “public space” (civil society)
and “empowered space” (governmental or private authority) within the delibera-
tive system for global climate governance and how those discourses are
transmitted from the former to the latter. Through analysis of four civil society
and business summits that took place around the UN climate conference in
Copenhagen in 2009, they identify a range of discourses in public space
surrounding the UNFCCC negotiations but ﬁnd that this diversity is not fully
reﬂected in negotiated outcomes. They ﬁnd an even narrower range of discourses
embedded in networked climate governance (studied through three transnational
initiatives on climate ﬁnance, mitigation technologies, and carbon offset certiﬁ-
阳离子) as well as a less active public space seeking to transmit its concerns.

Stevenson and Dryzek’s book valuably illuminates how multiple sites
interact to produce a deliberative system that struggles to achieve meaningful
inclusion of affected groups or a reﬂexive capacity to learn from prior experience.
尽管如此, its scope of analysis is limited in several respects, which highlight
opportunities for future analysis and new perspectives on deliberative systems.
第一的, while the authors offer many examples of key moments in deliber-
ative processes or accounts of how a decision was reached, they rarely present a
detailed textual analysis of the communicative interactions among actors. 秒-
另一, while their analysis occasionally points to the physical features of negotiat-
ing sites—for example, the distance between negotiating rooms and venues for
side events or protests where civil society is more actively involved (史蒂文森
and Dryzek 2014, 123, 144)—the “spaces” they map are largely discursive rather
than physical. The authors do not engage closely with how the broader social and

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

68 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

ecological settings of those sites shape deliberation. 第三, as with much other
research on deliberative systems, the book draws on a limited number of systems
概念 (例如, functional differentiation), with much less emphasis on other
concepts in the broader repertoire of systems thinking (例如, nonlinear dynam-
集成电路). 最后, the book says little about how the UNFCCC interacts with a broader
constellation of negotiating sites, including those at the science–policy interface,
such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the next section, 我
show how a deliberative ecologies perspective can help to address the ﬁrst three
of these limitations (for strategies to address the fourth, see Hughes and Vadrot,
this issue).

Deliberative Ecologies in Environmental Agreement Making

As outlined in the introduction, the deliberative ecologies perspective can help
to illuminate environmental agreement making in two important ways: 它
expands the conceptual repertoire of deliberative systems thinking by adapting ideas
from the ﬁeld of ecology and complexity theory on how systems operate, and it
draws attention to the material and communicative interactions between delibera-
tive practices and the social–ecological systems in which they are embedded.
This section explores each of these aspects in turn.

Harnessing Ecological Concepts to Understand Negotiating Sites
The ﬁeld of ecology employs many ideas from complexity theory to explain
how ecosystems emerge, function, 改变, and collapse (看, 例如, Holling
1973; Dyball and Newell 2014). 尽管如此, a deep convergence of ideas from
complexity theory and ecology is rarely found in research on global environ-
mental politics. Research on political ecology has yielded valuable insights into
relationships between global environmental institutions and local experiences
of environmental change, particularly in the Global South (Adger et al. 2001;
Newell and Bumpus 2012). 然而, it is less common for work in political
ecology to explore the ecological settings of negotiating sites themselves or to
draw on the broader array of ecological concepts to understand governance
dynamics (沃克 2005). Here I turn to three areas which have generated valuable
insights in international relations—organizational ecology, nonlinear dynamics,
and evolutionary theories of norm diffusion—areas that a deliberative ecologies
perspective could harness and adapt to understand how negotiating sites
function.

The ﬁrst set of concepts applies ideas from organizational ecology, 参与-
ularly the notion that the availability of resources and the organizational density
in a given environment affect the capacity of organizational populations to
ﬂourish within it (Abbott et al. 2016). The authors apply these ideas creatively
to global climate governance to explain why private transnational regulatory
organizations have expanded more rapidly in recent years than intergovernmental

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 69

组织. Taking organizational populations as the unit of analysis may
work well at a macro-level but becomes harder to apply to individual negotiating
站点. 而且, as Abbott et al. (2016, 250) acknowledge, theirs is primarily a
structural theory that needs to be complemented by agent-oriented perspectives.
One promising way forward is to adapt the idea of the ecological “niche,”
which both Abbott et al. (2016) and Mansbridge et al. (2012, 6) 采用. 在
ecology, a niche is commonly understood as “the range of environmental con-
ditions that allow a population to persist in some location” (Schoener 2009, 2).
In a deliberative ecology, the conditions that enable a discourse or practice to
persist may include factors such as support from powerful actors or embedded-
ness in legal institutions or cultural traditions. Mansbridge et al. use the idea to
argue that mechanisms that are nondeliberative or poorly deliberative—such as
political partisanship and the use of cognitive shortcuts in making decisions—
can nevertheless serve useful functions in a deliberative system. The term could
also be extended beyond mechanisms to the actors that inhabit a deliberative
系统. The idea of a niche is sometimes invoked in studies of diplomacy to
describe how nondominant actors, such as middle powers or nongovernmental
组织 (NGOs), carve out a role for themselves (Princen 1994; Betsill
and Corell 2001). At a micro-level, the niche idea could help to explain the spa-
tial conﬁguration of negotiating sites—as different actors compete for space to
deliberate or promote themselves—or the strategies used by marginal or
obstructive parties to colonize agenda items that give them a foothold for advanc-
ing their objectives (as Saudi Arabia has done in using the UNFCCC’s “response
measures” item to obstruct collective progress on climate change mitigation;
Depledge 2008).

A second set of concepts involves nonlinear dynamics driven by feedback
effects. While interest in these dynamics is characteristic of complexity theory
更普遍, it is also a core concept in ecology (Dyball and Newell
2014). Reinforcing or positive feedback loops enable initially small changes
to produce much larger effects, sometimes rapidly and unexpectedly. 在骗子-
特拉斯特, balancing or negative feedback loops help to preserve equilibrium in sys-
特姆斯, meaning that a large change in one part of a system may nevertheless fail
to produce a correspondingly large change in the overall system. Much existing
research on nonlinear dynamics in global environmental governance operates at
a macro-level (where states are the individual units) and over longer temporal
scales (years or months). 例如, iterative processes of reviewing imple-
mentation and renewing commitments—as with cycles of Nationally Deter-
mined Contributions under the Paris Agreement—aim to promote a virtuous
圆圈 (a type of positive feedback loop) where progress engenders more progress
(Falkner 2016). Much less attention has been devoted to micro-level negotiating
dynamics that may occur among individuals over hours, minutes, or seconds,
such as crowding behavior or the formation of “huddles” in the late stages of
negotiations. 例如, positive feedback effects that initially increase the
numbers of people present in a venue may eventually trigger negative feedback

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

70 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

mechanisms, as where the organizers of the Copenhagen climate conference in
2009 drastically reduced civil society access in the late stages of the conference
in response to unprecedented levels of civil society attendance (Stevenson and
Dryzek 2014, 144; see also Neeff 2013, 159, for a related analogy between
COP participation levels and bacteria populations).

To take another example, one reason posited for why multilateral meet-
ings often stall or run over time is the norm that “nothing is agreed until every-
thing is agreed,” meaning that the resolution of key issues is often backloaded
and conferences frequently run hours or days over their deadlines (Chasek et al.
2015). This norm results in a threshold effect or tipping point, where a confer-
ence may transition rapidly from large amounts of bracketed (yet-to-be-agreed)
text to a fully agreed outcome. The sequencing of decisions has important
implications for power relations and the quality of decision-making, but much
remains to be understood about how this dynamic operates in large negotia-
tions and how it could function more effectively.

A third set of concepts involves the use of ideas from evolutionary biology
to explain how international norms diffuse (看, 例如, Florini 1996; Finnemore
and Sikkink 1998). These accounts often trace the evolution of norms over lon-
ger time periods, given that international legal norms may take decades to gain
wide acceptance. 然而, other inputs and outputs of deliberation may travel
more quickly—from concepts, 话语, and buzzwords to scientiﬁc ﬁndings,
解释, rumors, and snippets of negotiating text—and shape the course
of negotiations during a single conference. A deliberative ecologies perspective
could draw on and adapt theories of norm diffusion to investigate how these
elements of deliberation diffuse through negotiating sites.

Social–Ecological Interactions

A second vista that a deliberative ecologies perspective could open up concerns
the social–ecological relations in which negotiations are embedded. In a review
of ﬁndings and future questions in global environmental governance, Pattberg
and Widerberg (2015, 701) argue that “systems thinking could yield new
knowledge on how humans interact with the environment by identifying drivers,
impacts and feedback loops between the two systems.” Social–ecological systems
(SESs) comprise ecosystems and social systems that are linked together into a
larger hybrid entity (Young 2017, 4–5). As with deliberative systems analysis, A
strength of SES approaches is their ability to span multiple scales and thereby
place individual sites in a broader context. The scale of SESs may range from local
(例如, a wetland or forest) to global (including the Earth system itself ). 尽管
much early work on SESs concentrated on local levels, researchers have sub-
sequently extended SES analysis to multilevel governance, 例如, 通过
studying global climate governance as a polycentric set of systems (看, 例如,
奥斯特罗姆 2010). Negotiating sites are embedded within both the SESs they
purport to address (例如, the global climate) and the local SESs surrounding

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 71

the site itself (例如, the reclaimed wetlands surrounding UN climate and bio-
diversity summits in the resort city of Cancún; Vidal 2010).

An abiding critique of SES analysis is that it tends to assume that social
systems operate much like ecosystems do, leading proponents to conﬂate prop-
erties observed in ecosystems—such as resilience or redundancy—with desirable
features of social systems (Challies et al. 2014). Despite these concerns, SES
analysis could yield fruitful results if it were more deeply informed by social
scientiﬁc concepts and methods and judiciously adapted to a global scale (Duit
等人. 2010, 364; Dryzek and Pickering 2019).

A deliberative ecologies perspective could assist in this regard by critically
interrogating the ways in which social and ecological systems are “coupled” with
one another in practice (Hill et al. 2015, 27; Young 2017). 例如, this per-
spective could yield insights on how the political representation of nonhuman
nature in deliberation could help to couple negotiating sites with ecosystems in
more productive ways (Eckersley 2004; Dryzek and Pickering 2019). A major
impediment for environmental deliberation is that ecosystems and species at risk
cannot speak for themselves. Recent CBD COPs have displayed creative strategies
to represent nature in negotiating spaces, ranging from a Speak for Species cam-
paign launched in 2016 by the Global Youth Biodiversity Network—which called
on delegates to adopt a species or ecosystem and raise awareness about it during
the conference—to a plenary segment at the 2018 COP featuring an eco-acoustic
performance of the sounds of equatorial rainforests (IISD 2018).

Methods for Applying a Deliberative Ecologies Perspective to
Environmental Agreement Making

Quantitative methods, such as game-theoretic and agent-based models
(Lempert et al. 2009; O’Neill et al. 2013) and social network analysis (Kim
2013; Paterson, this issue), have become increasingly popular for understanding
complex governance systems and ecosystems alike. Qualitative methods or
mixed-methods approaches (看, 例如, Hoffmann 2011; Paterson et al. 2014)
are particularly valuable for studying phenomena where multiple causes interact
in a nonlinear fashion ( Jervis 1997; Bennett and Elman 2006, 262), yet they
remain underused in analyses of complex systems. This section presents two pri-
marily qualitative methods—discourse analysis and process tracing—that could
be employed either separately or in tandem to explore the two dimensions of
deliberative ecologies identiﬁed in the previous section. The examples presented
here do not amount to fully ﬂedged case studies but offer a “proof of concept”
to demonstrate potential for future research.

Analyzing the Ecology of Discourses in Negotiating Sites

Discourses, along with actors and communicative exchanges, are among the
basic components of deliberative ecologies. Discourses—deﬁned here as shared

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

72 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

ways of apprehending the world (Dryzek 2013, 9)—help actors to coordinate
and interpret their interactions with one another. Although some discursive
shifts may only be observable over long time periods, others may be apparent
during the course of a single conference, such as the proliferation of calls for a
“new deal for nature” at the CBD COP in 2018 (CBD 2018). Discourse analysis
offers a particularly promising method for studying individual exchanges as well
as broader discourses. While this method is solidly established in the study of
deliberative systems (Stevenson and Dryzek 2014; Ercan et al. 2017) and envi-
ronmental negotiations (Adger et al. 2001; Marion Suiseeya 2014), a delibera-
tive ecologies perspective reveals new opportunities to use it to understand
processes of change and to evaluate practices of agreement making.

Diffusion and Evolution of Discourses and Deliberative Practices
The ﬁrst strategy involves using discourse analysis to understand how discourses
and deliberative practices emerge, diffuse, and evolve. Such an approach could
build on existing work that combines discourse analysis with collaborative
event ethnography (CEE; see Marion Suiseeya and Zanotti, this issue) to assess
opportunities and barriers for discursive change. Marion Suiseeya (2014), 为了
例子, investigates whether the CBD COP 10 (held in Nagoya in 2010)
enabled contestation over meanings of justice associated with accessing genetic
resources and sharing the beneﬁts from their use. She ﬁnds that deliberation
focused largely on how to implement existing—and predominantly neoliberal—
principles of justice rather than on contesting the meaning of those principles
in ways that could advance the interests of Indigenous peoples and local com-
社区. Marion Suiseeya (2014, 120) ﬁnds that, paradoxically, “even as the
deliberative space expands to include more actors, the space for introducing
and contesting norms, ideas, and meanings remains constrained.” To account
for this paradox, a deliberative ecologies perspective could enlist concepts from
organizational ecology outlined earlier. It may be the case, 例如, that in a
more inclusive deliberative space, nonstate actors ﬁnd themselves competing for
a static level of attentional resources from government negotiators. They may
therefore focus their efforts on instrumental strategies to achieve predetermined
goals rather than on opening up principles of justice for debate, which would
require substantial attention from government negotiators but may produce
fewer short-term gains. Ecological analysis could also illuminate factors that
enable “weighted concepts” (see Hughes and Vadrot, this issue) to incubate
and diffuse across negotiating sites. 相似地, discourse analysis could be com-
bined with social network analysis to show how discourses cluster across delib-
erative settings (see Paterson, this issue).

最后, discourse analysis could help to understand how deliberative
practices—and the associated discourses in which they are embedded—spread
through negotiating sites. Of particular interest here is the UNFCCC’s embrace
of two forms of deliberation inspired by different cultural traditions. 在

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 73

Durban COP in 2011 parties gathered for a series of “indabas” informed by
Zulu and Xhosa traditions that were “motivated by the spirit of the common
good” and aimed to resolve intractable issues (Redmond 2011). 然后, 在
2017, the Fijian COP presidency launched the Talanoa Dialogue (Lesniewska
and Siegele 2018), based on the Paciﬁc tradition of Talanoa, which aims for
an “inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue” that enables participants
to “share stories, build empathy and trust” (UNFCCC 2018, Annex II). 绘画
on evolutionary and niche concepts outlined in the previous section, a deliber-
ative ecologies perspective could help to explain how these innovations took
hold. One such account could begin by pointing to parties’ widespread dissat-
isfaction with the UNFCCC’s existing negotiating practices, particularly after
many were excluded from the drafting of the Copenhagen Accord. This dis-
content may have freed up political resources that could be used to enable
alternative deliberative practices to occupy a niche within the system. 这
COP presidencies of South Africa and Fiji, 分别, provided the resources
for these practices to take root in the conferences they hosted. Given com-
petition from prevailing negotiating formats, there was a strong risk that these
practices would wither once the presidency passed on to another country.
尽管如此, after maintaining a lower proﬁle in the intervening years, 这
indaba once again came to prominence in the closing days of the Paris COP
在 2015, when the COP president, Laurent Fabius, initiated an “indaba of solu-
tions” in what was ultimately a successful effort to break deadlocks over the text
of the Paris Agreement (Bate 2015). This example suggests that there would be
value in exploring further how cultivating and sustaining diverse negotiating
practices could bolster healthy deliberative ecologies. This work could build
on ﬁndings about the value of diversity in complex systems (页 2010).

Evaluating Discursive Quality

A second strategy involves using techniques developed in research on delibera-
tive democracy to evaluate micro-level deliberative interactions in order to build
up a picture of the overall deliberative quality of the negotiating site, 或者
health of the deliberative ecology.

Perhaps the best-known tool of this kind is the Discourse Quality Index
(DQI) developed by Steenbergen et al. (2003) and updated by Gerber et al.
(2018). The DQI sets out a framework for coding deliberative statements across
a range of criteria, such as the extent to which actors participate in debate, justify
their own claims, and respect the claims of others. Micro-level ﬁndings on dis-
course quality can inform macro-level assessments of the deliberative capacity
or democratic legitimacy of broader polities or governance areas (Dryzek 2010;
Stevenson and Dryzek 2014). Pedrini (2014) shows how the DQI can be used
to reveal a division of labor across different sites within a national deliberative
系统. 相似地, in environmental agreement making, plenaries may be better
at securing the inclusion of all parties than fostering a meaningful exchange of

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

74 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

意见, while the converse may hold for smaller (often closed) forums for delib-
进化, such as contact groups or Friends of the Chair meetings (Eckersley
2012). The DQI could also be used to investigate whether innovative practices
like indabas or the Talanoa Dialogue display higher deliberative quality than
conventional negotiating formats and whether enhanced quality within these
settings ﬂows through to other parts of the system.

Challenges to implementing the DQI include the laborious nature of cod-
ing individual statements and the difﬁculty of obtaining access to deliberation
that takes place behind closed doors (Stevenson and Dryzek 2014, 65–66).
然而, neither of these challenges is unique to environmental agreement
making or to discourse analysis. Coupling DQI analysis with CEE could help
应对这些挑战, as the latter method typically generates a wealth
of data on deliberative encounters, and the team-based approach of CEE makes
DQI coding more workable.

Process Tracing the Social–Ecological Dynamics of Negotiating Sites

Long-term environmental problems may coevolve with regimes to address those
问题, but typically, long-range studies are required to understand how this
kind of social–ecological interaction unfolds (Vanhala 2017, 98). Other social–
ecological interactions occurring over shorter time frames and at smaller scales
may be more amenable to site-based analysis, but there remains the important
question whether these interactions exert more than a trivial causal inﬂuence on
the overall dynamics of deliberation.

Process tracing offers a promising method for testing this question. Process
tracing involves identifying causal mechanisms that link the causes of particular
events or phenomena to their outcomes, drawing on a wide range of sources of
evidence associated with an individual case or a small number of cases (Waldner
2012). This method is valuable for addressing complex causal relationships where
dynamics like feedback effects—which often confound standard quantitative
methods such as regression analysis—are at play (Kay and Baker 2015). Vanhala
(2017, 94–95) highlights the potential for process tracing to discover inter-
actions between social and ecological systems. Here I highlight two such types
of interaction.2

The ﬁrst type involves the capacity of sudden environmental shocks or
disasters to shape the tenor of negotiations. Two recent studies use process trac-
ing to understand how the UNFCCC came to grapple with the issue of loss and
damage resulting from climate change (Vanhala and Hestbaek 2016; Allan and
Hadden 2017). While neither of these studies seeks to offer primarily ecological
explanations for institutional change, both yield suggestive evidence on how

2. A third type of interaction, not discussed here because of space limitations, involves the eco-
logical impacts of multilateral meetings on the problems that they aim to solve, 例如,
the carbon footprint of UN climate conferences.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 75

environmental shocks can catalyze discursive shifts in negotiations. Vanhala and
Hestbaek (2016, 118–119) observe that the destruction wrought by Typhoon
Haiyan in the Philippines shortly before the UN climate conference in 2013
helped to make loss and damage “a critical and high-proﬁle issue.” Allan and
Hadden (2017, 609–610) attribute “a major frame transformation” in the loss
and damage campaign to an episode at the Warsaw COP where Philippine cli-
mate negotiator Yeb Saño went on a hunger strike in response to the typhoon,
and some NGO participants joined him in solidarity.

A second type of interaction involves how negotiating sites are physically
embedded in SESs. Deliberative ecologies analysis could build on other spatially
oriented approaches to analyzing negotiating sites (例如, the “micro-geographies”
of UN climate summits; Weisser and Müller-Mahn 2017) while placing these in a
broader explanatory context. Given that environmental negotiations are typically
held in generic meeting rooms in large convention centers, delegates are largely
cocooned from their immediate surroundings. 即使是这样, there is scope to explore
how negotiating sites may be chosen strategically to strengthen local social–
ecological couplings or to disrupt the generic backdrop of negotiating venues.
Situating the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2016
World Conservation Congress in Hawai‘i, 例如, underscored the event’s
focus on ocean conservation, as well as helping the US government showcase
its expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, 哪个
became the world’s largest marine reserve ( Wilson Center 2016).

反过来, one could investigate the discursive effects of hosting UN
climate change conferences in fossil fuel–dependent countries like Poland and
Qatar. At COP 24, held in the Polish coal-mining city of Katowice in 2018, 这
presence of coal was unmissable:

Delegates arriving at the talks were met by the taste of coal in the air and
high levels of smog, as well as an accolade from the Polish Coal Miners
Band. It was very quickly noted that the Katowice pavilion inside the COP
venue featured walls, ﬂoors, soap and even earrings all made from coal.
(Carbon Brief 2018)

These settings in turn provide discursive resources that participants can employ
to interpret and shape negotiations, as with efforts at COP 24 to ensure a “just
transition” of workers in fossil fuel industries as economies shift to cleaner sources
of energy. 相似地, a reporter attending the CBD COP 14 in Sharm El-Sheikh,
埃及, 在 2018 著名的, “Highlighting the low priority that even the host government
put on nature, a shop near the conference centre was openly selling an illegal
lion hide” ( Watts 2018).

结论

在本文中, I have shown how a deliberative ecologies perspective can weave
together a range of innovations in the study of deliberative systems, 复杂的

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

76 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

系统, and ecology to yield new insights on questions such as how discourses
and deliberative practices diffuse through negotiating sites, how negotiations
interact with their social–ecological context, and how both of these processes
can shape broader systems for global environmental governance. I have shown
how methods such as discourse analysis and process tracing can be employed to
gain empirical traction on these questions. In these ways, a deliberative ecolo-
gies perspective can strike a balance between structure- and agent-oriented
modes of studying agreement making while building analytical bridges between
communicative exchanges among negotiators and the larger-scale dynamics of
global environmental politics. 更普遍, this perspective offers a set of
tools that can be used in multiple conﬁgurations to render the complexity
of negotiating sites more legible.

While much of the article has focused on the descriptive and explanatory
potential of deliberative ecologies, I have brieﬂy illustrated their potential for
normative analysis, 例如, through generating ideas on how to couple
negotiations more closely with the ecological interests they seek to address.
The challenge remains for future research to build a stronger evidence base
for how deliberative ecologies function so that we are in a better position to
understand how they can ﬂourish.

Jonathan Pickering is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Canberra,
澳大利亚, based at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Gover-
南斯. His research focuses on global environmental governance, and he is cur-
rently working on an Australian Research Council–funded project (led by John
Dryzek) on “Deliberating in the Anthropocene.” His research has been pub-
lished in a range of journals, including Climate Policy, Environmental Politics,
Global Environmental Politics, and International Environmental Agreements: 政治,
Law and Economics. He has coauthored with John Dryzek a book titled The
Politics of the Anthropocene (2019).

参考

Abbott, Kenneth W., Jessica F. 绿色的, and Robert O. 基奥哈内. 2016. Organizational
Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance. International Organization
70 (2): 247–277.

Adger, 瓦. Neil, Tor A. Benjaminsen, Katrina Brown, and Hanne Svarstad. 2001. Advanc-
ing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. Development and
改变 32 (4): 681–715.

艾伦, Jen Iris, and Jennifer Hadden. 2017. Exploring the Framing Power of NGOs in

Global Climate Politics. Environmental Politics 26 (4): 600–620.

Bate, Felix. 2015. Climate Talks Turn to South African Indaba Process to Unlock Deal.
Reuters, 十二月 11. Available at www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-
summit-indaba/climate-talks-turn-to-south-african-indaba-process-to-unlock-deal-
idUSKBN0TT29C20151210, 三月访问 25, 2019.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Bennett, 安德鲁, and Colin Elman. 2006. Complex Causal Relations and Case Study

方法: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis 14 (3): 250–267.

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 77

Betsill, 米歇尔, Navroz K. Dubash, Matthew Paterson, Harro van Asselt, Antto Vihma,
and Harald Winkler. 2015. Building Productive Links between the UNFCCC and
the Broader Global Climate Governance Landscape. Global Environmental Politics
15 (2): 1–10.

Betsill, Michele M., and Elisabeth Corell. 2001. NGO Inﬂuence in International Environmen-
tal Negotiations: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 1 (4): 65–85.
Biermann, Frank. 2007. “Earth System Governance” as a Crosscutting Theme of Global

Change Research. Global Environmental Change 17 (3–4): 326–337.

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

Bousquet, Antoine, and Simon Curtis. 2011. Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity
理论, Systems Thinking and International Relations. Cambridge Review of Interna-
tional Affairs 24 (1): 43–62.

Büscher, Bram. 2014. Collaborative Event Ethnography: Between Structural Power and

Empirical Nuance? Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 132–138.

Cairney, 保罗. 2012. Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy. 政治的

Studies Review 10 (3): 346–358.

坎贝尔, Lisa M., Catherine Corson, Noella J. Gray, Kenneth I. MacDonald, 和 J. 彼得
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
政治 14 (3): 1–20.

Carbon Brief. 2018. COP24: Key Outcomes Agreed at the UN Climate Talks in Katowice.
十二月 16. Available at www.carbonbrief.org/cop24-key-outcomes-agreed-at-
the-un-climate-talks-in-katowice, 三月访问 25, 2019.

CBD. 2018. Sharm El-Sheikh Declaration: Investing in Biodiversity for People and

Planet. CBD/COP/14/12, 十一月 16.

Challies, 爱德华, Jens Newig, and Andrea Lenschow. 2014. What Role for Social–
Ecological Systems Research in Governing Global Teleconnections? Global Environ-
mental Change 27: 32–40.

Chasek, Pamela, Lynn Wagner, 和我. William Zartman. 2015. Six Ways to Make Climate
Negotiations More Effective. Fixing Climate Governance Series, 政策简介 3,
Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Dauvergne, 彼得, and Jennifer Clapp. 2016. Researching Global Environmental Politics

in the 21st Century. Global Environmental Politics 16 (1): 1–12.

Depledge, Joanna. 2008. Striving for No: Saudi Arabia in the Climate Change Regime.

Global Environmental Politics 8 (4): 9–35.

Dryzek, John S. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. 牛津, 英国:

牛津大学出版社.

Dryzek, John S. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. 3RD版. 牛津,

英国: 牛津大学出版社.

Dryzek, John S., and Jonathan Pickering. 2019. The Politics of the Anthropocene. 牛津,

英国: 牛津大学出版社.

Duit, Andreas, Victor Galaz, Katarina Eckerberg, and Jonas Ebbesson. 2010. Governance,
Complexity, and Resilience. Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 363–368.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

78 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

Dyball, 罗伯特, and Barry Newell. 2014. Understanding Human Ecology: A Systems Approach

to Sustainability. 伦敦, 英国: 劳特利奇.

Eckersley, Robyn. 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty.

剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.

Eckersley, Robyn. 2012. Moving Forward in Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or

Minilateralism? Global Environmental Politics 12 (2): 24–42.

Ercan, Selen A., Carolyn M. Hendriks, and John Boswell. 2017. Studying Public Deliber-
ation after the Systemic Turn: The Crucial Role for Interpretive Research. Policy and
政治 45 (2): 195–212.

Falkner, 罗伯特. 2016. The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate

政治. International Affairs 92 (5): 1107–1125.

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and

Political Change. International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Florini, 安. 1996. The Evolution of International Norms. International Studies Quarterly

40 (3): 363–389.

Gerber, Marlène, André Bächtiger, Susumu Shikano, Simon Reber, and Samuel Rohr.
2018. Deliberative Abilities and Inﬂuence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll
(EuroPolis). British Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 1093–1118.

善于, 罗伯特·E. 2008. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the

Deliberative Turn. 牛津, 英国: 牛津大学出版社.

爬坡道, R。, G. A. Dyer, L. 中号. Lozada-Ellison, A. Gimona, J. Martin-Ortega, J. Munoz-Rojas,
和我. J. Gordon. 2015. A Social–Ecological Systems Analysis of Impediments to
Delivery of the Aichi 2020 Targets and Potentially More Effective Pathways to the
Conservation of Biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 34: 22–34.

Hoffmann, Matthew J. 2005. Ozone Depletion and Climate Change: Constructing a Global

Response. Albany, 纽约: State University of New York Press.

Hoffmann, Matthew J. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a

Global Response after Kyoto. 纽约, 纽约: 牛津大学出版社.

Holling, Crawford S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.

IISD. 2018. UN Biodiversity Conference Highlights: Tuesday, 20 十一月 2018. Earth
Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Jervis, 罗伯特. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Social and Political Life. 普林斯顿大学, 新泽西州:

普林斯顿大学出版社.

Kay, Adrian, and Phillip Baker. 2015. What Can Causal Process Tracing Offer to Policy

学习? A Review of the Literature. Policy Studies Journal 43 (1): 1–21.

基奥哈内, Robert O., and David G. Victor. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate

改变. Perspectives on Politics 9 (1): 7–23.

Kim, Rakhyun E. 2013. Emergent Network Structure of the Multilateral Environmental

Agreement System. Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 980–991.

Kim, Rakhyun E., and Brendan Mackey. 2014. International Environmental Law as a
Complex Adaptive System. International Environmental Agreements: 政治, Law
and Economics 14 (1): 5–24.

Lempert, 罗伯特, Jürgen Scheffran, and Detlef F. Sprinz. 2009. Methods for Long-Term

Environmental Policy Challenges. Global Environmental Politics 9 (3): 106–133.

Lesniewska, Feja, and Linda Siegele. 2018. The Talanoa Dialogue: A Crucible to Spur Am-
bitious Global Climate Action to Stay within the 1.5°C Limit. Carbon and Climate
法律评论 12 (1): 41–49.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Jonathan Pickering

(西德:129) 79

Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung,
John Parkinson, Dennis F. 汤普森, and Mark E. Warren. 2012. A Systemic
Approach to Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy
at the Large Scale, edited by J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge, 1–26. 牛津, 英国: 牛津
大学出版社.

Marion Suiseeya, Kimberly R. 2014. Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous

Demands for Justice. Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 102–124.

Meadows, Donella H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT:

Chelsea Green.

米切尔, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. 牛津, 英国: 牛津大学出版社.
Najam, Adil, Ioli Christopoulou, and William R. Moomaw. 2004. The Emergent “Sys-
tem” of Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 4 (4):
23–35.

Neeff, Till. 2013. How Many Will Attend Paris? UNFCCC COP Participation Patterns

1995–2015. Environmental Science and Policy 31: 157–159.

Newell, 彼得, and Adam Bumpus. 2012. The Global Political Ecology of the Clean

Development Mechanism. Global Environmental Politics 12 (4): 49–67.

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

Oberthür, Sebastian, and Olav Schram Stokke. 2011. Managing Institutional Complexity:
Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Okereke, Chukwumerije, Harriet Bulkeley, and Heike Schroeder. 2009. Conceptualizing
Climate Governance beyond the International Regime. Global Environmental Politics
9 (1): 58–78.

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://土井.
org/10.1093/isr/viz005.

奥斯特罗姆, Elinor. 2010. Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global

Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 20 (4): 550–557.

页, Scott E. 2010. Diversity and Complexity. 普林斯顿大学, 新泽西州: 普林斯顿大学出版社.
Paterson, 马修, Matthew Hoffmann, Michele Betsill, and Steven Bernstein. 2014. 这
Micro Foundations of Policy Diffusion toward Complex Global Governance. 康姆-
parative Political Studies 47 (3): 420–449.

Pattberg, Philipp, and Oscar Widerberg. 2015. Theorising Global Environmental
Governance: Key Findings and Future Questions. Millennium: Journal of International
学习 43 (2): 684–705.

Pedrini, Seraina. 2014. Deliberative Capacity in the Political and Civic Sphere. Swiss

Political Science Review 20 (2): 263–286.

皮克林, 乔纳森, Carola Betzold, and Jakob Skovgaard. 2017. Managing Fragmenta-
tion and Complexity in the Emerging System of International Climate Finance.
International Environmental Agreements: 政治, Law and Economics 17 (1): 1–16.

Princen, 托马斯. 1994. NGOs: Creating a Niche in Environmental Diplomacy. 在
Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global, edited by
时间. Princen and M. Finger, 29–47. 伦敦, 英国: 劳特利奇.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

80 (西德:129) Deliberative Ecologies

Redmond, 标记. 2011. Speaking but Not Listening; Meeting but Not Engaging. F&ES
Blog, 十二月 1. Available at https://environment.yale.edu/ blog/2011/12/
speaking-but-not-listening-meeting-but-not-engaging/, 三月访问 25, 2019.
Schoener, Thomas W. 2009. Ecological Niche. In The Princeton Guide to Ecology, edited by

S. A. 莱文, 22–39. 普林斯顿大学, 新泽西州: 普林斯顿大学出版社.

Steenbergen, Marco R., André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Jürg Steiner. 2003.
Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European
政治 1 (1): 21–48.

史蒂文森, Hayley, and John S. Dryzek. 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance.

剑桥, 英国: 剑桥大学出版社.

Tallberg, Jonas. 2010. The Power of the Chair: Formal Leadership in International Coop-

进化. International Studies Quarterly 54 (1): 241–265.

UNFCCC. 2018. Fiji Momentum for Implementation. FCCC/CP/2017/11/Add.1,

二月 8.

Vanhala, Lisa. 2017. Process Tracing in the Study of Environmental Politics. Global Envi-

ronmental Politics 17 (4): 88–105.

Vanhala, Lisa, and Cecilie Hestbaek. 2016. Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in

UNFCCC Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 16 (4): 111–129.

Vidal, 约翰. 2010. Cancún: From Mangrove Paradise to Polluted Megasprawl. Guardian,
十二月 9. 可用于: www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/09/
cancun-mangrove-paradise-megasprawl, 三月访问 25, 2019.

Waldner, 大卫. 2012. Process Tracing and Causal Mechanisms. In The Oxford Handbook
of Philosophy of Social Science, edited by H. Kincaid, 65–84. 牛津: Oxford Univer-
城市出版社.

沃克, 彼得·A. 2005. Political Ecology: Where Is the Ecology? Progress in Human

Geography 29 (1): 73–82.

华尔兹, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, 嘛: Addison-Wesley.
Watts, 乔纳森. 2018. China Urged to Lead Way in Efforts to Save Life on Earth.
Guardian, 十一月 30. Available at www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/
nov/29/china-urged-lead-way-efforts-save-life-on-earth-un, 三月访问 25,
2019.

Weisser, Florian, and Detlef Müller-Mahn. 2017. No Place for the Political: Micro-

geographies of the Paris Climate Conference 2015. Antipode 49 (3): 802–820.

Wilson Center. 2016. Planet at the Crossroads: Insights from IUCN’s World Conserva-
tion Congress. 十一月 9. Available at www.wilsoncenter.org/event/planet-
the-crossroads-insights-iucns-world-conservation-congress, 三月访问 25,
2019.

Young, Oran R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay,

and Scale. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.

Young, Oran R. 2017. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene.

剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

我

e
d
你
G
e
p
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
9
2
6
1
1
8
1
8
3
9
3
G
e
p
_
A
_
0
0
5
0
6
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf