The governance of scientific assessment in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : lessons for international cooperation in science, technology and innovation

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been an example of an effective science-policy interface in international environmental affairs. For its efforts “to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change,” the Panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. The discussion paper outlines the main characteristics of the IPCC’s governance framework in relation to: institutional structure and decision-making; the assessment process; communication of assessment findings and outreach activities; the role of the IPCC in policymaking; as well as its role in capacity-building work. In doing so, it reflects the reforms made by the Panel between 2010 and 2012 in response to the external review of its processes and procedures called for after errors were found in the Fourth Assessment Report. The paper concludes with an overview of strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC model which may be useful for other multilateral research-related initiatives

Informal interference in the judiciary in new democracies : a comparison of six African and Latin American cases

This paper assesses the extent to which elected power holders informally intervene in the judiciaries of new democracies, an acknowledged but under‐researched topic in studies of judicial politics. The paper first develops an empirical strategy for the study of informal interference based on perceptions recorded in interviews, then applies the strategy to six third‐wave democracies, three in Africa (Benin, Madagascar and Senegal) and three in Latin America (Argentina, Chile and Paraguay). It also examines how three conditioning factors affect the level of informal judicial interference: formal rules, previous democratic experience, and socioeconomic development. Our results show that countries with better performance in all these conditioning factors exhibit less informal interference than countries with poorer or mixed performance. The results stress the importance of systematically including informal politics in the study of judicial politics