Competition and Cooperation: India and China in the Global Climate Regime

The need to cooperate in matters of climate change requires partnerships among states, such as India and China, that in other contexts are competitors - if not rivals. This simultaneity of cooperation and competition is one of the key features of the emerging multipolar order and should take centre stage for both policy and research. Climate change is the key challenge for the coming decade, requiring cooperation from major emitters on mitigation, adaptation, climate finance, and the decarbonisation of the energy supply. No state will be able to achieve sufficient climate action alone. Simultaneously, geopolitical and geo-economic tensions between these actors in the increasingly multipolar global order are growing, not only in today's most obvious case of Ukraine but also on the Indo-Chinese border. This juxtaposition of cooperation and conflict also plays out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: at COP26 in 2021, India and China aligned to ensure that in the final agreement the commitment to a global coal phase-out became to a coal phase-down. Despite regional and global rivalry, cooperation at the intersection of issue-specific interests can yield both positive and negative outcomes. For example, the decarbonisation of energy systems and the expansion of renewables, including solar power and (green) hydrogen offers such a field of competition over technology and trade leadership. This competition increasingly draws in the European Union and other global actors who are looking for new and reliable energy partners. Climate change is a global challenge and requires cooperation at that level. Germany and the EU have an important role in helping to foster such cooperation even despite clashes of values and interests. Engagement with India has been given greater impetus more recently, also regarding diversification of energy sources. In the face of escalating geopolitical tensions this will be more difficult in the case of China, though nevertheless still crucial to achieve the Paris goals

Differentiation as Affirmative Action: Transforming or Reinforcing Structural Inequality at the UNFCCC?

Structural inequality is at the heart of the struggle to prevent dangerous climate change. This makes the global climate regime a particularly interesting case, when it comes to conceptualising and assessing the role of international institutions as sites for the reproduction and transformation of macro-level inequalities that structure the international system. This article uses these interlinkages to, first, assess, in how far the debates, conflicts and doubts regarding effectiveness and justifications of affirmative action at the domestic level, introduced as a reaction to domestic structural inequality, can teach us something about the actual potential of and the obstacles to the transformation of structural inequalities through differentiation internationally. Second, it assesses whether and how institutional mechanisms of categorisation and (re-)distribution within the UNFCCC have led and are likely to lead in the future to a reinforcement or a transformation of global structural inequalities

Regional Powers Still Matter!

Economic and domestic political crises as well as global structural shifts that have resulted in a much tighter interconnection of events, actors, and institutions across the national, regional, and global levels have called into question the ability of so-called regional powers, such as Brazil, India, and South Africa, to have a serious impact on global politics in the remainder of the twenty-first century. Regional powers have been considered important contributors to regional and global order because they are expected to, for example, ensure stability and effective regional cooperation in a world that is increasingly difficult to govern. Yet, the actual outcomes of their regional projections have been mixed. While some regional powers, such as Brazil or South Africa, seem to have lost clout in the past few years, other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey, are striving for regional power status. Regional powers face contradictory demands in regard to their global and regional policies. Being at the interface between regional and global politics poses particular challenges and often leads to indecisive, reluctant, and sometimes contradictory policy choices. New and old regional powers are, further, facing important domestic ­challenges, such as significant downturns in their economies, corruption, and reduced state capacity to mobilise resources, as well as growing populist sentiments and even a drift towards authoritarianism. These issues create disruption in their foreign policies and represent potential challenges, due to unpredictability, for both research and policymaking. Nevertheless, "regional powers" is still a useful analytical concept with which to make sense of some of these trends by focusing on the regional dimension of international politics. Being a regional power does not preclude being a rising power or even a great power in global terms. Germany's and other Western countries' foreign policies often treat rising and regional powers as hubs of stability and economic prosperity. Yet, in a -changing world order, a better understanding of regional dynamics and tensions is ­needed: regional powers do not automatically serve as multipliers of policies within their regions given the sometimes low degree of regional integration. Their ability and willingness to influence their neighbourhood may change over time and policy fields; this variance should not be underestimated

BRICS und IBSA: die Clubs der aufsteigenden Mächte verlieren an Glanz

Seit Beginn des Jahres 2016 schrumpfen die Wirtschaften Russlands und Brasiliens, die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Südafrika stagniert und selbst das chinesische Wirtschaftswachstum ist deutlich zurückgegangen. Brasilien und Südafrika erleben überdies politische Krisen. Vor diesem Hintergrund findet am 15. und 16. Oktober 2016 in Panaji in Goa/Indien der 8. BRICS-Gipfel statt; der nächste IBSA-Gipfel wurde dagegen abermals verschoben

Von Addis Abeba nach Paris: das Super-Gipfeljahr zur Nachhaltigkeit 2015

Die multilateralen Bemühungen für nachhaltige Entwicklung treten 2015 in eine entscheidende Phase ein. Der UN-Gipfel zur Entwicklungsfinanzierung, der im Juli 2015 in Addis Abeba stattfand, markiert den Auftakt für weitere Gipfeltreffen im Jahr 2015. Den Verhandlungsteilnehmern gelang in Addis Abeba mit dem Abschlussdokument ein Kompromiss: Insbesondere die umstrittene Frage, wie Verantwortungen für die Finanzierung von Entwicklung verteilt werden sollen, wurde zumindest für den Moment gelöst. Unzufriedenheit mit der tatsächlichen Formulierung und dem für manche Teilnehmer enttäuschenden Ergebnis bezüglich der Kooperation bei Steuerfragen wird jedoch den Verhandlungsspielraum für die kommenden Gipfeltreffen einschränken. Die Debatten vor und während des UN-Gipfels 2015 in Addis Abeba zeigen, dass die unterschiedliche (und sich verändernde) Zuschreibung von Verantwortung, also die Differenzierung von Rechten und Pflichten, auch in der globalen Entwicklungspolitik eine vorrangige Auseinandersetzung ist. Obwohl im Abschlussdokument des UN-Gipfels die Formulierung "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) nicht explizit genannt wird, verdeutlicht die Addis Ababa Action Agenda, dass eine universale Agenda mit der Forderung der "emerging economies", ihre besondere Rolle anzuerkennen, im Prinzip vereinbar ist. Viele Industriestaaten lehnen nach wie vor in Bezug auf die internationale Kooperation in Steuerfragen "gemeinsame Verantwortung" - als geteilte Macht in Institutionen - ab. Die Ergebnisse des UN-Gipfels in Addis Abeba werden sich zweifellos auf den Gipfel zur Verabschiedung der Post-2015-Entwicklungsagenda und die Klimakonferenz in Paris auswirken. Da sowohl die verstärkte internationale Kooperation beim Thema Steuern und die explizite Nennung von CBDR - erklärte Ziele der G77/China - nicht in das Abschlussdokument aufgenommen wurden, können wir erwarten, dass sich diese Gruppe der Entwicklungsländer vehement für die Berücksichtigung von CBDR während der anderen beiden Gipfel einsetzen wird

G20: The Global South's New Status-Seeking Platform?

Status matters to all states. For some from the Global South, status ambitions drive foreign policies. International venues like the G20 are perfect tools to pursue such ambitions. How, then, does status drive the foreign policies of the Global South and how does it inform their leadership of the G20? How and why should the Global North engage with such status ambitions? Status is about one's standing in a social hierarchy and can be understood as a set of shared beliefs about a state. States often communicate their status ambitions through "vanity projects" such as a space programme or become diplomatically very proactive in international forums. On the one hand, status ambitions can contribute to efforts that strengthen international stability and global governance, such as conflict mediation and humanitarianism. They can also deepen instability in the form of revisionism, regional interventions, and challenges to the rules-based international order. The year 2023 will see an Indian presidency of the G20. For a country that has long aspired to a seat in global multilateral institutions, India is mobilising the platform - and will continue to do so - to amplify its status ambitions. With India's rise potentially impacting the global balance of power, a careful reading of its status concerns as manifested in its G20 presidency is both valuable and necessary. At the current conjuncture of a global polycrisis, it is imperative to create conditions conducive to cooperation between large developing countries and the European Union / Germany. Attention to status concerns implies acknowledgement of hierarchies between states and can create the foundations for establishing relations and partnerships on a level playing field. Seeking status is an important driver of foreign policy in the Global South. Intangible and challenging to identify, status considerations sometimes explain puzzling policy outcomes. They draw attention to the role of the reputational gains that lead states to prioritise certain issues over others. For European decision-makers, attention to status concerns when engaging with the Global South can make for better understanding among partners and help strengthen diplomatic interaction

Die Bedeutung der Klimafinanzierung für den Pariser Klimagipfel 2015

In der Klimafinanzierung spiegeln sich grundlegende Fragen der globalen Klimapolitik wider. Dabei steht nicht nur die Verteilung von Geldern im Mittelpunkt. Viel wichtiger ist die Frage, ob und wie es gelingen kann, die Schwellenländer an Maßnahmen und an der Finanzierung zur Milderung des Klimawandels zu beteiligen. Der Erfolg der Klimakonferenz in Paris 2015 wird in hohem Maß von der Klärung dieser Frage abhängen. Im Dezember 2015 wird die Staatengemeinschaft auf der 21. UN-Klimakonferenz in Paris zur Verhandlung eines globalen Klimaabkommens zusammentreffen. Um das 2-Grad Ziel zu erreichen, sind neben den Industriestaaten besonders die aufstrebenden BASIC-Staaten (Brasilien, Südafrika, Indien und China) aufgefordert, ihren CO2-Ausstoß zu senken. Das neue Abkommen muss daher die veränderten globalen Kräfteverhältnisse berücksichtigen. Ein globaler Erfolg ist maßgeblich von der Bereitstellung umfangreicher Finanzmittel durch die Industriestaaten abhängig. Auf der 21. UN-Klimakonferenz im Dezember 2015 in Paris sollen die Verhandlungen eines globalen Klimaabkommens abgeschlossen werden. Aufgrund des Misstrauens zwischen den Verhandlungskoalitionen sind die Erfolgserwartungen allerdings gedämpft. Wegen des gestiegenen Ausstoßes von Treibhausgasen durch die Schwellenländer kann der Klimawandel nur gemeinsam mit ihnen bekämpft werden. Das dadurch entstehende Spannungsverhältnis zwischen dem Recht auf Wachstum und der Verantwortung, eine globale Reduktion von Treibhausgasen (Mitigation) zu erreichen, prägt die aktuellen Verhandlungen. Ob sich die Staatengemeinschaft in Paris auf ein international verbindliches Abkommen einigen wird, ist daher vor allem von einer für alle zufriedenstellenden Lösung der Klimafinanzierung abhängig. Obgleich mit der Gründung und Kapitalisierung des Green Climate Fund Fortschritte gemacht wurden, bleiben wichtige Fragen ungeklärt. Mit der Bereitstellung von nachhaltigen Finanzmitteln können die Industriestaaten die BASIC zur Übernahme von globaler Verantwortung bewegen. Verlässliche Klimafinanzierung kann als vertrauensbildende Maßnahme wirken

G20: The Global South's New Status-Seeking Platform?

Status matters to all states. For some from the Global South, status ambitions drive foreign policies. International venues like the G20 are perfect tools to pursue such ambitions. How, then, does status drive the foreign policies of the Global South and how does it inform their leadership of the G20? How and why should the Global North engage with such status ambitions? Status is about one's standing in a social hierarchy and can be understood as a set of shared beliefs about a state. States often communicate their status ambitions through "vanity projects" such as a space programme or become diplomatically very proactive in international forums. On the one hand, status ambitions can contribute to efforts that strengthen international stability and global governance, such as conflict mediation and humanitarianism. They can also deepen instability in the form of revisionism, regional interventions, and challenges to the rules-based international order. The year 2023 will see an Indian presidency of the G20. For a country that has long aspired to a seat in global multilateral institutions, India is mobilising the platform-and will continue to do so-to amplify its status ambitions. With India's rise potentially impacting the global balance of power, a careful reading of its status concerns as manifested in its G20 presidency is both valuable and necessary. At the current conjuncture of a global polycrisis, it is imperative to create conditions conducive to cooperation between large developing countries and the European Union / Germany. Attention to status concerns implies acknowledgement of hierarchies between states and can create the foundations for establishing relations and partnerships on a level playing field. Policy Implications Seeking status is an important driver of foreign policy in the Global South. Intangible and challenging to identify, status considerations sometimes explain puzzling policy outcomes. They draw attention to the role of the reputation-al gains that lead states to prioritise certain issues over others. For European decision-makers, attention to status concerns when engaging with the Global South can make for better understanding among partners and help strengthen diplomatic interaction