Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap

This article builds on research for a two-year project on nanotechnology regulation in the US and Europe (2008–09), which was funded by the European Commission. We are grateful to our collaborators in this project, at the London School of Economics, Chatham House, Environmental Law Institute and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and especially Linda Breggin, Jay Pendergrass and Read Porter. We also received helpful suggestions from three anonymous reviewers and would like to thank them for their advice. Any remaining errors are our own. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are set to transform the global industrial landscape, but the debate on how to regulate environmental, health and safety risks is lagging behind technological innovation. Current regulatory efforts are primarily focused on the national and regional level, while the international dimensions of nanotechnology governance are still poorly understood and rarely feature on the international agenda. However, with the ongoing globalization of nanosciences and the rapid expansion of international trade in nanomaterials, demand for international coordination and harmonization of regulatory approaches is set to increase. Yet, uncertainty about nanotechnology risk poses a profound dilemma for regulators and policy-makers. Uncertainty both creates demand for and stands in the way of greater international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches. This article reviews the emerging debate on nanotechnology risk and regulatory approaches, investigates the current state of international cooperation and outlines the critical contribution that a global governance approach can make to the safe development of nanotechnologie

The burning hole at the heart of the G8 agenda. Why was climate change marginalised at the 2013 G8 summit?

David Cameron’s decision to not even mention the climate change challenge in the official G8 agenda has ruffled many feathers. Robert Falkner notes that the UK government now seems content to let others do the heavy lifting in support of a new global climate accord, despite its longstanding claim to a leadership role in climate politics. Leaving climate change off the agenda is further evidence that the Tory right is making inroads into the coalition government’s environmental agenda

Tough trade-offs on the road to Paris: What hopes for a 2015 climate agreement?

A close reading of international climate politics points to subtle but important changes in the diplomatic process and the positions of major actors, writes Robert Falkner. However, it looks like differentiation and flexibility in national commitments will be the price to pay for a climate agreement that includes all major emitters

Book review: fact and fiction in global energy policy: 15 contentious questions by Benjamin J. Sovacool, Marilyn A. Brown and Scott V. Valentine

In Fact and Fiction in Global Energy Policy: 15 Contentious Questions, Benjamin J. Sovacool, Marilyn A. Brown and Scott V. Valentine provide an essential guide to the international debate on how to create a more sustainable energy system by probing into some of the key areas of contention. Dr Robert Falkner highly recommends this volume as a tour de force that will be of utility to students, researchers and practitioners seeking to better understand global energy policy

Business involvement in climate negotiations has come a long way

But businesses are not yet playing a leading role in the new area of climate cooperation, writes Robert Falkne

Weaponised energy and climate change: assessing Europe’s response to the Ukraine war

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has produced the biggest energy shock to Europe since the 1970s oil crises. It has also laid bare the strategic blunder at the heart of Europe’s energy policy – its long-standing dependence on Russian supplies. With Moscow weaponising its dominant position in Europe’s energy system, European leaders had little choice but to wean Europe off its addiction to cheap Russian gas and oil. This article explores the European Union’s energy response to the war in Ukraine and its impact on climate policy. It addresses two questions: First, to what extent has Europe succeeded in reducing reliance on Russian fossil fuels, and at what cost? And second, how has the push for energy independence affected the continent’s commitment to implementing the net zero transition? I argue that one year after the invasion, the EU’s strategic decoupling from Russia has progressed to such an extent that Moscow is close to losing its energy stranglehold over Europe. Furthermore, although Europe’s energy crisis is far from over, European leaders have renewed their commitment to the net zero climate agenda and accelerated investments in green energy. In the short run, the EU’s pursuit of energy security may have temporarily set back its climate ambition. However, as Europe discovered by the end of 2022, decarbonisation is ultimately the best long-term strategy for energy security

The longue durée of international environmental norm change: global environmental politics meets the English school of international relations

The purpose of this article is to introduce English School (ES) theory to the study of global environmental politics (GEP). The ES is an established theoretical tradition in the discipline of international relations (IR) but is not widely known, let alone used, in GEP. My aim is to overcome this state of neglect and suggest ways in which ES theory can enrich the study of international environmental affairs. I argue that ES theory makes at least two major contributions to the study of global environmental politics: first, it helps counterbalance the presentist focus in GEP scholarship, shifting our attention toward long-term historical patterns of normative change, and second, by distinguishing between different levels of international change, it opens up an analytical focus on environmentalism as a part of the international normative structure. In doing so, ES theory directs our attention to the interaction and mutual shaping between environmentalism and other fundamental norms of international society

The emergence of environmental stewardship as a primary institution of global international society

This paper develops an English School (ES) framework for analysing the emergence of new primary institutions in global international society (GIS), and applies this to the case of environmental stewardship. The paper traces the impact that global environmentalism has had on the normative order of GIS, examines the creation of secondary institutions around this norm and identifies the ways in which these developments have become embedded in the constitution and behaviour of states. It assesses the ways in which environmental stewardship has interacted with the other primary institutions that compose GIS, changing some of the understandings and practices associated with them. The conclusions argue that environmental stewardship is likely to be a durable institution of GIS, and that it might be a harbinger of a more functional turn in its priorities