Environmental justice and conceptions of the green economy

Green economy has become one of the most fashionable terms in global environmental public policy discussions and forums. Despite this popularity, and its being selected as one of the organizing themes of the United Nations Rio+20 Conference in Brazil, June 2012, its prospects as an effective mobilization tool for global environmental sustainability scholarship and practice remains unclear. A major reason for this is that much like its precursor concepts such as environmental sustainability and sustainable development, green economy is a woolly concept which lends itself to many interpretations. Hence, rather than resolve long-standing controversies, green economy merely reinvigorates existing debates over the visions, actors and policies best suited to secure a more sustainable future for all. In this review article, we aim to fill an important gap in scholarship by suggesting various ways in which green economy may be organized and synthesized as a concept, and especially in terms of its relationship with the idea of social and environmental justice. Accordingly, we offer a systemization of possible interpretations of green economy mapped onto a synthesis of existing typologies of environmental justice. This classification provides the context for future analysis of which, and how, various notions of green economy link with various conceptions of justice

Global energy governance : a review and research agenda

Over the past few years, global energy governance (GEG) has emerged as a major new field of enquiry in international studies. Scholars engaged in this field seek to understand how the energy sector is governed at the global level, by whom and with what consequences. By focusing on governance, they broaden and enrich the geopolitical and hard-nosed security perspectives that have long been, and still are, the dominant perspectives through which energy is analysed. Though still a nascent field, the literature on GEG is thriving and continues to attract the attention of a growing number of researchers. This article reviews the GEG literature as it has developed over the past 10 years. Our aim is to highlight both the progress and limitations of the field, and to identify some opportunities for future research. The article proceeds as follows. First, it traces the origins of the GEG literature (section “Origins and roots of GEG research”). The subsequent sections deal with the two topics that have received the most attention in the GEG literature: Why does energy need global governance (section “The goals and rationale of global energy governance”)? And, who governs energy (section “Mapping the global energy architecture”)? We then address a third question that has received far less attention: How well or poor is energy governed (section “Evaluating global energy governance”)? In our conclusions (section “Conclusions and outlook”), we reflect on the current state of GEG, review recent trends and innovations, and identify some questions that warrant future consideration by scholars. This article is published as part of a thematic collection on global governance

The role of justice in negotiation

This chapter discusses the role of justice in negotiation between rival parties and the durability of peace agreements. It draws on research about group negotiation processes and agreements to end civil wars, mostly during the early 1990s. Hypothesized relationships between the presence and importance of distributive justice (DJ) in the agreements, and their durability, were first explored with multiple methods (see also the chapter by Koeszegi and Vetschera, this volume). The difficulty of the conflict environment was shown to have the strongest impact on durability. However, the DJ principle of equality was found to reduce the negative impact of difficult environments. An emphasis on equality was also associated with more forward-looking agreements, which were found to be more durable than those that were backward looking. (See also the chapters by Nurmi, Klamber, Kilgour and Hipel, Turel, and Yuan, this volume for modeling approaches to issues of justice and fairness.) Next, the presence and importance of procedural justice (PJ) were examined in the negotiation processes that led to the signing of the peace agreements. Significantly more durable agreements occurred when a process based on PJ led to agreements that emphasized equality. This focus on process is similar to the analyses conducted by the authors chapters (See also the chapter by Koeszegi and Vetschera, Kersten and Lai, this volume). A close examination of how the equality principle was applied revealed that agreements based on provisions of equal treatment and/or equal shares were particularly durable. The chapter concludes with a discussion of tactics used by third parties to produce durable agreements, and lessons for policy

Parliamentary and presidential systems : the role of parties and the danger of authoritarian populism

First online: 7 August 2019To flourish under liberal-democratic rule, a parliamentary or a presidential system does not depend primarily on the existence of strong leadership, but on the presence of strong political parties. The continuous existence of parties operating on lively liberal-democratic characteristics is the truly relevant factor: if parties with these characteristics decline, parliamentary and presidential systems are likely to experience crises. Currently, in Europe, some parties of the Right or Left have come to question the norms and/or the institutions of liberal democracies. Such attitudes may result in the rise of ‘populism’, a populism which is typically rather authoritarian and appears to threaten the characteristics of traditional parties, in Britain and other countries. So far ‘authoritarian populism’ has not led to major changes in the structure of liberal-democratic political systems, although this may be because institutional arrangements to replace that structure have not as yet been discovered

A leader without followers? The United States in world politics after Bush

This paper argues that while the US might retain the desire, and up to a point the material capacity to lead, it is likely to find itself increasingly without followers. Partly this is because the US is less accepted as a model, partly it is because of differences on specific policies, and partly it is because of the changing foundations of legitimacy in international society. The big issues likely to dominate the international agenda in the coming years are more likely to decrease than to increase the willingness of others to follow the US. The waning of US leadership is not just a consequence of the particular incompetence of the Bush administration over the last 8 years, though that has surely amplified the problem. It reflects deeper changes that make global hegemony by any single power, or even by the West collectively, decreasingly legitimate