Hayley Stevenson

The discursive democratisation of global climate governance

The global governance of climate change represents one of the more profound and, to date, intractable sets of problems confronting humanity. Legitimacy, accountability, fairness, and representation matter as well as effectiveness. In the absence of effective centralised authority, these democratic norms need to be sought in a polycentric context. An approach to democratisation is advanced that de-emphasises authoritative formal institutions, and instead operates in the more informal realm of the engagement and contestation of discourses in global public spheres. Democracy here is conceptualised not in terms of elections and constitutions, but in aspirations for inclusive, competent, and dispersed reflexive capacity. Based on empirical analysis of discursive engagement in several structured settings, key challenges for improving the democratic quality of global climate governance are assessed.

The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: a deliberative democratic approach

For almost three decades, the international community has grappled with the challenge of avoiding dangerous global climate change. The failure to produce a new comprehensive treaty in Copenhagen, in 2009, provoked debate about appropriate decision-making processes. Multilateralism has lost favor and credibility, while ‘minilateralism’ appears to be an idea whose time has come. Reconciling this approach with growing demands for legitimacy in global governance will be difficult but essential. Existing proposals for reforming multilateral negotiations promise greater effectiveness, but fall short on legitimacy. We propose that the dilemma of securing both effectiveness and legitimacy can be resolved in a deliberative democratic model that combines minilateralism with discursive representation. Legitimacy is therein sought in the resonance of collective decisions with public opinion, defined in terms of the provisional outcome of the engagement and contestation of discourses.

India and international norms of climate governance: a constructivist analysis of normative congruence building

This article explores the process by which norms of international climate governance have diffused and evolved over time. The author develops a constructivist explanation for observed normative shifts in international climate governance. This explanation highlights the importance of building and maintaining congruence between domestic conditions and international norms. Due to the inherently fluid nature of both domestic conditions and international norms, it is argued that normative congruence building should be understood as an integral and iterative aspect of the norm diffusion process. This argument is substantiated through an analysis of the norm diffusion process in the context of India: a state commonly identified as an important player in international climate change politics, but one that has received surprisingly little scholarly attention in this area.

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

The international governance of climate change was initially informed by two norms concerning who should take responsibility for mitigating climate change and how such mitigation should be pursued.1 Since the early 1990s, these norms have been contested by several states. In this article the author argues that such contestation is a product of the perceived incongruence between these norms and the domestic conditions of those states they seek to govern. Following an overview of the emergence and contestation of climate governance norms, the author elaborates on this relationship between international norms and domestic conditions. These theoretical assumptions are then explored in the context of Australias response to international climate governance norms from the late 1980s to 2007. As the author demonstrates, the perceived incongruence of these norms with domestic conditions led Australias foreign policy makers to contest the norms and focus on the construction of alternative governance processes by reframing the issue of climate change. Through a diversion of attention away from historical emissions to future emissions and possible technological mitigation options, climate governance was temporarily reconciled with Australias domestic conditions. However, the author suggests that this came at the expense of international equity and long-term national sustainability.

Representing Green Radicalism: the limits of state-based representation in global climate governance

In recent years, the post-neoliberal bloc of Latin America countries, ALBA, has fashioned a role for itself in international climate change negotiations as representing the voice of ‘the people’. In this article I draw on innovative theorising of representation to critically examine this claim. I argue that although ALBA has sought to construct a constituency based on the malleable notion of ‘the people’, its function is better understood as ‘discursive representation’, and specifically as representation of Green Radical discourses. Such forms of representation are potentially important in global governance given the challenges of capturing the interests of all affected parties. I critically evaluate this case of discursive representation in terms of its rhetorical efficacy; accountability; consistency; and legitimacy. Although certain favourable elements emerge from this evaluation, this case also points to the hazards of transmitting a public discourse through a state-based representative in multilateral settings.

CREATING A CLIMATE OF CONVENIENCE : AUSTRALIA'S RESPONSE TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (1996-2007)

This article discusses how issue framing and nondecision-making shaped Australias response to global climate change between 1996 and 2007. The complex and multi-dimensional nature of global climate change enabled state and non-state actors to selectively highlight certain aspects of the issue, thereby framing it as a specific problem with corresponding solutions. The case of Australia provides an interesting example of how such conscious framing, together with underlying institutional biases, may suppress important aspects of global climate change and ensure they are kept off the political agenda. This article unravels four narratives that are evident in the former Australian Governments framing of global climate change during this period. The nondecisions which are embedded within these narratives have important normative implications which will be explored.

Governing Climate Technologies: Is there Room for Democracy?

Technologies for mitigating and adapting to climate change are inherently political. Their development, diffusion and deployment will have uneven impacts within and across national borders. Bringing the governance of climate technologies under democratic control is imperative but impeded by the global scale of governance and its polycentric nature. This article draws on innovative theorising in the deliberative democracy tradition to map possibilities for global democratic governance of climate technologies. It is argued that this domain is not beyond the reach of democracy. Civil society has a unique and expanded role to play in generating democratic legitimacy by fostering public deliberation; translating and transmitting concepts, ideas and messages; and promoting and facilitating deliberative accountability.