Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:04:19.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Institutional Interlinkages

from Part II - Core Structural Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Thomas Hickmann ,
Harro van Asselt ,
Sebastian Oberthür ,
Lisa Sanderink ,
Oscar Widerberg  and
Fariborz Zelli
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Given the regulatory gap in earth system governance, numerous new governance initiatives, such as multilateral clubs, private certification schemes and multi-stakeholder forums, have emerged to tackle transboundary environmental challenges. This plethora of different governance initiatives has led to a significant increase in the institutional complexity of global (environmental) policymaking and to more interlinkages between such institutions. Chapter 6 perceives dyadic institutional interlinkages as a key ‘microscopic’ structural feature of the overall global governance landscape and most basic building blocks or units of analysis in current scholarship on global governance architectures. After defining the term institutional interlinkages, we synthesize the literature on institutional interlinkages with a particular view on the expansion of interlinkages across different governance levels and scales. Against this backdrop, we examine to what extent the existing concepts and typologies of institutional interlinkages can capture the various new interlinkages between different kinds of institutions in earth system governance.

Keywords

Building blocksdyadic interlinkageshorizontalvertical and transnational interlinkagesinstitutional interactioninstitutional interplayinstitutional overlapmicroscopic structural feature
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 119 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W. (2012). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88 (3), 543–64.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70 (2), 247–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2), 501–78.Google Scholar
Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andonova, L. B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs: International organizations and the rise of global public–private partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11 (5–6), 240–7.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., Zelli, F., & Schleifer, P. (2018). Legitimacy and accountability in polycentric climate governance. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 338–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Navigating regional environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12 (3), 1–17.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2002). Liberal environmentalism and global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betsill, M. M., Dubash, N., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., & Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (2), 1–10.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 26–31.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (4), 14–40.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. Review of International Organizations, 3 (2), 151–77.Google Scholar
Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (2017a). Studying relations among international organizations in world politics: Core concepts and challenges. In Biermann, R & Koops, J. A. (eds.), Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics (pp. 1–46). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (eds.) (2017b). Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Boas, I., Biermann, F., & Kanie, N. (2016). Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (3), 449–64.Google Scholar
Brosig, M. (2011). Overlap and interplay between international organisations: Theories and approaches. South African Journal of International Affairs, 18 (2), 147–67.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M. M. et al. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caddell, R. (2013). Inter‐treaty cooperation, biodiversity conservation and the trade in endangered species. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22 (3), 264–80.Google Scholar
Chambers, W. B. (ed.) (2001). Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the international trade and investment regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, W. B. (2008). Interlinkages and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, W. B., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C. (2008). Institutional interplay and the governance of biosafety. In Young, O. R., Bradnee, C. W., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C (eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 3–19). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., & Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. Review of International Organizations, 7 (2), 117–43.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Zu einer Theorie des sozialen Konflikts. In Zapf, W (ed.), Theorien sozialen Wandels (pp. 108–23). Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.Google Scholar
De Grenade, R., House-Peters, L., Scott, C., Thapa, B., Mills-Novoa, M., Gerlak, A., & Verbist, K. (2016). The nexus: Reconsidering environmental security and adaptive capacity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 21, 15–21.Google Scholar
Dingwerth, K., & Green, J. F. (2015). Transnationalism. In Bäckstrand, K, & Lövbrand, E (eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. 153–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19 (1), 119–30.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2014). A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 471–98.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2006). Empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 307–71). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15 (1), 125–56.Google Scholar
Gordenker, L., & Sanders, P., A. (1978). Organization theory and international organization. In Taylor, P, & Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), International organization: A conceptual approach (pp. 84–107). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. (2008). Delegation and accountability in the clean development mechanism: The new authority of non-state actors. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 4 (2), 21–51.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2), 1–25.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. (2014). Rethinking private authority: Agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non‐state certification programs. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 74–92.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hale, T., & Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9 (1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Hanf, K., & Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. (2009). Regime shifting in the international intellectual property system. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herr, R. A., & Chia, E. (1995). The concept of regime overlap: Towards identification and assessment. In Bruce, D (ed.), Overlapping maritime regimes: An initial reconnaissance (pp. 11–26). Hobart: Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2016). Rethinking authority in global climate governance: How transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2017a). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19 (3), 430–51.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2017b). Voluntary global business initiatives and the international climate negotiations: A case study of the greenhouse gas protocol. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, T., & Elsässer, J. (2018). New alliances in global environmental governance: Intergovernmental treaty secretariats and sub- and non-state actors. Paper presented at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T., Partzsch, L., Pattberg, P., & Weiland, S. (eds.) (2019). The Anthropocene debate and political science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hollway, J., Lomi, A., Pallotti, F., & Stadtfeld, C. (2017). Multilevel social spaces: The network dynamics of organizational fields. Network Science, 5 (2), 187–212.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (2), 54–79.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14 (4), 315–24.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.Google Scholar
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., & Chobotová, V. (2012). Regional governance arrangements. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 219–35). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9 (2), 237–60.Google Scholar
Lesage, D., & Van de Graaf, T. (2016). Global energy governance in a multipolar world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lima, M. G. B., Kissinger, G., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Braña-Varela, J., & Gupta, A. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: Assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (4), 589–606.Google Scholar
Lindstad, B., Pistorius, T., Ferranti, F., Dominguez, G., Gorriz-Mifsud, E., Kurttila, M., Leban, V., Navarro, P., Peters, D. M., Pezdevsek Malovrh, S., Prokofieva, I., Scuck, A., Solberg, B., Viiri, H., Zadnik Stirn, L., & Krc, J. (2015). Forest-based bioenergy policies in five European countries: An explorative study of interactions with national and EU policies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 80, 102–13.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2013). Insights from global environmental governance. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 562–5.Google Scholar
Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 385–412.Google Scholar
O’Neill, K. (2013). Vertical linkages and scale. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 571–3.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2001). Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: Enhancing synergies between protecting the ozone layer and the global climate. International Environmental Agreements, 1 (3), 357–77.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2003). Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto Protocol. Climate Policy, 3 (3), 191–205.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2006). The climate change regime: Interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU burden-sharing agreement. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies (pp. 53–77). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006a). Conceptual foundations of institutional interaction. In Oberthür, S, & Gehring, T (eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (eds.) (2006b). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2011). Institutional interaction: Ten years of scholarly development. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 25–58). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Pożarowska, J. (2013). Managing institutional complexity and fragmentation: The Nagoya protocol and the global governance of genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 100–18.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (eds.) (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19 (1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 22–48.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P., Chan, S., Sanderink, L., & Widerberg, O. (2018). Linkages: Understanding their role in polycentric governance. In Jordan, A, Huitema, D, van Asselt, H, & Forster, J (eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? (pp. 169–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (eds.) (2016). Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pulkowski, D. (2014). The law and politics of international regime conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58 (2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Roger, C., Hale, T., & Andonova, L. (2017). The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a turbulent world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7 (1), 95–117.Google Scholar
Sanderink, L., Widerberg, O., Kristensen, K., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Mapping the institutional architecture of the climate-energy nexus. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Schapper, A., & Lederer, M. (2014). Introduction: Human rights and climate change: Mapping institutional inter-linkages. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27 (4), 666–79.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (1), 303–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. (2017). Theorizing ideas and discourse in political science: Intersubjectivity, neo-institutionalisms, and the power of ideas. Critical Review, 29 (2), 248–63.Google Scholar
Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (3), 14–46.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Gesamtausgabe Band 11). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Tosun, J., & Leininger, J. (2017). Governing the interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to attain policy integration. Global Challenges, 1 (9), 1700036.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H. (2014). The fragmentation of global climate governance: Consequences and management of regime interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H., Gupta, J., & Biermann, F. (2005). Advancing the climate agenda: Exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 14 (3), 255–64.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Fragmentation in global energy governance: Explaining the creation of IRENA. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 14–33.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T., & Colgan, J. (2016). Global energy governance: A review and research agenda. Palgrave Communications, 2, 15047.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T., & De Ville, F. (2013). Regime complexes and interplay management. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 568–71.Google Scholar
Von Moltke, K. (1997). Institutional interactions: The structure of regimes for trade and the environment. In Young, O. R. (ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 247–72). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vranes, E. (2009). Climate change and the WTO: EU emission trading and the WTO disciplines on trade in goods, services and investment protection. Journal of World Trade, 43 (4), 707.Google Scholar
Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., & Davis, M. (2014). A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda: Formulating integrated water, energy, and food SDGs. Review of International Affairs, 34 (2), 37–50.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O. (2016). Mapping institutional complexity in the Anthropocene: A network approach. In Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world (pp. 81–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, M. A. (2011). Trading fish, saving fish: The interaction between regimes in international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R. (2008). Deriving insights from the case of the WTO and the Cartagena Protocol. In Young, O. R., Bradnee, C. W., Kim, J. A., & ten Have, C (eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 131–58). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H. (eds.) (2008). Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F. (2010). Conflicts among international regimes on environmental issues: A theory-driven Analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls University.Google Scholar
Zelli, F. (2011). The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2 (2), 255–70.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Institutional interactions at the crossroads of trade and environment: The dominance of liberal environmentalism? Global Governance, 19 (1), 105–18.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2010). The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization: Lessons for post-2012 climate governance. In Biermann, F, Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 1–13.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×