Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: April 2020

6 - Institutional Interlinkages

from Part II - Core Structural Features

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.

Abbott, K. W. (2012). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88 (3), 543–64.
Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70 (2), 247–77.
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.
Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 1324.
Andonova, L. B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs: International organizations and the rise of global public–private partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2012). Navigating regional environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 12 (3), 117.
Bernstein, S. (2002). Liberal environmentalism and global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3), 116.
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), 110.
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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, 2631.
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), 1440.
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (eds.) (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. Review of International Organizations, 3 (2), 151–77.
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. 146). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Biermann, R., & Koops, J. A. (eds.) (2017b). Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Brosig, M. (2011). Overlap and interplay between international organisations: Theories and approaches. South African Journal of International Affairs, 18 (2), 147–67.
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M. M. et al. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Chambers, W. B. (ed.) (2001). Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the international trade and investment regimes. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Chambers, W. B. (2008). Interlinkages and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
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. 319). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
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.
Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Zu einer Theorie des sozialen Konflikts. In Zapf, W (ed.), Theorien sozialen Wandels (pp. 108–23). Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
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, 1521.
Dingwerth, K., & Green, J. F. (2015). Transnationalism. In Bäckstrand, K, & Lövbrand, E (eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. 153–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
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), 121.
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19 (1), 119–30.
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.
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.
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15 (1), 125–56.
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. 84107). London: Pinter.
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), 2151.
Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2), 125.
Green, J. F. (2014). Rethinking private authority: Agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non‐state certification programs. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 7492.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hale, T., & Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9 (1), 5982.
Hanf, K., & Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Helfer, L. (2009). Regime shifting in the international intellectual property system. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 3944.
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. 1126). Hobart: Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.
Hickmann, T. (2016). Rethinking authority in global climate governance: How transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. London: Routledge.
Hickmann, T. (2017a). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19 (3), 430–51.
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, 94104.
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.
Hickmann, T., Partzsch, L., Pattberg, P., & Weiland, S. (eds.) (2019). The Anthropocene debate and political science. New York: Routledge.
Hollway, J., Lomi, A., Pallotti, F., & Stadtfeld, C. (2017). Multilevel social spaces: The network dynamics of organizational fields. Network Science, 5 (2), 187212.
Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (2), 5479.
Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14 (4), 315–24.
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.
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.
Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9 (2), 237–60.
Lesage, D., & Van de Graaf, T. (2016). Global energy governance in a multipolar world. New York: Routledge.
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), 589606.
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.
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2013). Insights from global environmental governance. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 562–5.
Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 385412.
O’Neill, K. (2013). Vertical linkages and scale. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 571–3.
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.
Oberthür, S. (2003). Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto Protocol. Climate Policy, 3 (3), 191205.
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. 5377). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
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. 2558). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (eds.) (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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), 2739.
Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8 (1), 2248.
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.
Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (eds.) (2016). Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world. London: Routledge.
Pulkowski, D. (2014). The law and politics of international regime conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58 (2), 277309.
Roger, C., Hale, T., & Andonova, L. (2017). The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43 (1), 125.
Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a turbulent world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7 (1), 95117.
Sanderink, L., Widerberg, O., Kristensen, K., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Mapping the institutional architecture of the climate-energy nexus. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
Schapper, A., & Lederer, M. (2014). Introduction: Human rights and climate change: Mapping institutional inter-linkages. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27 (4), 666–79.
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (1), 303–26.
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.
Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (3), 1446.
Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Gesamtausgabe Band 11). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Tosun, J., & Leininger, J. (2017). Governing the interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to attain policy integration. Global Challenges, 1 (9), 1700036.
van Asselt, H. (2014). The fragmentation of global climate governance: Consequences and management of regime interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
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.
Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Fragmentation in global energy governance: Explaining the creation of IRENA. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 1433.
Van de Graaf, T., & Colgan, J. (2016). Global energy governance: A review and research agenda. Palgrave Communications, 2, 15047.
Van de Graaf, T., & De Ville, F. (2013). Regime complexes and interplay management. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 568–71.
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.
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.
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), 3750.
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. 81102). London: Routledge.
Young, M. A. (2011). Trading fish, saving fish: The interaction between regimes in international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2 (1), 124.
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
Zelli, F. (2010). Conflicts among international regimes on environmental issues: A theory-driven Analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls University.
Zelli, F. (2011). The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2 (2), 255–70.
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.
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. 7996). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 113.