Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H. and Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40. Brewer, T. (2003). The trade regime and the climate regime: institutional evolution and adaptation. Climate Policy, 3(4), 329–341.
Chan, S., Asselt, H. and Hale, T. et al. (2015a). Reinvigorating international climate policy: a comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6(4), 466–473.
Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H. and Goldberg, M. et al. (2015b). Strengthening Non-state Climate Action: A Progress Assessment of Commitments Launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 216). London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Chan, S. and Pauw, P. (2014). Proposal for a Global Framework for Climate Action to Engage Non-state and Subnational Stakeholders in the Future Climate Regime. Briefing Paper no. 15/2014. Bonn, Germany: German Development Institute. Charnovitz, S. (2003). Trade and climate: potential conflicts and synergies. In Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort against Climate Change, ed. Diringer, E.. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 141–170. Dorsch, M. and Flachsland, C. (2017). A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(2), 45–64.
Eberlein, B., Abbott, K., Black, J., Meidinger, E. and Wood, S. (2013). Transnational business governance interactions: conceptualisation and framework for analysis. Regulation and Governance, 8(1), 1–21.
Galvanizing the Groundswell of Climate Actions (no date). From Local to Global – An Extraordinary Groundswell of Climate Actions Is Emerging at all Levels. Available at: www.climategroundswell.org [Accessed 24 July 2017].
Green, J. (2013). Order out of chaos: public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13(2), 1–25.
Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M. and Montgomery, A. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.
Hale, T. and Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9(1), 59–82. Heubaum, H. and Biermann, F. (2015). Integrating global energy and climate governance: the changing role of the International Energy Agency. Energy Policy, 87, 229–239.
Kahler, M. (ed.). (2015). Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. and Victor, D. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. Michonski, K. and Levi, M. (2010). Harnessing International Institutions to Address Climate Change. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations. Oberthür, S. and Gehring, T. (eds.). (2006). Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. Paris Process on Mobility and Climate (PPMC). (no date). Paris Process on Mobility and Climate. Available at: www.ppmc-transport.org/about/ [Accessed 24 July 2017].
Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Mert, A. and Chan, S. (eds.). (2012). Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Emergence, Influence, and Legitimacy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
RE100. (no date). RE100 – The World’s Most Influential Companies, Committed to 100% Renewable Power. Available at: http://there100.org/re100 [Accessed 24 July 2017].
Slaughter, A. (2017). The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stokke, O. S. (2001). The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work. FNI Report 14/2001. Oslo: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2013). Compilation of Information on Mitigation Benefits of Actions, Initiatives and Options to Enhance Mitigation Ambition. Technical Paper. UN Doc. FCCC/TP/2013/4.
van Asselt, H. (2014). The Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance: Consequences and Management of Regime Interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van Asselt, H. (2016). The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the Paris agreement. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 91–108.
van Asselt, H., Gupta, J. and 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), 255–264.
Weischer, L., Morgan, J. and Patel, M. (2012). Climate clubs: can small groups of countries make a big difference in addressing climate change? Review of European, Community and International Environmental Law, 21(3), 177–192.
Widerberg, O. (2016). Mapping institutional complexity in the Anthropocene: a network approach. In Environmental Politics and Governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and Legitimacy in a Complex World, ed. Pattberg, P. and Zelli, F.. London: Routledge, 81–102.
Widerberg, O. and Pattberg, P. (2015). International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance: raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC? Global Policy, 6(1), 45–56. Widerberg, O., Pattberg, P. and Kristensen, K. (2016). Mapping the Institutional Architecture of Global Climate Change Governance. Technical Report R-16/02. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Widerberg, O. and Stripple, J. (2016). The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization: a review of five databases. WIREs Climate Change, 7(4), 486–500.
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2(1), 1–24.