Book contents
- Contested Regime Collisions
- Contested Regime Collisions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Contested collisions
- Part I Between collisions and interaction
- 1 Regime collisions from a perspective of global constitutionalism
- 2 How to avoid regime collisions
- 3 Regime-interplay management
- 4 Responsive legal pluralism
- Part II Addressing collisions
- Part III Collisions otherwise
- Index
- References
3 - Regime-interplay management
Lessons from environmental policy and law
from Part I - Between collisions and interaction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
Book contents
- Contested Regime Collisions
- Contested Regime Collisions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Contested collisions
- Part I Between collisions and interaction
- 1 Regime collisions from a perspective of global constitutionalism
- 2 How to avoid regime collisions
- 3 Regime-interplay management
- 4 Responsive legal pluralism
- Part II Addressing collisions
- Part III Collisions otherwise
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Contested Regime CollisionsNorm Fragmentation in World Society, pp. 88 - 108Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., and Zangl, B. (eds.), International Organizations as Orchestrators (Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, M., ‘Savings Clauses and the “Chilling Effect”: Regime Interplay as Constraints on International Govenance’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
Blome, K., and Markard, N., ‘“Contested Collisions”: Conditions for a Successful Collision Management ? The Example of Article 16 of the Rome Statute’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Available on CJO 2015 doi:10.1017/S0922156515000783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., and Zelli, F., ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis’, Global Environmental Politics, 9 (2009) (4), pp. 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B., and Albert, M., ‘Differentiation: A Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 16 (2010), pp. 315–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, W. B., Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., and Van de Graaf, T., ‘Punctuated Equilibrium in the Energy Regime Complex’, The Review of International Organizations, 7 (2012), pp. 117–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckersley, R., ‘The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, Global Environmental Politics, 4 (2004) 2, pp. 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, A., and Teubner, G., ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 25 (2004), pp. 999–1046.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., Dynamic International Regimes. Institutions for International Environmental Governance (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004).Google Scholar
Gehring, T., ‘The Institutional Complex of Trade and Environment: Toward an Interlocking Governance Structure and a Division of Labor’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 227–54.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., and Faude, B., ‘The Dynamics of Regime Complexes: Microfoundations and Systemic Effects’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19 (2013), pp. 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, T., and Oberthür, S., ‘Comparative Empirical Analysis and Ideal Types of Institutional Interaction’ in Oberthür, S. and Gehring, T. (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance. Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2006), pp. 307–71.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., and Oberthür, S., ‘The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15 (2009), pp. 125–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, T., and Oberthür, S., ‘Institutional Interaction: Ten Years of Scholarly Development’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 25–58.Google Scholar
Humrich, C., ‘Fragmented International Governance of Arctic Offshore Oil: Governance Challenges and Institutional Improvement’, Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2013), pp. 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, T., and Urpelainen, J., ‘A Strategic Theory of Regime Integration and Separation’, International Organization, 66 (2012), pp. 645–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., ‘Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics’ in Keohane, R. O. (ed.), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, Col.: Westview, 1989), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Victor, D. G., ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’, Perspectives on Politics, 9 (2011), pp. 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, J.-F., and Orsini, A., ‘Regime Complexity and Policy Coherency: Introducing a Co-adjustments Model’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19 (2013), pp. 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S., ‘Interplay Management: Enhancing Environmental Policy Integration among International Institutions’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9 (2009), pp. 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S. and Gehring, T. (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance. Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S., and Stokke, O. S., ‘Conclusions: Decentralized Interplay Management in an Evolving Interinstitutional Order’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 313–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S., and Pozarowska, J., ‘Managing Institutional Complexity and Fragmentation: The Nagoya Protocol and the Global Governance of Genetic Resources’, Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2013), pp. 100–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, S., and Pozarowska, J., ‘The Impact of the Nagoya Protocol on the Evolving Institutional Complex of ABS Governance’ in Oberthür, S. and Rosendal, G. K. (eds.), Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), pp. 178–95.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., ‘A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change’, Policy Research Working Paper 5095 (The World Bank, October 2009).Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., and Victor, D. G., ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’, International Organization, 58 (2004), pp. 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosendal, G. K., ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity: Tensions with the WTO TRIPS Agreement over Access to Genetic Resources and the Sharing of Benefits’ in Oberthür, S. and Gehring, T. (eds.), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance. Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), pp. 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sand, P. H., Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1990).Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S., The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work, Report No. 14 (Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2001).Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S., ‘Interplay Management, Niche Selection and Arctic Environmental Governance’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 143–70.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahnemann, D., ‘The Framing of Decision and Rational Choice’, Science, 211 (1981), pp. 453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahnemann, D., ‘Choices, Values and Frames’, American Psychologist, 39 (1984), pp. 341–50.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H., The Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance: Consequences and Management of Regime Interactions (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Graaf, T., ‘Fragmentation in Global Energy Governance: Explaining the Creation of IRENA’, Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2013), pp. 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallbott, L., Wolff, F., and Pożarowska, J., ‘The Negotiations of the Nagoya Protocol: Issues, Coalitions and Process’ in Oberthür, S. and Rosendal, G. K. (eds.), Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), pp. 33–59.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R., and Matz, N., Conflicts in International Environmental Law (Berlin: Springer, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. A. (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R., The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Scale and Interplay (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R., Institutional Dynamics: Emergent Patterns in International Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelli, F., ‘Regime Conflicts and Their Management in Global Environmental Governance’ in Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), pp. 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by