Climate change: Transnational legal order or disorder?

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Today, a huge array of institutions involving many different actors and geographic scales address the climate change problem. One study identified more than sixty transnational organizations that play some type of governance function (Bulkeley et al. 2012), and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Another author estimates that there are “hundreds (if not thousands) of institutions at global, national and local levels that seek to address various facets of the climate change problem” (Green 2013: 1). The result is a polycentric and “highly complex institutional environment” (Abbott 2012: 571). How can we make sense of this proliferation of climate change institutions? Writers have proposed several approaches. Robert Keohane and David Victor (2011) focus on the international level, suggesting that the regulatory activities of different international institutions represent a “regime complex.” Kenneth Abbott (2012) proposes understanding the even broader array of governance activities on multiple scales, by private as well as public actors, in terms of a “transnational regime complex,” comprised of governmental actors, civil society organizations, and business, which form what he and Duncan Snidal call a “governance triangle” (Abbott & Snidal 2009). Others have analyzed climate change activities in terms of multi-scalar or multilevel governance (Osofsky 2007; Kern & Bulkeley 2009; Peel et al. 2012), transnational governance (Pattberg & Stripple 2008; Andonova et al. 2009), polycentricity (Ostrom 2009; 2010), or fragmentation (Carlarne 2008; van Asselt et al. 2008; Boyd 2010; Young 2011).

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Title of host publicationTransnational Legal Orders
    PublisherCambridge University Press
    Pages287-308
    Number of pages22
    ISBN (Print)9781107707092, 9781107069923
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

    Fingerprint

    legal order
    climate change
    governance
    regime
    multi-level-governance
    fragmentation
    proliferation
    civil society
    writer

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Sciences(all)

    Cite this

    Bodansky, D. (2015). Climate change: Transnational legal order or disorder? In Transnational Legal Orders (pp. 287-308). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011

    Climate change : Transnational legal order or disorder? / Bodansky, Daniel.

    Transnational Legal Orders. Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 287-308.

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    Bodansky, D 2015, Climate change: Transnational legal order or disorder? in Transnational Legal Orders. Cambridge University Press, pp. 287-308. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011
    Bodansky D. Climate change: Transnational legal order or disorder? In Transnational Legal Orders. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. 287-308 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011
    Bodansky, Daniel. / Climate change : Transnational legal order or disorder?. Transnational Legal Orders. Cambridge University Press, 2015. pp. 287-308
    @inbook{6d88f1b9041d49eea89664a1216be7e3,
    title = "Climate change: Transnational legal order or disorder?",
    abstract = "Today, a huge array of institutions involving many different actors and geographic scales address the climate change problem. One study identified more than sixty transnational organizations that play some type of governance function (Bulkeley et al. 2012), and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Another author estimates that there are “hundreds (if not thousands) of institutions at global, national and local levels that seek to address various facets of the climate change problem” (Green 2013: 1). The result is a polycentric and “highly complex institutional environment” (Abbott 2012: 571). How can we make sense of this proliferation of climate change institutions? Writers have proposed several approaches. Robert Keohane and David Victor (2011) focus on the international level, suggesting that the regulatory activities of different international institutions represent a “regime complex.” Kenneth Abbott (2012) proposes understanding the even broader array of governance activities on multiple scales, by private as well as public actors, in terms of a “transnational regime complex,” comprised of governmental actors, civil society organizations, and business, which form what he and Duncan Snidal call a “governance triangle” (Abbott & Snidal 2009). Others have analyzed climate change activities in terms of multi-scalar or multilevel governance (Osofsky 2007; Kern & Bulkeley 2009; Peel et al. 2012), transnational governance (Pattberg & Stripple 2008; Andonova et al. 2009), polycentricity (Ostrom 2009; 2010), or fragmentation (Carlarne 2008; van Asselt et al. 2008; Boyd 2010; Young 2011).",
    author = "Daniel Bodansky",
    year = "2015",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011",
    language = "English (US)",
    isbn = "9781107707092",
    pages = "287--308",
    booktitle = "Transnational Legal Orders",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

    }

    TY - CHAP

    T1 - Climate change

    T2 - Transnational legal order or disorder?

    AU - Bodansky, Daniel

    PY - 2015/1/1

    Y1 - 2015/1/1

    N2 - Today, a huge array of institutions involving many different actors and geographic scales address the climate change problem. One study identified more than sixty transnational organizations that play some type of governance function (Bulkeley et al. 2012), and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Another author estimates that there are “hundreds (if not thousands) of institutions at global, national and local levels that seek to address various facets of the climate change problem” (Green 2013: 1). The result is a polycentric and “highly complex institutional environment” (Abbott 2012: 571). How can we make sense of this proliferation of climate change institutions? Writers have proposed several approaches. Robert Keohane and David Victor (2011) focus on the international level, suggesting that the regulatory activities of different international institutions represent a “regime complex.” Kenneth Abbott (2012) proposes understanding the even broader array of governance activities on multiple scales, by private as well as public actors, in terms of a “transnational regime complex,” comprised of governmental actors, civil society organizations, and business, which form what he and Duncan Snidal call a “governance triangle” (Abbott & Snidal 2009). Others have analyzed climate change activities in terms of multi-scalar or multilevel governance (Osofsky 2007; Kern & Bulkeley 2009; Peel et al. 2012), transnational governance (Pattberg & Stripple 2008; Andonova et al. 2009), polycentricity (Ostrom 2009; 2010), or fragmentation (Carlarne 2008; van Asselt et al. 2008; Boyd 2010; Young 2011).

    AB - Today, a huge array of institutions involving many different actors and geographic scales address the climate change problem. One study identified more than sixty transnational organizations that play some type of governance function (Bulkeley et al. 2012), and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Another author estimates that there are “hundreds (if not thousands) of institutions at global, national and local levels that seek to address various facets of the climate change problem” (Green 2013: 1). The result is a polycentric and “highly complex institutional environment” (Abbott 2012: 571). How can we make sense of this proliferation of climate change institutions? Writers have proposed several approaches. Robert Keohane and David Victor (2011) focus on the international level, suggesting that the regulatory activities of different international institutions represent a “regime complex.” Kenneth Abbott (2012) proposes understanding the even broader array of governance activities on multiple scales, by private as well as public actors, in terms of a “transnational regime complex,” comprised of governmental actors, civil society organizations, and business, which form what he and Duncan Snidal call a “governance triangle” (Abbott & Snidal 2009). Others have analyzed climate change activities in terms of multi-scalar or multilevel governance (Osofsky 2007; Kern & Bulkeley 2009; Peel et al. 2012), transnational governance (Pattberg & Stripple 2008; Andonova et al. 2009), polycentricity (Ostrom 2009; 2010), or fragmentation (Carlarne 2008; van Asselt et al. 2008; Boyd 2010; Young 2011).

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953712697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953712697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011

    DO - 10.1017/CBO9781107707092.011

    M3 - Chapter

    AN - SCOPUS:84953712697

    SN - 9781107707092

    SN - 9781107069923

    SP - 287

    EP - 308

    BT - Transnational Legal Orders

    PB - Cambridge University Press

    ER -