Book contents
- Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Series page
- Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Part I The Building Blocks
- 2 Intergovernmental Institutions
- 3 International Bureaucracies
- 4 Transnational Institutions and Networks
- 5 Institutional Architectures for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
- Part II Core Structural Features
- Part III Policy Responses
- Part IV Future Directions
- Glossary
- Index
- References
5 - Institutional Architectures for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
from Part I - The Building Blocks
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 April 2020
Book contents
- Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Series page
- Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Architectures of Earth System Governance
- Part I The Building Blocks
- 2 Intergovernmental Institutions
- 3 International Bureaucracies
- 4 Transnational Institutions and Networks
- 5 Institutional Architectures for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
- Part II Core Structural Features
- Part III Policy Responses
- Part IV Future Directions
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Summary
Issues of governance arising in areas beyond national jurisdiction are rising rapidly as priority concerns. In thinking about institutional architectures for these areas, it is helpful to subdivide this class of issues into three subcategories dealing with: (i) international spaces or areas easy to locate in spatial terms; (ii) earth systems that play critical roles in determining the habitability of the planet; and (iii) virtual systems that are increasingly important but difficult to locate in spatial terms. Focusing on one prominent example exemplifying each of these subcategories – the high seas, the earth’s climate system and cyberspace – this chapter seeks to identify lessons of general interest regarding the governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction. It directs attention to the importance of process in contrast to substance, the role of discursive embeddedness, and the importance of balancing stability and agility in a world featuring increasingly complex systems.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Architectures of Earth System GovernanceInstitutional Complexity and Structural Transformation, pp. 97 - 116Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., & Young, O. R. (2011). Science diplomacy: Antarctica, science and the governance of international spaces. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J. et al. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Bonn: Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., & Boas, I. (2008). Protecting climate refugees: The case for a global protocol. Environment, 50 (6): 8–16.Google Scholar
Brousseau, E., Marzouki, M., & Meadel, C. (eds.) (2015). Governance, regulations and powers on the internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Cornell, N. W., Fabian, L. L., & Brown Weiss, E. (1977). Regimes for the ocean, outer space and weather. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Hovi, J., & McEvoy, D. M. (eds.) (2014). Toward a. new climate agreement: Conflict, resolution and governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B., & Schlosberg, D. (eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1973). Rules and order: Law, legislation and liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (2016). Third report on the protection of the atmosphere. UN Doc. A/CN.4/692.Google Scholar
Keith, D. (2013). A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 7–23.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool earth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.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
Ostrom, E., & Turner, II, B. L. (eds.) (2007). A diagnostic approach to going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15181–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Oude Elferink, A. G. (ed.) (2005). Stability and change in the law of the sea: The role of the LOS convention. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Parson, E. A. (2003). Protecting the ozone layer: Science and strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rochette, J., Wright, G., Gjerde, K. M., Greiber, T., Unger, S., & Spadone, A. (2015). A new chapter for the high seas? Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies.Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–5.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E. O. (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Royal Society (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P. D. et al. (2004). Global change and the earth system: A planet under pressure. Heidelberg: Spring Verlag.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855.Google Scholar
Velders, G. J. M., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W., & McFarland, M. (2007). The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 4814–19.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of climate change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R. (2008). Building regimes for socioecological systems: Institutional diagnostics. In Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H (eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications and research frontiers (pp. 115–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2011). Governing international spaces: Antarctica and beyond. In Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., & Young, O. R. (eds.), Science diplomacy (pp. 287–94). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2016). International relations in the Anthropocene. In Booth, K, & Erskine, T (eds.), International relations theory today (pp. 231–49). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Governing complex systems: Social capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R., Webster, D. G. et al. (2018). Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 9065–73.Google Scholar
Zacher, M. W., & Sutton, B. A. (1996). Governing global networks: International regimes for transportation and communications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by