Klaus Dingwerth
Title
Prof. Dr.
Last Name
Dingwerth
First name
Klaus
Email
klaus.dingwerth@unisg.ch
ORCID
Phone
+41 71 224 2314
68 results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 68
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Linkage as Leverage: OECD Accession as an Informal and Indirect Graduation Mechanism in the International Climate RegimeABSTRACT As global power is shifting, international institutions face a challenge: established powers will often request that rising powers no longer continue to benefit from their status as “developing countries”. Yet only a few institutions have formal rules in place to organize this transition. As a result, tracing the informal pathways through which change occurs becomes relevant. In this article, we study one such mechanism in the international climate regime. In that regime, the so‐called Annex I countries agreed “to take the lead” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while developing countries remained exempt from a similar obligation. Because Annex I was hard to amend, the regime has frequently been said to lack a graduation mechanism. Yet, once we take the interaction between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its broader institutional environment into account, the process of acceding to the Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) comes into view as an indirect and informal graduation mechanism. We examine the effects and limitations of this mechanism in relation to the accession processes of Mexico (1994), South Korea (1996), and Chile (2010). Our analysis leads to two main results. First, we show that a graduation mechanism based on “linkage as leverage” existed. Second, we sketch three distinct causal pathways that lead to different degrees of graduation in each case. Overall, our study suggests that graduation based on “linkage as leverage” depends on three conditions. First, states needed to activate the mechanism in each case. Second, domestic support was required to sustain graduation. And third, major emitters had to develop an interest in joining a club organization that could exercise leverage.Type:journal articleJournal:Regulation & Governance - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Multi-layered differentiation in the climate regime: the gradual path from Rio to Paris(2024-01-01)According to a commonly held view, states have fundamentally re-organized the differentiation between developed and developing countries in the climate regime in the 2015 Paris Agreement. In this view, the Paris Agreement replaces the ‘rigid’, ‘static’, and ‘dichotomous’ system of differentiation based on Annexes I and II to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with a more ‘flexible’, ‘dynamic’, and ‘subtle’ solution. I argue that this view is incomplete. In fact, the early climate regime included additional layers of differentiation that go beyond the binary distinction between Annex and non-Annex parties. Through a discussion of three episodes in which states adjusted the system to the ‘special circumstances’ of regime members, I show how informalization and individualization – two hallmarks of differentiation in the Paris Agreement – had become central well before COP-21 and that the international climate regime thus developed a lot more gradually than is often assumed.Type:journal articleJournal:Environmental PoliticsVolume:33Issue:2Scopus© Citations 10 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Teach your children well: introduction to the book symposium on Julian Culp’s democratic education in a globalized world(2020-10-08); Type:journal articleJournal:Ethics & Global PoliticsVolume:13Issue:3 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The rise of democratic legitimation: why international organizations speak the language of democracy(2020-07-31); Scopus© Citations 105 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Helping v. Hindering Sovereignty: The Differential Politicization of the European Court of Human Rights in the Austrian and Swiss Press(2019-09) - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Helping vs Hindering Sovereignty: The Differential Politicization of the European Court of Human Rights in the Austrian and Swiss Quality Press(2019-10) - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Field Recognition and the State Prerogative: Why Democratic Legitimation Recedes in Private Transnational Sustainability RegulationLike any regulatory effort, private transnational standard-setters need to legitimate themselves to the audiences from which they seek support or obedience. While early scholarship on private transnational governance has emphasized the centrality of democratic legitimation narratives in rendering private governance socially acceptable, evidence from more recent standard-setting schemes suggests a declining relevance of that narrative over time. In my analysis of private sus- tainability regulation, I identify a combination of two factors that jointly contribute to this diminished role of democratic legitimation. First, private transnational governance has become a pervasive phenomenon. This means that new entrants to the field no longer face the same liability of newness that required first movers to make an extra effort in legitimation. Second, private standard-setting has moved from areas characterized by ‘governance gaps’ to areas in which meaningful intergovernmental regulation already exists. In these areas, however, the ‘state prerogative’ in legitimating governance holds. As a result, transnational standard-setters rely not so much on stressing their democratic credentials, but instead emphasize their contribution to achieving internationally agreed goals.Type:journal articleJournal:Politics and GovernanceVolume:5Issue:1Scopus© Citations 19 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Global governance vs empire: Why world order moves towards heterarchy and hierarchyCurrent debates in International Relations (IR) entail two different claims regarding the global structures evolving in the post-Cold War world. Some suggest that the scope of the US power amounts to lasting American hegemony or even to a US empire; others speak of global governance in light of waning capacities of single states to tackle international problems or the growing salience of non-state actors. In this article, we discuss these two bodies of literature in conjunction. We argue that the global governance literature and the empire literature use different lenses to observe the same object, that is, world politics after the Cold War, and that they both address the question of power and authority in IR. The global governance literature identifies a diffusion of power and authority in world politics and thus a move from anarchy to heterarchy. The empire literature, in contrast, identifies a concentration of power and authority in the hands of the United States and thus a move from anarchy to hierarchy. We discuss different attempts to redress this seeming contradiction and show that there is much ground to believe that world politics is in fact characterised by both a concentration and a dispersion of power and authority. What we may see is neither global governance nor empire alone, but rather moves towards heterarchy and hierarchy at the same time.Type:journal articleJournal:Journal of International Relations and DevelopmentVolume:18Issue:1Scopus© Citations 22 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Democracy Is Democracy Is Democracy? Changes in Evaluations of International Institutions in Academic Textbooks, 1970-2010This article examines what democracy means when it is used in academic textbook evaluations of international institutions and how the meaning of the term "democracy" in such evaluations has changed over time. An analysis of 71 textbooks on international institutions in the policy areas of international security, environmental, and human rights politics leads us to several answers. We observe slight changes in relation to three aspects. First, the range of democracy-relevant actors expands over time, most notably in relation to nonstate actors as important participants in (or even subjects of) international policymaking. Second, representational concerns become more relevant in justifying demands for greater participation in international institutions. Third, international organizations are increasingly discussed not only as subjects that enhance the transparency and accountability of the policies of their member states, but also as the objects of democratic demands for transparency and accountability themselves.Type:journal articleJournal:International Studies PerspectivesVolume:16Issue:2Scopus© Citations 3 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Many Pipers, Many Tunes? Die Legitimationskommunikation internationaler Organisationen in komplexen Umwelten(Nomos, 2015-05-08); ; ; ; Witt, AntoniaType:journal articleJournal:Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Sonderheft)Volume:49