intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2020.18.3.62.8intertrends-198Research ArticleФИКСИРУЕМ ТЕНДЕНЦИЮCATCHING A TRENDГлобальное экологическое управление и многосторонняя экологическая дипломатия: состояние предметных областейGlobal Environmental Governance and International Environmental DiplomacyБлизнецкаяЕ. А.BliznetskayaE.

Близнецкая Екатерина Александровна - преподаватель кафедры международных комплексных проблем природопользования и экологии

Москва

Ms Ekaterina Bliznetskaya - Lecturer, Department of International Environmental Problems and Natural Resources Studies

Moscow, 119454

ekate.bliznetskaya@gmail.comМГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation202030092020183126153Copyright © Близнецкая Е.А., 20202020Близнецкая Е.А.Bliznetskaya E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/198

Термин «управление» (governance) используется в политическом лексиконе и научной литературе, посвящённой глобальной экологической повестке дня, так часто, что практически подменил понятие политики, дипломатии, регулирования и сотрудничества. Тому есть объяснение: экологическая политика и регулирование относятся к разряду самых интернационализированных областей, где правила игры создают не только государства, но и иные субъекты. В исследованиях глобальной экологической политики сложилась уникальная ситуация: при широком признании значения негосударственных, транснациональных субъектов и процессов экологического сотрудничества мало внимания уделяется изучению связи межгосударственных и негосударственных форм взаимодействия для решения глобальных экологических проблем. В связи с этим возникают вопросы: каким образом экологическая дипломатия и экологическое управление увязываются друг с другом в академических исследованиях? Какого рода международные взаимодействия они изучают и что между ними общего?

Настоящая работа представляет ответы на эти вопросы, полученные на основе систематического обзора литературы по международной экологической дипломатии и глобальному экологическому управлению, отобранной из реферативных баз данных Scopus и Web of Science. В каждой из областей исследований автор обзора выделяет поднаправления и проводит типологизацию публикаций, позволяющую идентифицировать связи между ними. Основными результатами обзора стало подтверждение обособленности каждой из областей исследования по причине различного внимания, которое они уделяют межгосударственным или негосударственным формам взаимодействия, и различной оценки их значимости. Вместе с тем исследование показало необходимость актуализации представлений о международной экологической дипломатии, так как данное направление уже не ограничивается изучением переговоров и иных форм межгосударственного взаимодействия.

Governance is so commonly used in academic literature and policy papers in the field of international environmental politics and as such has overtaken the words “policy”, “diplomacy” and “cooperation”. This phenomenon has empirical support – environmental policy is one of the most internalized areas of regulation, and states were no longer the sole subject of international rulemaking. The current state of the art in studying global environmental politics is quite paradoxical. Notwithstanding the increased recognition of the importance of non-state, transnational actors and mechanisms to solve global environmental problems, little attention is been paid to the study of the relationship between interstate and non-state forms of interaction. That raises the question of how multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance are connected with each other in the academic peer-reviewed journals. What kind of international interactions do they study and what links them? To answer these questions, the peer-reviewed articles from SCOPUS and Web of Science databases on multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance analyzed through a systematic literature review. To understand the nature of the two approaches in studying global environmental politics, I summarize the differences and then identify the links between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles allowed to identify the relationships between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles helped to highlight the relationships between them. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation from each other. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation especially regarding the interplay between interstate or non-state forms of cooperation as well as assessments of their significance. Two dimensions of the politics – formal negotiations on collective actions and weakly institutionalized public space that involves various stakeholders, movements and initiatives – exists in parallel to each other. At the same time, the study demonstrated the need to develop more responsive notions of international environmental diplomacy, since it is no longer specific only to the study of negotiations and other forms of interstate interaction.

глобальное экологическое управлениемеждународная экологическая дипломатияэкологическая политикаклиматическая дипломатияэкологические переговорымеждународные экологические соглашенияglobal environmental governancemultilateral environmental diplomacyliterature reviewenvironmental policyclimate diplomacyenvironmental negotiationsinternational environmental agreementsИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 19-111-50387.The study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-111-50387.ReferencesAli S., Vladich H. Environmental Diplomacy // The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy / ed. by C. Constantinou, P. Kerr, & P. Sharp. Sage, 2016. P. 601–616.Al-Saidi M., Zaidan E., Hammad S. (2019). Participation modes and diplomacy of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries towards the global sustainability agenda. Development in Practice. Vol. 29. No. 5. P. 545–558.Al-Saidi M., Zaidan E., Hammad S. Participation modes and diplomacy of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries towards the global sustainability agenda // Development in Practice. 2019. Vol. 29. No. 5. P. 545–558.Bäckstrand K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global environmental politics. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 74–102.Bailey I., Maresh S. Scales and networks of neoliberal climate governance: the regulatory and territorial logics of European Union emissions trading // Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 2009. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 445–461.Bailey I., Maresh, S. (2009). Scales and networks of neoliberal climate governance: the regulatory and territorial logics of European Union emissions trading. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 445–461.Baker D.J. et al. Achieving forest carbon information with higher certainty: A five-part plan // Environmental science & policy. 2010. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 249–260.Baker D. J., Richards G., Grainger A., Gonzalez P., Brown S., DeFries R., ... & Stolle F. (2010). Achieving forest carbon information with higher certainty: A five-part plan. Environmental science & policy. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 249–260.Bäckstrand K. Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships // Global environmental politics. 2008. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 74–102.Bernstein S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of international political economy. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 17–51.Bernstein S. Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance // Review of international political economy. 2011. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 17–51.Biermann F., Betsill M. M., Burch S., Dryzek J., Gordon C., Gupta A., ... & Scobie M. (2019). The Earth System Governance Project as a network organization: a critical assessment after ten years. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Vol. 39. P. 17–23.Biermann F. et al. Earth system governance: a research framework// International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics. 2010. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 277–298.Biermann F., Pattberg P., Van Asselt H., Zelli F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global environmental politics. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 14–40.Biermann F. et al. The Earth System Governance Project as a network organization: a critical assessment after ten years // Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2019. Vol. 39. P. 17–23.Blaxekjær L.Ø. (2016). New practices and narratives of environmental diplomacy... P. 143–161. URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2016/05/29Biermann F. et al. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis // Global Environmental Politics. 2009. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 14–40.Brook B.W., Edney K., Hillerbrand R., Karlsson R., Symons J. (2016). Energy research within the UNFCCC: a proposal to guard against ongoing climate-deadlock. Climate Policy. Vol. 16. No. 6. P. 803–813.Blaxekjær L.Ø. New practices and narratives of environmental diplomacy // Environment, climate change and international relations / ed. by G. Sosa-Nunez, E. Atkins. E-International Relations Publishing, 2016. P. 143–161.Bulkeley H., Betsill M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the'urban'politics of climate change. Environmental politics. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 42–63.Brook B.W. et al. Energy research within the UNFCCC: a proposal to guard against ongoing climatedeadlock // Climate Policy. 2016. Vol. 16. No. 6. P. 803–813.Burch S., Gupta A., Inoue C., Kalfagianni A., Persson A., Gerlak A. (2018). Earth System Governance. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. 128 p. URL: https:// collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:7727Bulkeley H., Betsill M. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the urban politics of climate change // Environmental politics. 2005. Vol. 14. № 1. P. 42–63.Cash D., Adger W., Berkes F., Garden P., Lebel L., Olsson P., . . . Young O. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society. Vol. 11. No. 2. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26265993Cash D.W. et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world // Ecology and society. 2006. Vol. 11. No. 2 [online].Cashore B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 503–529.Cashore B. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority // Governance. 2002. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 503–529.Chasek P.S. (2001). NGOs and state capacity in international environmental negotiations: The experience of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law. Vol. 10. P. 168–176.Chasek P.S. NGOs and state capacity in international environmental negotiations: The experience of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin // Review of European Community & International Environmental Law. 2001. Vol. 10. P. 168–176.Cooper A. F., Heine J., Thakur R. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 953 p.The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy / ed. by A. F. Cooper et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 53 p.Dauvergne P. (2018). Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans? Global Environmental Change. Vol. 51. P. 22–31.Dauvergne P. Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans? // Global Environmental Change. 2018. Vol. 51. P. 22–31.de Oliveira J. P., Balaban O., Doll C. N., Moreno-Peñaranda R., Gasparatos A., Iossifova D., Suwa A. (2011). Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at the city level. Biological Conservation. Vol. 144. No. 5. P. 1302–1313.de Oliveira J.A.P. et al. Cities and biodiversity: Perspectives and governance challenges for implementing the convention on biological diversity (CBD) at the city level // Biological Conservation. 2011. Vol. 144. No. 5. P. 1302–1313.Delreux T. (2009). The EU negotiates multilateral environmental agreements: explaining the agent's discretion. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 16. No. 5. P. 719–737.Delreux T. The EU negotiates multilateral environmental agreements: explaining the agent's discretion // Journal of European Public Policy. 2009. Vol. 16. No. 5. P. 719–737.Dimitrov R. S. (2010). Inside Copenhagen: the state of climate governance. Global environmental politics. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 18–24.Dimitrov R.S. Inside Copenhagen: the state of climate governance // Global environmental politics. 2010. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 18–24.Dimitrov R. S. (2013). International negotiations in The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy. Wiley-Blackwell. P. 339–357. DOI:10.1002/9781118326213Dimitrov R.S. International negotiations // The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy. WileyBlackwell, 2013. P. 339–357.Fahey B. K., Pralle S. B. (2016). Governing complexity: recent developments in environmental politics and policy. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 44. No. S1. P. 28–49.Earth System Governance: Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance, 2018. 128 p.Giessen L., Krott M., Möllmann T. (2014). Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations. Forest Policy and Economics. Vol. 38. P. 97–104.Fahey B.K., Pralle S.B. Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy // Policy Studies Journal. 2016. Vol. 44. No. S1. P. 28–49.Gotor E., Caracciolo F., Watts J. (2010). The perceived impact of the in-trust agreements on CGIAR germplasm availability: an assessment of bioversity international’s institutional activities. World Development. Vol. 38. No. 10. P. 1486–1493.Giessen L., Krott M., Möllmann T. Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations // Forest Policy and Economics. 2014. Vol. 38. P. 97–104.Grazia C., Gusdorf F., Hammoudi A. (2014). Climate change, heterogeneities, and stability of international fiscal harmonization. Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 579–603.Global governance and diplomacy: worlds apart? / ed. by A. F. Cooper, B. Hocking, W. Maley. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 330 p.Haas P. (Ed.). (2017). International environmental governance. Routledge. 618 p.Gotor E., Caracciolo F., Watts J. The perceived impact of the in-trust agreements on CGIAR germplasm availability: an assessment of bioversity international’s institutional activities // World Development. 2010. Vol. 38. No. 10. P. 1486–1493.Heikkila T., Villamayor-Tomas S., Garrick D. (2018). Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance. Environmental Policy and Governance. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 207–211.Haas P.M. International environmental governance. Oxon: Routledge, 2017. 618 p.Kanie N., Biermann F. (Eds.). (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable development goals as governance innovation. MIT Press. 353 p.Heikkila T., Villamayor-Tomas S., Garrick D. Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance // Environmental Policy and Governance. 2018. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 207–211.Kellow A. (2006). A new process for negotiating multilateral environmental agreements? The Asia– Pacific climate partnership beyond Kyoto. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 287–303.Governing through goals: Sustainable development goals as governance innovation / ed. by N. Kanie, F. Biermann. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017. 353 p.Kellow A. (2012). Multi-level and multi-arena governance: the limits of integration and the possibilities of forum shopping. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 327–342.Grazia C., Gusdorf F., Hammoudi A. Climate change, heterogeneities, and stability of international fiscal harmonization //Environmental and Resource Economics. 2014. Vol. 58. №. 4. P. 579–603.Kemp R., Parto S., Gibson R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. International journal of sustainable development. Vol. 8. No. 1–2. P. 12–30. DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2005.007372Kellow A. A new process for negotiating multilateral environmental agreements. The Asia–Pacific climate partnership beyond Kyoto // Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2006. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 287–303.Keohane R. O., Victor D. G. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change. Vol. 6. No. 6. P. 570–575.Kellow A. Multi-level and multi-arena governance: the limits of integration and the possibilities of forum shopping // International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2012. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 327–342.Kim R. E. (2020). Is global governance fragmented, polycentric, or complex? The state of the art of the network approach. International Studies Review. Vol. 22. Issue 4. P. 903–931.Kemp R., Parto S., Gibson R.B. Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice // International journal of sustainable development. 2005. Vol. 8. № 1–2. P. 17.Kohler P. M. (2006). Science, PIC and POPs: negotiating the membership of chemical review committees under the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 293–303.Keohane R.O., Victor D.G. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy // Nature Climate Change. 2016. Vol. 6. No. 6. P. 570–575.Koloutsou-Vakakis S., Chinta I. (2011). Multilateral environmental agreements for wastes and chemicals: 40 years of global negotiations. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101373nKim R.E. Is Global Governance Fragmented, Polycentric, or Complex? The State of the Art of the Network Approach // International Studies Review. 2019. Vol. 22. Issue 4. P. 903–931.Kramarz T., Park S. (2016). Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 16. No. 2. P. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00349Kohler P.M. Science, PIC and POPs: negotiating the membership of chemical review committees under the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions // Review of European Community & International Environmental Law. 2006. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 293–303.Kuokkanen T., Couzens E., Honkonen T., Lewis M. (Eds.). (2016). International environmental law-making and diplomacy: Insights and overviews. Routledge. 329 p.Koloutsou-Vakakis S., Chinta I. Multilateral environmental agreements for wastes and chemicals: 40 years of global negotiations. 2011. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 10–15.Lemos M. C., Agrawal A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 31. P. 297–325.Kramarz T., Park S. Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? // Global Environmental Politics. 2016. Vol. 16. No. 2. P. 1–21.Lund E. (2013). Environmental diplomacy: comparing the influence of business and environmental NGOs in negotiations on reform of the clean development mechanism. Environmental Politics. Vol. 22. No. 5. P. 739–759.International environmental law-making and diplomacy: Insights and overviews / ed. by T. Kuokkanen et al. Oxon: Routledge, 2016. 329 p.Maley W. (2008). Global governance and diplomacy: worlds apart? Springer. 325 р.Lemos M.C., Agrawal A. Environmental Governance // Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2006. Vol. 31. P. 297–325.Martinez Romera B. (2016). The Paris agreement and the regulation of international bunker fuels. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 215–227.Lund E. Environmental diplomacy: comparing the influence of business and environmental NGOs in negotiations on reform of the clean development mechanism // Environmental Politics. 2013. Vol. 22. No. 5. P. 739–759.Martinez G.S., Hansen J.I., Olsen K.H., Ackom E.K., Haselip J.A., Bois von Kursk O., Bekker-Nielsen Dunbar M. (2019). Delegation size and equity in climate negotiations: An exploration of key issues. Carbon Management. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 431–435.Maley W. Global governance and diplomacy: worlds apart? Springer, 2008. 330 p.Mathur V.N., Afionis S., Paavola J., Dougill A. J., Stringer L. C. (2014). Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice. Climate Policy. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 42–62.Managing institutional complexity: regime interplay and global environmental change / ed. by S. Oberthür, O.S. Stokke. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. 371 p.Mert A. (2009). Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: Shifts in discourses of environment and democracy. Forest Policy and Economics. Vol. 11. No. 5–6. P. 326–339.Martinez G.S. et al. Delegation size and equity in climate negotiations: An exploration of key issues // Carbon Management. 2019. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 431–435.Meyer J. W., Frank D. J., Hironaka A., Schofer E., Tuma N. B. (1997). The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990. International organization. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 623–651.Martinez Romera B. The Paris agreement and the regulation of international bunker fuels // Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. 2016. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 215–227.Mitchell. R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual review of environment and resources. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 429–461.Mathur V.N. et al. Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice // Climate Policy. 2014. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 42–62.Morin J.F., Louafi S., Orsini A., Oubenal M. (2017). Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 543–577.Mert A. Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: Shifts in discourses of environment and democracy //Forest Policy and Economics. 2009. Vol. 11. No. 5–6. P. 326–339.Morrison T.H., Adger W.N., Brown K., Lemos M.C., Huitema D., Hughes T.P. (2017). Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. Vol. 8. No. 5. P. 1–16.Meyer J.W. et al. The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990 // International organization. 1997. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 623–651.Morrison T.H., Adger W.N., Brown K., Lemos M.C., Huitema D., Phelps J., ... Hughes T.P. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 57. P. 1–8.Mitchell R.B. International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and effects // Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2003. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 429–461.Mrema E. M. (2006). Cross-cutting issues related to ensuring compliance with MEAs. In Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Brill Nijhoff. P. 201–228.Morin J.F. et al. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES // Journal of International Relations and Development. 2017. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 543–577.Najam A., Christopoulou I., Moomaw W. R. (2004). The emergent “system” of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 23–35.Morrison T.H. et al. Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2017. Vol. 8. No. 5. P. 1–16.Neuner F. G. (2020). Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics. 2020. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 60–81.Morrison T.H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance // Global Environmental Change. 2019. Vol. 57. P. 1–8.O’Neill K., Haas P. M. (2019). Being There: International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 4–13.Mrema E.M. Cross-cutting issues related to ensuring compliance with MEAs // Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements / ed. by U. Beyerlin, P. T. Stoll, R. Wolfrum. Brill Nijhoff, 2006. P. 201–228.Oberthür S. (2009). Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 371.Najam A., Christopoulou I., Moomaw W. R. The emergent “system” of global environmental governance // Global Environmental Politics. 2004. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 23–35.Oberthür S., Rabitz F. (2014). On the EU's performance and leadership in global environmental governance: the case of the Nagoya Protocol. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 39–57.Neuner F. G. Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private Environmental Governance // Global Environmental Politics. 2020. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 60–81.Oberthur S., Stokke O. S. (Eds.). (2011). Managing institutional complexity: regime interplay and global environmental change. MIT Press. 371 p.O’Faircheallaigh C., Corbett T. Indigenous participation in environmental management of mining projects: The role of negotiated agreements // Environmental Politics. 2005. Vol. 14. No. 5. P. 629–647.Odell J. S. (2010). Three islands of knowledge about negotiation in international organizations. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 17. No. 5. P. 619–632.Oberthür S. Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions // International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2009. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 371.O'Faircheallaigh C., Corbett T. (2005). Indigenous participation in environmental management of mining projects: The role of negotiated agreements. Environmental politics. Vol. 14. No. 5. P. 629–647.Oberthür S., Rabitz F. On the EU's performance and leadership in global environmental governance: the case of the Nagoya Protocol // Journal of European Public Policy. 2014. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 39–57.Okereke C., Dooley K. (2010). Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 82–95.Odell J.S. Three islands of knowledge about negotiation in international organizations // Journal of European Public Policy. 2010. Vol. 17. No. 5. P. 619–632.O'Neill K., Weinthal E., Marion Suiseeya K.R., Bernstein S., Cohn A., Stone M.W., Cashore B. (2013). Methods and global environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 38. P. 441–471.Okereke C., Dooley K. Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement // Global Environmental Change. 2010. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 82–95.Orsini A., Compagnon D. (2013). From logics to procedures: arguing within international environmental negotiations. Critical policy studies. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 273–291.O’Neill K. et al. Methods and global environmental governance // Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2013. Vol. 38. P. 441–471.Panke D. (2020). Inside international environmental organizations. Negotiating the greening of international politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 365–384.O’Neill K., Haas P.M. Being There: International Negotiations as Study Sites in Global Environmental Politics // Global Environmental Politics. 2019. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 4–13.Paterson M. (2019). Using Negotiation Sites for Richer Collection of Network Data. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 81–92.Orsini A., Compagnon D. From logics to procedures: arguing within international environmental negotiations // Critical policy studies. 2013. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 273–291.Pattberg P., Stripple J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International environmental agreements: Politics, law and economics. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 367–388.Panke D. Inside international environmental organizations. Negotiating the greening of international politics // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2020. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 365–384.Pattberg P., Widerberg O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: key findings and future questions. Millennium. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 684–705.Paterson M. Using Negotiation Sites for Richer Collection of Network Data // Global Environmental Politics. 2019. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 81–92.Razman M.R., Hadi A.S., Jahi J.M., Shah A.H.H., Sani S., Yusoff G. (2010). A study on the precautionary principle by using interest approach in the negotiations of the Montreal protocol focusing on international environmental governance and law. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 372–377.Pattberg P., Stripple J. Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century // International environmental agreements: Politics, law and economics. 2008. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 367–388.Rietig K. (2014). ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 141–160.Pattberg P., Widerberg O. Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions // Millennium. 2015. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 684–705.Rosendal G. K. (2006). Balancing Access and Benefit Sharing and Legal Protection of Innovations From Bioprospecting: Impacts on Conservation of Biodiversity. The Journal of Environment & Development. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 428–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496506294799Razman M.R. et al. A study on the precautionary principle by using interest approach in the negotiations of the Montreal Protocol focusing on the international environmental governance and law // Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 2010. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 372–377.Sapinski J. P. (2015). Climate capitalism and the global corporate elite network. Environmental Sociology. Vol. 1. No. 4. P. 268–279.Rietig K. ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations // Policy Sciences. 2014. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 141–160.Schakel A. H. (2016). Applying multilevel governance. In Handbook of research methods and applications in political science. Edward Elgar Publishing. P. 97–110.Rosendal G.K. Balancing access and benefit sharing and legal protection of innovations from bioprospecting: Impacts on conservation of biodiversity // The journal of environment & development. 2006. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 428–447.Schroeder H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 317–332.Sapinski J.P. Climate capitalism and the global corporate elite network // Environmental Sociology. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 4. P. 268–279.Schroeder H., Lovell H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 23–37.Schakel A.H. Applying multilevel governance // Keman H., Woldendorp J. J. (ed.). Handbook of research methods and applications in political science. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. P. 97–110.Schulze K., Tosun J. (2013). External dimensions of European environmental policy: An analysis of environmental treaty ratification by third states. European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 52. No. 5. P. 581–607.Schroeder H. Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation // International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2010. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 317–332.Skelcher C. (2005). Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 89–110.Schroeder H., Lovell H. The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations // Climate Policy. 2012. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 23–37.Skjærseth J. B., Stokke O. S., Wettestad J. (2006). Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 104–120.Schulze K., Tosun J. External dimensions of European environmental policy: An analysis of environmental treaty ratification by third states // European Journal of Political Research. 2013. Vol. 52. No. 5. P. 581–607.Skodvin T., Andresen S. (2006). Part one: Negotiating international environmental regimes. Leadership revisited. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 13–27.Skelcher C. Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance // Governance. 2005. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 89–110.Susskind L. E., Ali S. H. (2014). Environmental diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 256 p.Skjærseth J.B., Stokke O.S., Wettestad J. Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms // Global Environmental Politics. 2006. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 104–120.Templeton J., Kohler P. (2014). Implementation and compliance under the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 211–220.Skodvin T., Andresen S. Part one: Negotiating international environmental regimes // Leadership revisited. Global Environmental Politics. 2006. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 13–27.Vogler J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs. Vol. 81. No. 4. P. 835–850.Susskind L.E., Ali S.H. Environmental diplomacy: negotiating more effective global agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 256 p.Wurzel R. K., Liefferink D., Torney D. (2019). Pioneers, leaders and followers in multilevel and polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 1–21.Templeton J., Kohler P. Implementation and compliance under the Minamata Convention on Mercury // Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. 2014. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 211–220.Young O. R. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 244 p.Vogler J. The European contribution to global environmental governance // International Affairs. 2005. Vol. 81. No. 4. P. 835–850.Young O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 378–385.Wurzel R. KW, Liefferink D., Torney D. Pioneers, leaders and followers in multilevel and polycentric climate governance // Environmental Politics. 2019 Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 1–21.Young O. R. (2017). Governing complex systems: social capital for the anthropocene. MIT Press. 295 p.Young O.R. Governing complex systems: social capital for the anthropocene. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017. 295 p.Zelli F., Van Asselt H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global environmental politics. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 1–13.Young O.R. Institutional dynamics: resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes // Global Environmental Change. 2010. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 378–385.Zürn M. (1998). The rise of international environmental politics: a review of current research. World Politics. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 617–649.Young O.R. International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. 244 p.Young O.R. International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. 244 p.Zelli F., van Asselt H. The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses: Introduction // Global Environmental Politics. 2013. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 1–13.Zelli F., van Asselt H. The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses: Introduction // Global Environmental Politics. 2013. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 1–13.Zürn M. The rise of international environmental politics: a review of current research // World Politics. 1998. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 617–649.Zürn M. The rise of international environmental politics: a review of current research // World Politics. 1998. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 617–649.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.