Against all odds: Power of small island states in the climate change negotiations: Case study of AOSIS in UNFCCC negotiations
Author
Floriánová, Dominika
Term
4. term
Publication year
2019
Submitted on
2019-09-15
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvorfor og hvordan svagere stater nogle gange kan forhandle effektivt med stærkere stater – et fænomen, der ofte beskrives som et strukturalistisk magtparadoks. Som en ekstrem og unik case analyseres Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) i FN’s klimaforhandlinger (UNFCCC) om loss and damage (tab og skade), dvs. hvordan man håndterer de skader, klimaforandringer forårsager. Studiet besvarer to spørgsmål: hvilke strategier AOSIS brugte i forhandlingerne om tab og skade, og hvad casen kan lære os om, hvordan staters magt kan forstås. Datagrundlaget er kvalitativt og omfatter både primære og sekundære kilder, herunder to interviews, som forfatteren gennemførte med aktører, der forhandlede på vegne af AOSIS. Teoretisk bygger afhandlingen på socialkonstruktivistiske perspektiver og magtbegrebet samt litteratur om små staters forhandlingsstrategier. Særligt anvendes rammen ‘borrowing of power’ (at “låne” magt), udviklet af Rubin og Hartman (2000) og Betzold (2010), som inddeler strategier i fire kategorier: procesbaserede (brug af regler og procedurer), kontekstbaserede (timing og rammesætning), målbaserede (tilpasning til bestemte modparter) og tredjepartsbaserede (allierede og ekspertise). Derudover skelnes der mellem hårde og bløde strategier. Analysen viser, at AOSIS, trods intern forskellighed, opbyggede en fælles diplomatisk fortælling og en slagkraftig strategi gennem tæt koordinering og sammenhængskraft, oplevet retfærdighed i deres sag og støtte fra ekstern ekspertise. En nøgle til deres succes var, at andre parter anerkendte AOSIS som kompetente aktører. De fire strategikategorier var tæt forbundne og blev anvendt i kombination; ingen virkede effektivt alene. Den magt, AOSIS konstruerede, var “sagsspecifik” – afhængig af konteksten og knyttet til klimaforandringer – og kan ikke uden videre generaliseres til andre fora. Casen udfordrer også traditionelle forståelser af eksterne magtkilder, idet AOSIS’ klimamæssige sårbarhed blev en moralsk ressource i forhandlingerne. Overordnet viser casen, at internationalt lederskab ikke blot er at omsætte magt til resultater; moralsk tyngde og sagens presserende karakter kan give aktører mulighed for at handle ud over traditionel magtpolitik.
This thesis examines why and how weaker states can sometimes negotiate effectively with stronger states—a phenomenon often described as a structural paradox of power. It uses the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in United Nations climate negotiations (UNFCCC) on loss and damage—how to address harms caused by climate change—as an extreme and unique case. The study addresses two questions: which strategies AOSIS used in the loss and damage talks, and what this case reveals about how state power can be understood. The analysis draws on qualitative primary and secondary sources, including two interviews the author conducted with AOSIS negotiators. The theoretical approach combines social constructivist perspectives with the concept of power and literature on small states’ negotiation strategies. In particular, it applies the ‘borrowing power’ framework developed by Rubin and Hartman (2000) and Betzold (2010), which groups strategies into four types: process-based (using rules and procedures), context-based (timing and framing), target-based (tailoring to specific counterparts), and third-party-based (mobilizing allies and expertise). An overarching distinction between hard and soft strategies is also used. The analysis shows that, despite internal diversity, AOSIS built a shared diplomatic narrative and an effective strategy through tight coordination and cohesion, the perceived justness of its cause, and support from external experts. A key to its success was recognition by other parties as competent actors. The strategy types were strongly interconnected and used in combination; no single approach worked on its own. The power AOSIS constructed was issue-specific—dependent on context and tied to climate change—and should not be generalized to other arenas. The case also reframes traditional views of external sources of power: AOSIS’s climate vulnerability became a moral asset in negotiations. Overall, the case shows that leadership in international affairs is not simply translating power into outcomes; moral standing and the urgency of the issue can enable actors to operate beyond traditional power politics.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents