The strategic choice of China’s climate diplomacy in the new era from the perspective of Hybrid Institutional Complexes

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2023.047

Abstract

Abstract:

The current global climate governance system is in a diversified pattern of “hybrid driving”, and the Climate Hybrid Institutional Complexes (C-HIC) came into being. The composition system in the C-HIC has informal hierarchy, heterogeneity and two-way compliance, which goes beyond the hierarchy, homogeneity and one-way compliance of the traditional system complex. This advantage makes its constituent systems based on the functional efficiency theory and governance power transfer theory in interaction, showing a higher substantive fit and political fit, which is conducive to promoting global climate governance towards good governance. In the face of the situation and development trend of the global climate governance system, China’s climate diplomacy in the new era should further comprehensively enhance its participation in the C-HIC, systematically enhance the coupling and coordination between its constituent systems, and creatively embed Chinese excellent traditional culture in the C-HIC to provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese contributions.

Key words: Hybrid Institutional Complexes (HIC), Global climate governance

WANG Shuo. The strategic choice of China’s climate diplomacy in the new era from the perspective of Hybrid Institutional Complexes[J]. Climate Change Research, 2023, 19(4): 520-529.

References 24

[1]	Aklin M, Mildenberger M. Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change[M]. Norman: MIT Press, 2018
[2]	Abbott K W, Faude B. Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance[J]. International Organizations, 2022, 17: 263-291
[3]	于宏源, 李坤海. 全球气候治理的混合格局和中国参与[J]. 欧洲研究, 2022 (1): 64-84.
	Yu H Y, Li K H. The mixed pattern of global climate governance and China’s participation[J]. European Studies, 2022 (1): 64-84 (in Chinese)
[4]	Keohane Q R, Victor D G. The regime complex for climate change[J]. Perspectives on Politics, 2011, 9 (1): 7-23 doi: 10.1017/S1537592710004068 URL
[5]	Orsini C, Morin J F, Young O. Regime complexes: a buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance?[J]. Global Governance, 2013, 19: 27-39 doi: 10.1163/19426720-01901003 URL
[6]	宋亦明. 制度竞争与国际制度的等级制[J]. 世界经济与政治, 2021 (4): 33-60.
	Song Y M. Institutional competition and the hierarchy of international institutions[J]. World Economy and Politics, 2021 (4): 33-60 (in Chinese)
[7]	Laura G M. International regime complexity and regional governance: evidence from the Americas[J]. Global Governance, 2015, 21 (1): 19-42 doi: 10.1163/19426720-02101004 URL
[8]	Ostrom E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective and global, environmental change[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20 (4): 550-557 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 URL
[9]	李慧明. 全球气候治理与国际秩序转型[J]. 世界经济与政治, 2017 (3): 62-85.
	Li H M. Global climate governance and the transformation of the international order[J]. World Economy and Politics, 2017 (3): 62-85 (in Chinese)
[10]	Jonathan W K, Bj?rn O L, Heike S. Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era[J]. WIREs Climate Change, 2017, 9: 1-18
[11]	Claire D. Initiative climate international[EB/OL]. 2022 [2023-04-11]. https://www.greenprojecttech.com/newsroom/initiative-climatinternational
[12]	于宏源, 余博闻. 低碳经济背景下的全球气候治理新趋势[J]. 国际问题研究, 2016 (5): 48-61.
	Yu H Y, Yu B W. New trends in global climate governance against the background of a low carbon economy[J]. International Studies, 2016 (5): 48-61 (in Chinese)
[13]	余博闻. 认知演化与全球气候治理的变革[J]. 世界经济与政治, 2019 (12): 101-133.
	Yu B W. Cognitive evolution and changes in global climate governance[J]. World Economy and Politics, 2019 (12): 101-133 (in Chinese)
[14]	Hoffmann M J. Climate governance at the crossroads: experimenting with a global response after Kyoto[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011: 66
[15]	Abbott K W. Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change[J]. Transnational Environmental Law, 2014, 3 (1): 57-88 doi: 10.1017/S2047102513000502 URL
[16]	Zelli F. The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2011, 2 (2): 55-70
[17]	Chan S, Eichhorn F, Biermann F, et al. A momentum for change? Systemic effects and catalytic impacts of transnational climate action[J]. Earth System Governance, 2021, 9: 1-9
[18]	Streck C. Strengthening the Paris Agreement by holding non-state actors accountable: establishing normative links between transnational partnerships and treaty implementation[J]. Transnational Environmental Law, 2021, 10 (3): 493-515 doi: 10.1017/S2047102521000091 URL
[19]	Tyler P. Deference and hierarchy in international regime complexes[J]. International Organization, 2018, 72 (3): 561-590 doi: 10.1017/S0020818318000164 URL
[20]	Karen J A, Sophie M. The politics of international regime complexity[J]. Political Science, 2009, 7 (1): 13-24
[21]	Keohane O R, Victor D G. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6: 571-575
[22]	Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015: 415-417
[23]	Frank B, van Driel M, Vijge J M. Architectures of Earth system governance[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020: 158-180
[24]	Elizabeth C W, Mark A, Tom A, et al. Designing the climate observing systems of the future[J]. USGCRP Climate Observations, 2016, 6 (1): 1-24