Justice is of central importance in international environmental negotiations. Key characteristics of this type of negotiation augment the complexities of justice issues and warrant a customized approach. Based on a discussion of these characteristics, the article derives four components that are central to a more comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing justice in environmental negotiations: 1) going beyond narrow self-interest, 2) extending the notion of reciprocity, 3) linking backward- and forward-orientation, and 4) connecting process and outcome. The usefulness of the framework is illustrated by applying it to two important Conferences of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – COP15 in Copenhagen and COP21 in Paris – which are compared. The framework is suited for a systematic analysis of the complex role played by justice issues in international environmental negotiation, as a key avenue for addressing global threats emerging from anthropogenic environmental change.
CorneloupInés de Águeda and Arthur P.J.Mol (2013). “Small Island Developing States and International Climate Change Negotiations: The Power of Moral ‘Leadership.’”International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics143: 281–297.
GrassoMarco (2010). “The Role of Justice in the North–South Conflict in Climate Change: The Case of Negotiations on the Adaptation Fund.”International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics114: 361–377.
HurlbertMargot A. (2011). “Evaluating Climate Justice – Attitudes and Opinions of Individual Stakeholders in the United Nations Framework Climate Change Convention Conference of the Parties.”Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences84: 267–286.
HurrellAndrew and BenedictKingsbury (1992). “The International Politics of the Environment: An Introduction,” in AndrewHurrell and BenedictKingsbury editors The International Politics of the Environment. Oxford: Claredon Press.
KaulInge and R.U.Mendoza (2003). “Advancing the Concept of Public Goods,” in IngeKaulPedroConceicao and KatellLe Goulven editors Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MeilstrupPer (2010). “The Runaway Summit: The Background Story of the Danish Presidency of COP15, the UN Climate Change Conference,” in NannaHvidt and HansMouritzen editors Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2010. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.
RietigKatharina (2014). “Reinforcement of Multilevel Governance Dynamics: Creating Momentum for Increasing Ambitions in International Climate Negotiations.”International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics144: 371–389.
SjöstedtGunnar (1993). “Special and Typical Attributes of International Environmental Negotiations,” in GunnarSjöstedtUnoSvedin and Britt HägerhällAniansson editors International Environmental Negotiations: Process Issues and Contexts. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, FRN.
SmithJ.B.H.J.Schellnhuber and M.M.Q.Mirza (2001). “Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis” in J.J. McCarthy O.F. Canziani N.A. Leary D.J. Dokken and K.S. White editors Climate Change 2001: Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmnetal Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SpectorBertram I. (1992). International Environmental Negotiations: Insights for Practice. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Van den BosKees (2005). “What is Responsible for the Fair Process Effect?,” in J.Greenberg and J.A.Colquitt editors Handbook of Organizational Justice: Fundamental Questions about Fairness in the Workplace. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van den BosKeesRiëlVermunt and Henk A.M.Wilke (1997). “Procedural and Distributive Justice: What is Fair Depends More on What Comes First than on What Comes Next.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology721: 95–104.
ZartmanI. William (2005). “Looking Forward and Looking Backward on Negotiation Theory,” in I. WilliamZartman and VictorKremenyuk editors Peace versus Justice: Negotiating Forward- and Backward-Looking Outcomes. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.