Has the European Union Exercised Leadership in the International Climate Change Regime since the Hag

Has the European Union Exercised Leadership in the International Climate Change Regime since the Hague Conference?

This Master Thesis won the Norsk Hydro Environmental Award for being the best written on environmental issues in the academic year 2001-2002 of the College of Europe.

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has long claimed to be a leader in the international climate change regime and in 1997 the Union had an important role to play in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The implementation details of the protocol however were not finalised and at The Hague Conference of 2000 the parties spectacularly failed to agree, leaving ratification in doubt. A further set back came in March 2001 when President Bush announced that the United States (US) did not intend to ratify, creating the ‘crisis of Kyoto’. The withdrawal of the US created a leadership vacuum that needed to be filled for the protocol to survive, and the EU was the only party in a position to fill it. The period since The Hague Conference has therefore been a test for EU leadership and this thesis aims to make an objective assessment of its role.

The main problem in assessing leadership is its definition. The thesis therefore starts with a discussion of the theoretical concept of leadership, drawing from international relations and political science literature. It provides a conceptual framework for analysis, identifying three modes of leadership: Structural, Instrumental and Directional. Each mode highlights different methods of influencing other parties to follow the lead of one party in a regime. In assessing the EU’s leadership credentials a major theme is the link between internal and external policies, and this investigation also sheds some light on the nature of the EU itself. In particular, it shows how the EU’s internal decision making procedures and organisation are limiting factors in international negotiations, although concludes that these constraints do not necessarily prevent it from assuming a leadership role.

As with many conclusions, the answer can never be yes or no. In fact, due to the multifaceted nature of leadership outlined at the start, an assessment of the EU as a leader has to be a matter of degree. The final conclusion is a positive one, arguing that the EU has indeed exercised a leadership role since The Hague conference. It shows how the EU moved from a naïve and dogmatic environmental position to adopting a more Machiavellian understanding of the issues at stake. This allowed the Union to make alliances more easily and form a consensus around a position on implementation that was acceptable to all parties. It has also developed its internal policies and therefore made its international position credible. However, it is a qualified conclusion, suggesting that EU leadership may be a result of short-term factors, raising doubts about the sustainability of the EU’s new role in the future.

For the complete text,

click here.