Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:45:53.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Interplay Management

from Part III - Policy Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Olav Schram Stokke
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Interplay management involves deliberate efforts by one or more actors to improve the interplay of institutions set up for earth system governance. This chapter synthesizes two decades of conceptual and empirical research on the conditions that influence the conduciveness of interplay management to earth system governance. Those conditions concern the agency and the means of management, notably whether interplay management proceeds by means of coordination or adaptation, as well as the compatibility of the policy objectives pursued. Agents of interplay management are states, intergovernmental organizations and industry- or civil-society groups, seeking to mobilize assets such as material resources, expertise or legitimacy held by one institution to promote objectives pursued under another. Means employed are frequently variants of unilateral adaptation to norms and programmes undertaken in other institutions, rather than explicit coordination involving joint decision-making. Cross-institutional coordination has obvious advantages and is particularly valuable when the institutions govern highly interdependent activities or can bring to bear complementary capacities. With clearly competitive elements present, adaptation has the advantage of triggering less turf-sensitive resistance.

Keywords

Institutionsregimesgovernanceinterplayinteractionadaptationcoordinationdifferentiationniche
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 207 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70 (2), 247–77.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5 (3), 315–44.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, V. K. (1983). The unraveling of the multi-fiber arrangement, 1981: An examination of international regime change. International Organization, 37 (4), 617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Andresen, S. (2007). The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 7 (4), 317–36.Google Scholar
Axelrod, M. (2011). Savings clauses and the ‘Chilling Effect’: Regime interplay as constraints on international governance. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 87–114). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Balton, D. A. (1996). Strengthening the law of the sea: The new agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Ocean Development & International Law, 27 (1–2), 125–51.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2000). Ideas, social structure and the compromise of liberal institutionalism. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 347–71.Google Scholar
Betsill, M., Dubash, N. K., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., & Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (2), 1–10.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (4), 14–40.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2008). Earth system governance: A research agenda. In Young, O. R., King, L, & Schroeder, H (eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications and research frontiers (pp. 277–301). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F. et al. (2006). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100 (14), 8086–91.Google Scholar
Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization, 47 (2), 175–205.Google Scholar
DeSombre, E. R. (2005). Fishing under flags of convenience: Using market power to increase participation in international regulation. Global Environmental Politics, 5 (4), 73–94.Google Scholar
Downie, D. L., & Fenge, T. (2003). Northern lights against POPs: Combatting toxic threats in the Arctic. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
FAO. (1984). Report of the FAO world conference on fisheries management and development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia, S. M., & Newton, C. H. (1996). Responsible fisheries: An overview of FAO policy developments (1945–1994). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 29 (6–12), 528–36.Google Scholar
Gehring, T. (2011). The institutional complex of trade and environment: Toward an interlocking governance structure and a division of labor. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 227–54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19 (1), 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2009). The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Marine Policy, 33 (4), 654–60.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Auld, G. (2016). Contested accountability logics in evolving nonstate certification for fisheries sustainability. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (2), 42–60.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 929–64.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2017). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19 (3), 430–51.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. (2010). UNEP in global environmental governance: Design, leadership, location. Global Environmental Politics, 10 (1), 30–59.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juda, L. (2002). Rio plus ten: The evolution of international marine fisheries governance. Ocean Development & International Law, 33 (2), 109–44.Google Scholar
Jungcurt, S. (2011). The role of expert networks in reducing regime conflict: Contrasting cases in the management of plant genetic resources. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 171–98). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kent, A. (2014). Implementing the principle of policy integration: institutional interplay and the role of international organizations. International Environmental Agreements, 14 (3), 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (1), 7–23.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.Google Scholar
Kvalvik, I. (2012). Managing institutional overlap in the protection of marine ecosystems on the high seas. The case of the North East Atlantic. Ocean and Coastal Management, 56, 35–43.Google Scholar
Leebron, D. W. (2002). Linkages. American Journal of International Law, 96 (1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Margulis, M. E. (2013). The regime complex for food security: Implications for the global hunger challenge. Global Governance, 19 (1), 53–67.Google Scholar
Molenaar, E. J. (2007). Port state jurisdiction: Towards comprehensive, mandatory and global coverage. Ocean Development & International Law, 38 (1–2), 225–57.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2014). Policy coherency and regime complexes: The case of genetic resources. Review of International Studies, 40 (2), 303–24.Google Scholar
Marine Stewardship Council (2017). Annual Report 2016–17: The MSC at 20. Wild, certified, sustainable. London: Marine Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, K., Weinthal, E., Suiseeya, K. R. M., Bernstein, S., Cohn, A., Stone, M. W., & Cashore, B. (2013). Methods and global environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 441–71.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 9 (4), 371–91.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., Dupont, C., & Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Managing policy contradictions between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols: The case of fluorinated greenhouse gases. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 115–41). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (eds.) (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (eds.) (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ochieng, R. M., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Nketiah, K. S. (2013). Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management. Forestry Policy and Economics, 32, 32–9.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19, 27–39.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284 (5412), 278–82.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and on-profit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance, 18 (4), 589–610.Google Scholar
Pratt, T. (2018). Deference and hierarchy in international regime complexes. International Organization, 72 (3), 561–90.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58 (2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Overlapping international regimes: The case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity. International Environmental Agreements, 1 (4), 447–68.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. R., & Stephens, T. (2016). The international law of the sea. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Runhaar, H., Driessen, P., & Uittenbroek, C. (2014). Towards a systematic framework for the analysis of environmental policy integration. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24 (4), 233–46.Google Scholar
Scott, K. N. (2011). International environmental governance: Managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 12 (1), 177–216.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2006). Protecting the North-East Atlantic: Enhancing synergies by institutional interplay. Marine Policy, 30 (2), 157–66.Google Scholar
Spijkers, J., & Boonstra, W. J. (2017). Environmental change and social conflict: The Northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute. Regional Environmental Change, 17 (6), 1835–51.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (ed.) (2001a). Governing high seas fisheries: The interplay of global and regional regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2001b). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2004). Trade measures and climate compliance: Interplay between WTO and the Marrakesh Accords. International Environmental Agreements, 4 (4), 339–57.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2009). Trade measures and the combat of IUU fishing: Institutional interplay and effective governance in the Northeast Atlantic. Marine Policy, 33 (2), 339–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2011a). Environmental security in the Arctic: The case for multilevel governance. International Journal, 66 (4), 835–48.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2011b). Interplay management, niche selection and Arctic environmental governance. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 143–70). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2012). Disaggregating international regimes: A new approach to evaluation and comparison. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements, 13, 65–85.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2019). Management options for high seas fisheries: Making regime complexes more effective. In Caddell, J. R., & Molenaar, E. J. (eds.), Strengthening international fisheries law in an era of changing oceans (pp. 51–79). London: Hart Publishers.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S., & Oberthür, S. (2011). Introduction: Institutional interaction in global environmental change. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (2016). Programme of work and budget for the biennium 2018–2019. UN Doc. UNEP/EA.2/16.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (1972). Institutional and financial arrangements for environmental cooperation. UN Doc. A/RES/2997(XXVII).Google Scholar
Van Asselt, H. (2011). Legal and political approaches in interplay management: Dealing with the fragmentation of global climate governance. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 59–85). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Asselt, H. (2014). The fragmentation of global climate governance: Consequences and management of regime interactions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T., & De Ville, F. (2013). Regime complexes and interplay management. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 568–71.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (2018). The environment: A specific concern. Available at: www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/bey2_e.htm. Accessed: 17 June 2019.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Institutional interactions at the crossroads of trade and environment: The dominance of liberal environmentalism? Global Governance, 19 (1), 105–18.Google Scholar
Zürn, M., & Faude, B. (2013). On fragmentation, differentiation, and coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 119–30.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×