Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Global environmental problems as Ozone depletion, contamination of toxic chemicals in food chain, and climate change are some of the biggest environmental challenges of this century. In international context, these global environmental problems are tried to be commonly governed by international regimes as Montreal Protocol, Stockholm Convention on POPs and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change / the Kyoto Protocol. In all these regimes scientific knowledge have been major part of the negotiation processes and scientific community knowledge is carried on by members of the Epistemic communities, which representatives have actively participated for the negotiation processes, and at least in some degree, have been influencing outcomes of the regimes. However, it is important to keep in mind that, these negotiations, as any other environmental treaty making process, are just combination of complex interests of different actors, where actors and promoting their political goals and highlighting their own views over the bargained regime: rules, norms, economics, science, protection of nature and human health etc. Original idea of scientific information within the regime was to be tool for policymakers that through reducing scientific uncertainty, policymakers could have clear and solid ground for decision making. However, it has started to be clear, at least for some scientists, that this neutral non-political role is not enough for them and they are participating processes to ensure that scientific information is truly carried, in proper way, on to the tables of decision makers. My research focus is how Arctic actors, especially the Arctic (Polar) epistemic communities, have influenced outcomes of global Climate, POPs and Ozone regimes. What are their roles in international environmental politics and how the Arctic message and knowledge of local environmental changes are carried on to the global forums? What can be learnt from role of the Arctic epistemic community, when scientific knowledge and capacity building has started to be driving force building process of international environmental regimes. Generally, my research paper try to seek answers for following questions: 1) The role of scientific knowledge in the context of global environmental change 2) The role of media in constructing public awareness 3) Pressuring the inter-state system 4) National interests and regional coalitions 5) The disputed roles of epistemic communities: Scientific uncertainties, 6) The limits of the political processes. Through comparable research approach, I believe that it is possible to learn something new information about role of Arctic actors, especially the Arctic epistemic community, in international negotiations. This information could be useful for possible new global treaty making processes, which may lie ahead of us.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The question this paper addresses is whether and, if so, to what extent can existing IR theories of high politics decision making be applied to low politics issue areas, specifically international environmental policy. The paper considers three individual level theories: Prospect Theory, Political and Policy Risk Theory and Poliheuristic Theory. Each is applied to two case studies, The Montreal Protocol and The Kyoto Protocol, to test its ability to explain the decision-making processes of United States presidents. The climate change case study is most illustrative, either for or against the applicability of a theory, as the risks presidents faced were greater. The paper concludes that none of the applications lend full support to any of the theories. At the same time, none of them completely invalidate the theories either. Of the three, Political and Policy Risk Theory shows the most promise, while the analysis of Prospect Theory reveals some weaknesses in its applicability and the results of the application of Poliheuristic Theory fall somewhere in between. The findings suggest that foreign policy analysis theories may be best able to explain international environmental policy choices if they can capture the complexity of the issue, better define risk and allow for more human agency in terms of personal preferences and belief systems. In general, the applications to environmental policy suggest that the three theories could be adjusted or amended to become better generalizable to different policy areas.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since the relative versus absolute gains debate in the early 90s little research has been devoted to a) modifying the realist theory of international cooperation and b) testing the predictive power of such a modification. This paper first develops a model that demonstrates the explanatory power of a properly specified relative gains argument and second measures the level of cooperation achieved in different issue areas based on the Oslo-Potsdam solution. We develop two infinitely repeated n-actor relative gains models, one for excludable and one for non-excludable goods. In line with both realist and neoliberal reasoning we argue that relative gains will only matter if they are potentially large enough to be security relevant. We then show that in cases where relative gains matter (trade and global warming) such relative gains concerns only lead to a reduction in the level of cooperation if the benefits from cooperation are non-excludable. We further demonstrate that the relative gains argument also allows us to explain different levels of cooperation for different cases of public goods (ozone depletion versus global warming). The non-excludability of benefits leads to more severe restrictions in the attainable level of cooperation in cases where relative gains matter (global warming). The second half of the paper attempts to test the predictions of the models derived by using comparative statics. Based on the Oslo-Potsdam solution I estimate the level of cooperation achieved in three cases (trade, ozone depletion and global climate change) by determining the non-cooperative outcome, the collective optimum and the actual policy. I find that the evidence supports the theory and that the Oslo-Potsdam solution provides a very useful measurement concept which helps enhance the empirical testing of theoretical proposition.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: An analysis of the network connections across the technical options committees comprising the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for the Montreal Protocol reveals structural characteristics typical of other complex social networks (e.g., the power-law relationship between Rank and mCPL). In addition, however, the data highlight the contribution of leadership to the phase-out of ozone depleting substances. We present a measure of centrality, the mCPL (Canan and Reichman 2002), or the marginal contribution each member of a network makes to overall cohesiveness. We show that the mCPL exhibits a kind of regularity in this application that makes it a worthwhile addition to the array of other graph characteristics used in network analysis.