Japan and global environmental leadership

Maddock, R. T.

doi:10.1007/bf03023311

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foreign investment by Japanese multinationals and the need to import vast amounts of natural resources (energy, timber) have been noted in the past as the source of the country's considerable 'environmental shadow' (Dauvergne, 1997;Hall, 2009). At the same time, Japan has at times taken on the role of a global environmental leader, promoting international cooperation on environmental management issues and exporting environmental technologies to developing countries (Maddock, 1994;Schreurs, 2004), even though this international role has come under growing domestic strain as the country's economic woes have increased (Tiberghien and Schreurs, 2007).…”

Section: What Counts As An Environmental Great Power?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other major environmental powers have seen their global policy ambition reduced in recent years, even if their status as a leading economy ensures that their environmental footprint remains global in nature. Japan, for example, was once assumed to have global environmental leadership ambition (Maddock, 1994;Dauvergne, 1998) but is perhaps better thought of as a regional, not global, environmental power (Graham, 2004), with much of its environmental aid efforts concentrated on the Asian region, and particularly Southeast Asia.…”

Section: Sectoral and Spatial Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Great Powers and Environmental Responsibilities: A Conceptual Framework

Buzan¹,

Falkner²

2022

Great Powers, Climate Change, and Global Environmental Responsibilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter develops a theoretical and conceptual framework for the study of great powers and great power responsibility in the international politics of climate change. It introduces the two main approaches—material and social—with which International Relations scholars have defined great powers and reviews some of the ambiguities in the great power concept. It explores the ongoing transformations in the international system that have changed our understanding of the role that great powers play and how great power capabilities can be mapped onto special rights and responsibilities in global international society. In a second step, the chapter then explores the role that great powers play in global environmental politics. It sets out a comprehensive understanding of environmental power that covers both its negative and positive uses and discusses what countries count as environmental great powers. The final section explores the question of great power responsibility and whether and how special responsibilities apply to great powers in the environmental field.

show abstract

Section: What Counts As An Environmental Great Power?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sectoral and Spatial Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Great Powers and Environmental Responsibilities: A Conceptual Framework

Buzan¹,

Falkner²

2022

Great Powers, Climate Change, and Global Environmental Responsibilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have investigated whether other major emerging powers (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa) have the potential to provide environmental leadership individually (Afionis, Stringer, Favretto, Tomei, & Buckeridge, 2016;Jörgensen, 2016) or collectively (Papa & Gleason, 2012). A few scholars have also elaborated on the leadership role of Japan (Dauvergne, 1998;Graham, 2004;Maddock, 1994;Schreurs, 2004) and small states in GEP (Águeda Corneloup & Mol, 2014;Benwell, 2011;Ourbak & Magnan, 2018). In addition to the states, GEP literature identifies a wide range of other actors as potential leaders (and followers) in environmental issue areas: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, corporations, cities, religious organizations, social movements, politicians, and even individuals (see, e.g., , for a special issue on "Pioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance"; and Gallagher, 2012, for a massive collection of cases).…”

Section: Leaders and Leadership Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership in Global Environmental Politics

Kopra¹

2020

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is wide consensus among global environmental politics (GEP) scholars about the urgent need for leadership in international climate negotiations and other environmental issue areas A large number of GEP studies elaborate rhetoric and actions of aspiring leaders in GEP. In particular, these studies seek to identify which states have sought to provide leadership in international negotiations on the environment, and how they have exercised this role in institutional bargaining processes at the international level. The biggest share of GEP studies generally focus on leadership in environmental governance within the United Nations (UN), and international negotiations on climate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in general, or the role of the European Union (EU) in those negotiations in particular. Many GEP scholars have also investigated the leadership role of the United States in international environmental regime formation, whereas there are no systematic investigations concerning China’s leadership in GEP. In addition to the states, GEP literature identifies a wide range of other actors as potential leaders (and followers) in environmental issue areas: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, corporations, cities, religious organizations, social movements, politicians, and even individuals. Since leadership is a social relation, a growing number of scholars have moved to study perceptions of leadership and to conceptualize the relationship between leaders and followers. GEP scholars also identify some qualitative aspects a leader must have in order to attract followers. Many empirical studies show that despite the EU’s aspiration to be a climate leader, it is not unequivocally recognized as such by others. At the same time, it seems that some forms of leadership, especially those based on unilateral action, do not necessarily require followers and recognition by others. In addition to the leader–follower relationship, the motivation of leadership constitutes one of the key controversies among GEP scholars. Some argue that self-interest is a sufficient driver of leadership, while others claim that leaders must act for the common good of a wider constituency (or at least be perceived to do so). To conclude, most scholars studying leadership in GEP regard structural leadership (based on material capabilities and hard power) as an important type of leadership. Much less attention has been paid to the social dimensions of leadership; this is undoubtedly a gap in the literature that prospective studies ought to fill.

show abstract

A comparative study on the quality of China's eco-city: Suzhou vs Kitakyushu

Qiu²

2015

Habitat International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Japan and global environmental leadership

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Great Powers and Environmental Responsibilities: A Conceptual Framework

Great Powers and Environmental Responsibilities: A Conceptual Framework

Leadership in Global Environmental Politics

A comparative study on the quality of China's eco-city: Suzhou vs Kitakyushu

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About