Managing straddling stocks: the interplay of global and regional regimes

Earth system governance: a research framework

“…1 Schematic overview of the Science Plan of the Earth System Governance Project effectiveness of single institutions, often within larger comparative projects. More recently, the increasing number and scope of international environmental institutions has led to new research on their interaction, for example, in studies on regime interlinkages, regime clusters or regime complexes, and broader consequences of regimes (e.g., Chambers 2001;Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Rosendal 2001a, b;Schroeder 2008;Stokke 2000;Underdal and Young 2004). Also at the national and local levels, interactions and interlinkages between different institutions have been a concern for many years, for example in the analysis of (environmental) policy integration or in the analysis of environmental governance in federal systems in which different jurisdictional competences at times overlap (Rabe 2006;Scheberle 2004;VanNijnatten and Boardman 2009).…”

‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research

“…Most of these studies have focussed on the effectiveness of single institutions, often within larger comparative projects (e.g., Gupta and Falkner, 2006;Haas et al, 1993;Keohane and Levy, 1996;Miles et al, 2002;Victor et al, 1998;Young, 1997;Young et al, 1999). More recently, the increasing number and scope of international environmental institutions has led to new research on their interaction, for example in studies on regime interlinkages, regime 'clusters' or regime 'complexes' (van Asselt et al, 2005;Chambers, 2001;Oberthu¨r and Gehring, 2006;Rosendal, 2001a, b;Stokke, 2000;Velasquez, 2000). Institutional interplay is also one of the three research themes of the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change project of IHDP (Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Project, 1999;Young, 2002; on IDGEC and interplay see Schro¨der, forthcoming).…”

Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness

“…Neither case constitution nor model specification receive much attention here, as they feature in intensive case studies reported elsewhere -on the Barents Sea cases, see Stokke et al (1999) and Stokke (2001); on the Antarctic cases, see ; and on the Northwest Atlantic cases, see Stokke (2000) and Gezelius (1998). Cases revolve around situations when international regimes serve as platforms for efforts to shape problem-relevant behavior in one of the three realms of resource management: science, regulation, and compliance stimulation.…”