Back to Issue: No.5, 2025

Institutionalisation of climate diplomacy in the global governance system

Abstract

The research relevance is determined by the transformation of climate diplomacy into one of the key components of global governance in response to the worsening climate crisis. The study aimed to analyse the process of institutionalisation of climate diplomacy in the context of the transformation of the modern system of international relations. The methodology was based on an interdisciplinary approach that combined comparative, typological, interpretive, structural and functional methods, as well as the method of value analysis and political deconstruction. The study found that climate diplomacy has evolved from classical intergovernmental negotiations to a polycentric model of global governance with the active participation of non-state actors. The study identified the key stages of institutionalisation from the first environmental forums of the 1970s to the formation of a complex architecture of agreements and mechanisms such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The study analysed the structural and functional features of modern diplomacy, which includes negotiation, scientific and coordination subsystems operating both within and outside the United Nations. The study established that the regulatory framework of climate diplomacy is formed on the principles of global justice, inclusiveness and transparency, but its implementation is limited by political fragmentation, lack of funding and conflicting interests of actors. The study determined that institutional diffusion, regulatory hybridity and the use of digital technologies are becoming key trends in the development of this area. The theoretical analysis demonstrated that none of the existing paradigms, including institutionalism, constructivism or the concept of global governance, provides an exhaustive explanation of the phenomenon, but their combination creates a holistic picture. The study determined that climate diplomacy is a dynamic, multi-level process that both reflects and shapes the new logic of global cooperation. Its further institutionalisation depends on the ability to unite state and non-state actors around a common vision of climate justice. The practical significance of the study is determined by the formation of a conceptual framework for improving climate policy at the global and national levels

Keywords

climate regulation; institutional diffusion; normative hybridity; constructivism in international relations; concept of global governance

References

  1. African Development Bank. (n.d.). African Development Bank at Africa Climate Summit and Africa Climate Week. Retrieved from https://www.afdb.org/fr/evenements/african-development-bank-africa-climate-summit-and-africa-climate-week.
  2. Allan, J.I., Roger, C.B., Hale, T.N., Bernstein, S., Tiberghien, Y., & Balme, R. (2023). Making the Paris Agreement: Historical processes and the drivers of institutional design. Political Studies, 71(3), 914-934. doi: 10.1177/00323217211049294.
  3. Allioui, F. (2025). The principle of common but differentiated responsibilityJournal of Environmental Studies, 1(1), 64-73.‎
  4. Almquist, Z.W., Bagozzi, B.E., Blinova, D., & Brown, Z. (2025). Dynamic networks of negotiation for international climate change cooperation. Environmental Sociology, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2025.2507287.
  5. Arıcı, C. (2023). Ambiguous break and vague transformation: The changing nature of capitalism during AKP rule in Turkey. (Master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey).
  6. Atapattu, S. (2022). Emergence of international environmental law: A brief history from the Stockholm conference to Agenda 2030. In E. Sobenes, S. Mead & B. Samson (Eds.), The environment through the lens of international courts and tribunals (pp. 1-33). The Hague: TMC Asser Press. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_1.
  7. Aykut, S.C., Pavenstädt, C.N., Datchoua-Tirvaudey, A., D’Amico, E., Braun, M., Karnik Hinks, E., Schenuit, F., Wilkens, J., & Rödder, S. (2022). Circles of global climate governance. Power, performance and contestation at the UN climate conference COP26 in Glasgow. In CSS working paper (article number 4). Hamburg: Centre for Sustainable Society Research. doi: 10.25592/CSS-WP-004.
  8. Beaudoin, S. (2024). Negotiating the climate long-term global goal. International Negotiation, 1-32. doi: 10.1163/15718069-bja10104.
  9. Bremer, S., Glavovic, B., Meisch, S., Schneider, P., & Wardekker, A. (2021). Beyond rules: How institutional cultures and climate governance interact. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(6), article number e739. doi: 10.1002/wcc.739.
  10. Bürgin, A. (2023). The European Commission: A climate policy entrepreneur. In T. Rayner, K. Szulecki, A.J. Jordan & S. Oberthür (Eds.), Handbook on European Union climate change policy and politics (pp. 23-37). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781789906981.00013.
  11. CDP. (n.d.). CDP: Turning transparency to action. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en.
  12. Çelik, F.B. (2022). The EU’s different faces in climate diplomacy: Leadership, interests, and responsibilities. Journal of European Integration, 44(8), 1019-1039. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2022.2068538.
  13. Chan, N. (2020). Beyond delegation size: Developing country negotiating capacity and NGO “support” in international climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 21(2), 201-217. doi: 10.1007/s10784-020-09513-4.
  14. Climate Action Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://climatenetwork.org/.
  15. Copernicus. (n.d.). Copernicus: European Union Earth observation programme. Retrieved from https://www.copernicus.eu/en.
  16. Dikaios, G. (2024). Performing normative EU climate diplomacy: An analytical framework. In EU climate diplomacy towards the IMO and ICAO (pp. 71-110). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-51123-3_3.
  17. Earsom, J., & Delreux, T. (2023). One big conversation: The EU’s climate diplomacy across the international regime complex on the Paris Agreement negotiations. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(1), 198-214. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13365.
  18. European Commission. (n.d.). The European Green Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.
  19. European Court of Human Rights. (n.d.). Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#%7B"itemid":["002-14304"]%7D.
  20. European Union. (n.d.). Your gateway to the European Union. Retrieved from https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en.
  21. Evans, J., & Thomas, C. (2023). Environmental governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003334699.
  22. Extinction Rebellion. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://rebellion.global/.
  23. Feist, M. (2023). New alliances: Plurilateral initiatives as a mode of cooperation in international climate politics. Berlin: German Institute for International and Security Affairs. doi: 10.18449/2023RP06.
  24. Flessa, M. (2023). Governmentality of and in global climate governance: The experiences of non-state actors at the UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties (COP). (Doctoral dissertation, Central European University, Vienna, Austria).
  25. Fridays for Future. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://fridaysforfuture.org/.
  26. Geng, Q., & Lo, K. (2023). Global ecological civilization: An analysis of macro-level policies of the Belt and Road Initiative. Research in Globalization, 7, article number 100141. doi: 10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100141.
  27. Greenpeace International. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/.
  28. Hickmann, T., Widerberg, O., Lederer, M., & Pattberg, P. (2019). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(1), 21-38. doi: 10.1177/0020852319840425.
  29. High Ambition Coalition. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.highambitioncoalition.org/.  
  30. Huntjens, P., & Kemp, R. (2022). The importance of a natural social contract and co-evolutionary governance for sustainability transitions. Sustainability, 14(5), article number 2976. doi: 10.3390/su14052976.
  31. ICLEI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://iclei.org/.
  32. Idibekzoda, F. (2024). The evolution of environmental diplomacy: Reviewing four decades of research. In A. Sharifi, J.L. Candelaria, D. Simangan & S. Kaneko (Eds.), Navigating peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex world (pp. 241-257). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-8772-2_12.
  33. IPCC. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/.
  34. Kern, K., Eckersley, P., Kochskämper, E., & Haupt, W. (2024). Unpacking polycentric climate governance: Tracing the evolution of transnational municipal networks over time. Global Environmental Politics, 24(3), 121-143. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00754.
  35. King, L.C., & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2021). Potential carbon leakage under the Paris Agreement. Climatic Change, 165(3), article number 52. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03082-4.
  36. Krasivskyy, O. (2024). Development and evolution of European Union policy. Democratic Governance, 17(2), 46-57. doi: 10.56318/dg/2.2024.46.
  37. Mai, L., & Elsässer, J.P. (2022). Orchestrating global climate governance through data: The UNFCCC Secretariat and the global climate action platform. Global Environmental Politics, 22(4), 151-172. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00667.
  38. Meadowcroft, J., & Rosenbloom, D. (2023). Governing the net-zero transition: Strategy, policy, and politics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(47), article number e2207727120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2207727120.
  39. Meehl, G.A. (2023). The role of the IPCC in climate science. In H. von Storch et al. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.933.
  40. Mor, S., & Ghimire, M. (2022). Transparency and nationally determined contributions: A review of the Paris AgreementInterdisciplinary Journal of Economics and Business Law, 11(2), 106-119.
  41. Naz, U., & Saleem, M.S. (2024). Climate-induced vulnerabilities: Conflict and migration patterns in the Sahel region of Africa. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 8(2), 295-311. doi: 10.47205/plhr.2024(8-II-S)28.
  42. OCCRP. (n.d.). Green Climate Fund. Retrieved from https://www.occrp.org/en/organizations/green-climate-fund/.
  43. Ogunbanjo, B. (2024). Environmental foreign policy and diplomacy in an unequal world(Humanities, Social and Applied Sciences) Misan Journal of Academic Studies, 23(50), 61-91.
  44. Onabowale, O. (2025). Energy policy and sustainable finance: Navigating the future of renewable energy and energy markets. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 25(1), 2235-2252. doi: 10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.1.0319.
  45. PPCA. (n.d.). The end of coal is in sight. Retrieved from https://poweringpastcoal.org/.
  46. Rashidi, P., & Lyons, K. (2022). Democratizing global climate governance? The case of indigenous representation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In B. Gills & J. Morgan (Eds.), Economics and climate emergency (pp. 284-299). London: Routledge.
  47. Ruiz-Campillo, X., & Bueno Rubial, M.d.P. (2025). Adaptation in the UNFCCC: How the G77 & China shaped the agenda. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 25, 489-510. doi: 10.1007/s10784-025-09681-1.
  48. Saaida, M. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of climate change diplomacy. Political Science Journal, 10(1), 1-23. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10829084.
  49. Scholte, J.A. (2021). Beyond institutionalism: Toward a transformed global governance theory. International Theory, 13(1), 179-191. doi: 10.1017/S1752971920000421.
  50. Science Based Targets Initiative. (n.d.). Ambitious corporate climate action. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/.
  51. Thomas, A. (2021). Framing the just transition: How international trade unions engage with UN climate negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 70, article number 102347. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102347.
  52. UNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.
  53. UNFCCC. (2017). Talanoa dialogue. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/approach_to_the_talanoa_dialogue.pdf.
  54. UNFCCC. (n.d.a). Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.
  55. UNFCCC. (n.d.b). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.
  56. UNFCCC. (n.d.c). Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform. Retrieved from https://lcipp.unfccc.int/.
  57. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (n.d.). Adaptation finance. Retrieved from https://www.unepfi.org/climate-change/adaptation/.
  58. United Nations. (n.d.a). UNEP and nature-based solutions. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/unep-and-nature-based-solutions.
  59. United Nations. (n.d.b). United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 5-16 June 1972, Stockholm. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/stockholm1972
  60. Visconti, G., Ramírez, G., & Braly-Cartillier, I. (2024). Enhancing access to concessional climate finance: Perspectives from the IDBs experience with major climate funds: CIF, GCF, and GEF. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank. doi: 10.18235/0013047.
  61. We Mean Business Coalition. (n.d.). Annual report 2024. Retrieved from https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/.
  62. Weinger, B.K. (2025). Institutionalizing global climate governance: Expertise, sovereignty, and scalar mismatch. Environmental Development, 55, article number 101236. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2025.101236.
  63. World Bank Group. (2022). World Bank Group exceeds new climate finance target  $31.7 billion in funding for climate action. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/09/07/world-bank-group-exceeds-new-climate-finance-target-31-7-billion-in-funding-for-climate-action
  64. World Climate Research Programme. (n.d.). Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Retrieved from https://wcrp-cmip.org/.
  65. World Meteorological Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wmo.int/.
  66. Zhang, L., & Bai, E. (2023). The regime complexes for global climate governance. Sustainability, 15(11), article number 9077. doi: 10.3390/su15119077.

Suggested citation

Kanafina, G. (2025). Institutionalisation of climate diplomacy in the global governance system. Foreign Affairs, 35(5), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/5.2025.62
Submit an article