| Abstract [eng] |
The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone. |
