Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:11:20.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Hierarchization

from Part III - Policy Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Rakhyun E. Kim ,
Harro van Asselt ,
Louis J. Kotzé ,
Marjanneke J. Vijge  and
Frank Biermann
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Hierarchization is a deliberate process to create a vertically nested governance architecture where actors and institutions in a lower rank are bound or otherwise compelled to obey, respond to or contribute to higher-order norms and objectives. Drawing on this definition, we review recent research on hierarchization in earth system governance and the political and legal processes that establish, maintain and legitimize it. Here we present three mutually non-exclusive forms of hierarchization – systematization, centralization and prioritization. Each involves different actors and rationales, mechanisms and strategies, while achieving different purposes with varying governance outcomes. We illustrate our argument with empirical examples including the proposed Global Pact for the Environment, the proposal to establish a world environment organization and the Sustainable Development Goals. We conclude with an assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of hierarchization as an approach to some of the challenges inherent in earth system governance, and offer suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Hierarchyhierarchizationsystematizationcentralizationprioritizationnormative hierarchyorganizational hierarchyinstitutional hierarchygoal hierarchy
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 275 - 296
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguila, Y., & Viñuales, J. (2019). A Global Pact for the Environment: Conceptual foundations. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29, 3–12.Google Scholar
Alston, P. (1984). Conjuring up new human rights: A proposal for quality control. American Journal of International Law, 78, 607–21.Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. E. (2005). International organizations as law-makers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andresen, S. (2007). Key actors in UN environmental governance: Influence, reform and leadership. International Environmental Agreements, 7 (4), 457–68.Google Scholar
Axelrod, M. (2011). Savings clauses and the ‘chilling effect’: Regime interplay as constraints on international governance. In Oberthür, S, & Stokke, O. S. (eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change (pp. 87–114). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E., & Downs, G. W. (2007). The empire’s new clothes: Political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Review, 60, 595–631.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2000). The case for a world environment organization. Environment, 42 (9), 22–32.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2001). The emerging debate on the need for a world environment organization: A commentary. Global Environmental Politics, 1, 45–55.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Davies, O., & van der Grijp, N. (2009). Environmental policy integration and the architecture of global environmental governance. International Environmental Agreements, 9 (4), 351.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–94.Google Scholar
Biniaz, S. (2017). 10 questions to ask about the proposed ‘Global Pact for the Environment’. New York: Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2006). Does one need to be an international lawyer to be an international environmental lawyer? American Society of International Law Proceedings, 100, 303–7.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2009). Is there an international environmental constitution? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16, 565–84.Google Scholar
Bosselmann, K. (2015). Global environmental constitutionalism: Mapping the terrain. Widener Law Review, 21, 171–85.Google Scholar
Boyle, A. E. (1999). Some reflections on the relationship of treaties and soft law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 48, 901–13.Google Scholar
Broude, T., & Shany, Y. (eds.) (2011). Multi-sourced equivalent norms in international law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2012). Organizing for the green economy: What an international green economy organization could add. Journal of Environment and Development, 21 (1), 44–7.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., McGlade, J., Lovins, H., & Kubiszewski, I. (2015). An overarching goal for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Solutions, 5, 13–16.Google Scholar
De Wet, E., & Vidmar, J. (2012). Introduction. In De Wet, E, & Vidmar, J (eds.), Hierarchy in international law: The place of human rights (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P. (2006). Global governance as a perspective on world politics. Global Governance, 12, 185–203.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., & Milewicz, K. (2011). Toward a deliberative global citizens’ assembly. Global Policy, 2, 33–42.Google Scholar
Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., & Ebbesson, J. (2010). Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environmental Change, 20, 363–8.Google Scholar
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2019). Summary of the third substantive session of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group towards a Global Pact for the Environment: 20–22 May 2019. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 35, 1–12.Google Scholar
Fischer, J., Manning, A. D., Steffen, W. et al. (2007). Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 621–4.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, A., & Teubner, G. (2004). Regime collisions: The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 25, 999–1073.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. (2013). International environmental ‘soft law’. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2014). Global Goals as a policy tool: Intended and unintended consequences. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15, 118–31.Google Scholar
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit between governance systems and environmental regimes. In Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H (eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications and research frontiers (pp. 147–86). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O. et al. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–7.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2007). Turning up the heat on global environmental governance. The Forum, 5.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K. et al. (2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 7, 1651–60.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Y Chou, E., Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32–52.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoare, A., & Tarasofsky, R. (2007). International environmental governance. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (2019). Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.936.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H. (2007). Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: A story of compromise and confrontation. International Environmental Agreements, 7 (4), 337–61.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H. (2013). Reforming the institutional framework for environment and sustainable development: Rio+20’s subtle but significant impact. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 12 (3), 211–31.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H., & Roy, J. (2007). The architecture of global environmental governance: Pros and cons of multiplicity. In Swart, L, & Perry, E (eds.), Global environmental governance: Perspectives on the current debate (pp. 48–66). New York: Center for UN Reform Education.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanie, N. (2007). Governance with multilateral environmental agreements: A healthy or ill-equipped fragmentation? In Swart, L, & Perry, E (eds.), Global environmental governance: Perspectives on the current debate (pp. 67–86). New York: Center for UN Reform Education.Google Scholar
Kanie, N., & Biermann, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1960). Reine Rechtslehre. Vienna: Deuticke.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 7–23.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2016). The nexus between international law and the Sustainable Development Goals. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25, 15–26.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2013). International environmental law in the Anthropocene: Towards a purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2015). Operationalizing sustainable development: Ecological integrity as a Grundnorm of international law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24, 194–208.Google Scholar
Klabbers, J. (1996). The redundancy of soft law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 65, 167–82.Google Scholar
Knox, J. H. (2019). The Global Pact for the Environment: At the crossroads of human rights and the environment. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29, 40–7.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15, 553–79.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2012). Arguing global environmental constitutionalism. Transnational Environmental Law, 1, 199–233.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2015). Constitutional conversations in the Anthropocene: In search of environmental jus cogens norms. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 46, 241–71.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2016). Global environmental constitutionalism in the Anthropocene. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2018). In search of a right to a healthy environment in international law. In Knox, J, & Pejan, R (eds.), The human right to a healthy environment (pp. 136–54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2019a). A global environmental constitution for the Anthropocene? Transnational Environmental Law, 8, 11–33.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J. (2019b). International environmental law’s lack of normative ambition: An Opportunity for the Global Pact for the Environment? Journal of European Environmental and Planning Law, 16, 213–36.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J., & French, D. (2018). A critique of the Global Pact for the Environment: A stillborn initiative or the foundation for Lex Anthropocenae? International Environmental Agreements, 18, 811–38.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. J, & Muzangaza, W. (2018). Constitutional international environmental law for the Anthropocene? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 27, 278–292.Google Scholar
Lafferty, W., & Hovden, E. (2003). Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12, 1–22.Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–47.Google Scholar
Lehmen, A. (2015). The case for the creation of an international environmental court: Non-state actors and international environmental dispute resolution. Colorado Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Review, 26, 179–217.Google Scholar
Liivoja, R. (2008). The scope of the supremacy clause of the United Nations Charter. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 57, 583–612.Google Scholar
Linnér, B. O., & Selin, H. (2013). The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development: Forty years in the making. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31 (6), 971–87.Google Scholar
Lodefalk, M., & Whalley, J. (2002). Reviewing proposals for a world environmental organisation. The World Economy, 25, 601–17.Google Scholar
Mawdsley, E. (2018). ‘From billions to trillions’: Financing the SDGs in a world ‘beyond aid’. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8, 191–5.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9 (3–4), 299–314.Google Scholar
Meyer-Ohlendorf, N., & Knigge, M. (2007). A United Nations Environment Organization. In Swart, L, & Perry, E (eds.), Global environmental governance: Perspectives on the current debate (pp. 124–41). New York: Center for UN Reform Education.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: A survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 429–461.Google Scholar
Morseletto, P., Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Governing by targets: Reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target. International Environmental Agreements, 17, 655–76.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D. (1999). Does the world need a new international environmental court? George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 32, 333–49.Google Scholar
Najam, A. (2003). The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9, 367–84.Google Scholar
Najam, A. (2005). Neither necessary, nor sufficient: Why organizational tinkering won’t improve environmental governance. In Biermann, F, & Bauer, S (eds.), A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? (pp. 235–56). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534, 320–2.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2004). Reforming international environmental governance: An institutionalist critique of the proposal for a world environment organisation. International Environmental Agreements, 4, 359–81.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–7.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. (1992). New ways to make international environmental law. American Journal of International Law, 86, 259–83.Google Scholar
Paulus, A. (2005). Jus cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation: An attempt at a reappraisal. Nordic Journal of International Law, 74, 297–334.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. W. (2012). An international environmental court and international legalism. Journal of Environmental Law, 24, 547–58.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. D. (2015). Goal-based development and the SDGs: Implications for development finance. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 31, 268–78.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H., & Wiener, J. B. (2016). Towards a new international law of the atmosphere. Tulsa Law Review, 7, 195–223.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Z. (2018). The art of ‘not undermining’: Possibilities within existing architecture to improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75, 405–16.Google Scholar
Selin, H. (2010). Global governance of hazardous chemicals: Challenges of multilevel management. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. (2006). Normative hierarchy in international law. American Journal of International Law, 100, 291–323.Google Scholar
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O. et al. (2016). Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability Science, 13, 1–9.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (1998). Der ökologische Verfassungsstaat. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. (2018). Scales of integration for sustainable development governance. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 25, 1–8.Google Scholar
Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements, 16, 393–6.Google Scholar
Underdal, A., & Kim, R. E. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and multilateral agreements. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 241–58). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2018). Towards a global pact for the environment. UN Doc. A/RES/72/277.Google Scholar
Vidmar, J. (2012). Norm conflicts and hierarchy in international law: Towards a vertical international legal system? In De Wet, E, & Vidmar, J (eds.), Hierarchy in international law: The place of human rights (pp. 13–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vijge, M. J. (2013). The promise of new institutionalism: Explaining the absence of a W orld or United Nations Environment Organisation. International Environmental Agreements, 13 (2), 153–76.Google Scholar
Von Moltke, K. (2005). Clustering international environmental agreements as an alternative to a world environment organization. In Biermann, F, & Bauer, S (eds.), A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiersema, A. (2009). The new international law-makers? Conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements. Michigan Journal of International Law, 31, 231–87.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R., & Matz, N. (2003). Conflicts in international environmental law. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2008). The architecture of global environmental governance: Bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (1), 14–32.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Conceptualization: Goal setting as a strategy for earth system governance In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 31–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 1–13.Google Scholar
Zürn, M., & Faude, B. (2013). On fragmentation, differentiation, and coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 13, 119–30.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×