Splitting the South: China and India’s Divergence in International Environmental Negotiations
Author(s)
Stokes, Leah; Giang, Amanda Chi Wen; Selin, Noelle E
DownloadSplitting the south.pdf (156.3Kb)
PUBLISHER_POLICY
Publisher Policy
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Terms of use
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
International environmental negotiations often involve conflicts between developed and developing countries. However, considering environmental cooperation in a North-South dichotomy obscures important variation within the Global South, particularly as emerging economies become more important politically, economically, and environmentally. This article examines change in the Southern coalition in environmental negotiations, using the recently concluded Minamata Convention on Mercury as its primary case. Focusing on India and China, we argue that three key factors explain divergence in their positions as the negotiations progressed: domestic resources and regulatory politics, development constraints, and domestic scientific and technological capacity. We conclude that the intersection between scientific and technological development and domestic policy is of increasing importance in shaping emerging economies’ engagement in international environmental negotiations. We also discuss how this divergence is affecting international environmental cooperation on other issues, including the ozone and climate negotiations.
Date issued
2016-11Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences; Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning; Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and SocietyJournal
Global Environmental Politics
Publisher
MIT Press
Citation
Stokes, Leah C.; Giang, Amanda and Selin, Noelle E. “Splitting the South: China and India’s Divergence in International Environmental Negotiations.” Global Environmental Politics 16, no. 4 (November 2016): 12–31 © 2016 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Version: Final published version
ISSN
1526-3800
1536-0091