Mapping Climate Justice

A three-dimensional climate justice approach introduces to share the benefits and burden of climate change in an economically efficient, legally equitable, and practically feasible way around the globe. Climate justice within a country pays tribute to low- and high-income households carrying the same burden proportional to their dispensable income through consumption tax, progressive carbon taxation, and a corporate inheritance tax. Climate change burden sharing between countries ensures those countries benefiting more from a warmer environment bear higher responsibility regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate justice over time is proposed by an innovative bonds climate change burden sharing strategy.

How to Reach the New Green Deal Targets: Analysing the Necessary Burden Sharing within the EU Using a Multi-Model Approach

The Green Deal of the European Union defines extremely ambitious climate targets for 2030 (−55% emissions compared to 1990) and 2050 (−100%), which go far beyond the current goals that the EU member states have agreed on thus far. The question of which sectors contribute how much has already been discussed, but is far from decided, while the question of which countries shoulder how much of the tightened reduction targets has hardly been discussed. We want to contribute significantly to answering these policy questions by analysing the necessary burden sharing within the EU from both an energy system and an overall macroeconomic perspective. For this purpose, we use the energy system model TIMES PanEU and the computational general equilibrium model NEWAGE. Our results show that excessively strong targets for the Emission Trading System (ETS) in 2030 are not system-optimal for achieving the 55% overall target, reductions should be made in such a way that an emissions budget ratio of 39 (ETS sector) to 61 (Non-ETS sector) results. Economically weaker regions would have to reduce their CO2 emissions until 2030 by up to 33% on top of the currently decided targets in the Effort Sharing Regulation, which leads to higher energy system costs as well as losses in gross domestic product (GDP). Depending on the policy scenario applied, GDP losses in the range of −0.79% and −1.95% relative to baseline can be found for single EU regions. In the long-term, an equally strict mitigation regime for all countries in 2050 is not optimal from a system perspective; total system costs would be higher by 1.5%. Instead, some countries should generate negative net emissions to compensate for non-mitigable residual emissions from other countries.

Conceptualising Syrian War Migrations: Displacements, Migrants’ Rights and the Major Reception Regimes

This article focuses on the migration of people from Syria after the outbreak of the civil war. The ambition of the article is to develop and nuance the typology of migrations of Syrians and relate the categories of international migrants to their rights, as provided by various reception regimes. The proposed typologies may help us better to understand the complexity of the migrations and the inconsistencies in reception and humanitarian standards. We argue that migration trends, reception regimes and the positioning of the Syrian refugees and migrants are highly interconnected and dynamic factors, resulting in different regular and irregular flows and migrant statuses. Furthermore, it is maintained that the management of the Syrian humanitarian and refugee crisis has revealed – and probably more so than any other, comparable event – the variety of inconsistencies in migration and protection policies and the widespread lack of will for more equitable burden-sharing.

Energy systems in scenarios at net-zero CO2 emissions

Achieving net-zero CO2 emissions has become the explicitgoal of many climate-energy policies around the world. Although many studies have assessed net-zero emissions pathways, the common features and tradeoffs of energy systems across global scenarios at the point of net-zero CO2 emissions have not yet been evaluated. Here, we examine the energy systems of 177 net-zero scenarios and discuss their long-term technological and regional characteristics in the context of current energy policies. We find that, on average, renewable energy sources account for 60% of primary energy at net-zero (compared to ∼14% today), with slightly less than half of that renewable energy derived from biomass. Meanwhile, electricity makes up approximately half of final energy consumed (compared to ∼20% today), highlighting the extent to which solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels remain prevalent in the scenarios even when emissions reach net-zero. Finally, residual emissions and offsetting negative emissions are not evenly distributed across world regions, which may have important implications for negotiations on burden-sharing, human development, and equity.

Why NATO survived Trump: the neglected role of Secretary-General Stoltenberg

The election of Donald Trump posed an existential challenge to NATO. At the end of his tenure, however, the US president had neither withdrawn membership nor substantially undermined the alliance from within. This article helps explain the puzzle of why NATO survived Trump's presidency. Extant explanations emphasize domestic factors such as the US foreign policy machinery and entrenched liberal ideology, structural reasons and Trump's idiosyncratic personality. While these accounts possess some explanatory value, they remain incomplete as they omit one central factor: NATO's leadership. Drawing on more than twenty original interviews with senior officials, the article demonstrates that particularly Secretary-General Stoltenberg's strategic responses were a necessary factor in changing Trump's stance on burden-sharing and helped maintain a robust deterrence policy toward Russia. These findings carry important implications both for theoretical debates on international organizations' agency in fending off contestation and policy debates on which actors shape NATO by emphasising the hitherto understated role of the secretary-general.

What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes

How do concerns about fairness shape foreign policy preferences? In this article, we show that fairness has two faces—one concerning equity, the other concerning equality—and that taking both into account can shed light on the structure of important foreign policy debates. Fielding an original survey on a national sample of Americans, we show that different types of Americans think about fairness in different ways, and that these fairness concerns shape foreign policy preferences: individuals who emphasize equity are far more sensitive to concerns about burden sharing, are far less likely to support US involvement abroad when other countries aren’t paying their fair share, and often support systematically different foreign policies than individuals who emphasize equality. As long as IR scholars focus only on the equality dimension of fairness, we miss much about how fairness concerns matter in world politics.