This dissertation focuses on public diplomacy efforts targeted at persuading other countries to strengthen their domestic and international climate change policies. While previous research on climate diplomacy has addressed the global negotiations extensively, the role of embassies and the interplay between diplomats, their partners and the instruments and storylines they employ, has so far not received the scholarly attention it deserves. This is despite the fact that such behind-the-scenes outreach is one of the most promising tools available to engage other states. The dissertation aims to fill this literature gap by examining climate public diplomacy conducted by embassies and consulates of four EU states: the UK, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. The European Union, and these states in particular, were chosen because they have sought to portray themselves as leaders in tackling climate change while undertaking extensive climate diplomacy. The United States and China were chosen as target states since they have been the main focus of EU climate diplomacy, due to their position as the two largest aggregate contributors to climate change. The dissertation addresses public diplomacy in the field of climate change applied to both the federal/national and subnational levels of governance of these states. The main research question tackled by this dissertation is: What role do embassies and consulates play in climate diplomacy, and how effective is this diplomacy? In answering this, the research focuses on identifying environmental discourses and framings of climate change employed by embassies/consulates for different audiences, and assesses the impact of these frames. A central finding was a strong trade and growth orientation of climate diplomacy. The diplomatic network identified industry, especially fossil-fuel intensive businesses, as allies. Some companies that were embassy partners supported climate denial behind the scenes.

Cette recherche s’attache à l’étude d’une institution britannique, à son rôle et son organisation depuis la fusion, en 1968, du Commonwealth Office et du Foreign Office, jusqu’à l’année 1985.Il s’agit ainsi de voir comment le Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) fonctionne et comment il a su évoluer au gré du temps, du changement de la place de la Grande-Bretagne dans le monde, et des conflits internationaux. Ainsi, on peut se demander quelles influences le contexte a eu sur l’institution en elle-même. Dès lors, une place particulière est accordée à l’Europe, la ‘relation spéciale’ avec les États-Unis et la décolonisation.La politique étrangère britannique semble aujourd’hui être principalement dans les mains du pouvoir politique : du ministre des Affaires étrangères (Foreign Secretary), et du Premier ministre. Quelle place le FCO occupe-t-il alors, et quelles relations entretient-il avec le pouvoir politique ?Il s’agit ainsi de considérer la place du FCO au sein des différents acteurs internes et externes de la politique étrangère britannique en analysant trois cas concrets : une réorganisation interne de l’institution (la fusion de 1968), une gestion de crise (l’indépendance retardée de la Guyane britannique, 1953-1966), et une négociation d’accord en temps de paix (l’échec des négociations de la Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer, 1973-1982).Ce travail de recherche tente ainsi d’offrir une interprétation allant au-delà du fonctionnement interne de l’institution. Il s’agit de mettre en relation le Foreign and Commonwealth Office et le pouvoir politique, et ainsi d’étudier les pouvoirs et influences du FCO tout en s’attachant à des périodes clés à l’orée de changements. / This research work is devoted to the study of a key British institution, its function and its organization, from the merger of the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office in 1968, until 1985.Of particular interest is the way the changing role of Britain in the world and international conflicts bear upon the functioning and the evolution of the FCO. The point is to assess to what extent the context influences the institution itself.British foreign policy seems to be mostly determined by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. It is therefore well worth gaging what the function of the FCO is, and its relationship with the holders of political power.The role of the FCO as one of the internal and external agents of British foreign policy is assessed here, through three cases: the internal reorganization of the service in 1968, the management of a crisis – the postponements of independence for Guiana from 1953 to 1966, and the failure of a negotiation in peacetime – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1973 to 1982.Beyond the internal functioning of the institution, this research work strives to offer an interpretation of the changes. The relationship between the FCO and the holders of political power, the real power and influence of the FCO are under consideration, in particular during key moments of particular significance for the institution.