abstract: Human migration is not a new phenomenon but present and future human-induced environmental changes pose new questions and challenges. In the coming years, both rapid and slow onset environmental changes will drive many people to migrate in search of improved security and livelihoods. Anthropogenic climate change in particular requires international institutions to determine how to best meet the needs of present and future migrants. I analyzed interviews with experts to identify institutional gaps for managing environmental migration and what potential, if any, the Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts (WIM) might contribute to filling these gaps. Using these interviews and literature, I propose a framework to assess the capacity of existing institutions to address the breadth of migrant needs. Then, I identify gaps and challenges in order to illuminate strategies for future solutions. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Sustainability 2015

Since the US election in the fall of 2016, China have been looked towards to fill a leadership position in climate change negotiations. This essay focuses on determining China's efficiency in the COP15 and COP22 negotiations in establishing its ambitions and policy objectives. The results show that China was very effective in achieveing their policy aims both at COP15 and COP22 even if the negotiations had different aims. The overall performance of China has affected the COP outcomes and helped its establishment of a leadership role within the group of developing countries in the UNFCCC. This essay also shows that the prior expectation for a UNFCCC climate change negotiation might be a better explanatory factor than institutional goal in determining policy objectives in effectiveness studies.

Climate change is a global phenomenon that sees the rise in total global temperatures creating long-term change in average weather patterns affecting populations across the globe. Studies have shown that human activity is one of the main causes of the exacerbation of the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that cause the earth to warm up faster than usual. Debates have emerged between developed and developing countries on who should take responsibility for dealing with the climate problem as both groups have a different stake in the climate change debate. Developed or industrialised countries are known to be the largest emitters of greenhouse gases and developing countries have lower levels of emissions. Regardless, on-going climate negotiations reveal that it is a global problem that needs participation from all countries to solve. Africa has taken to negotiating as a collective through the promotion of common African positions and the main question this paper aims to explore is if these common positions truly represent the interests of all 54 African states. This study is literature-based and uses a qualitative research approach supported by documentary evidence. The research uses a theoretical framework with the use of realism and social constructivism. / Mini Dissertation (MA (Diplomatic Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2020. / Political Sciences / MA (Diplomatic Studies) / Unrestricted

Being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and second largest economy, China’s role in international climate negotiations has been the topic of much heated debate over the past 10 years. However, few studies have sought to understand China ́s role in the Global Environmental Governance and Chinese leadership therefore remains a lacuna in need of further investigation. This generates one central question: How does leadership theory bring insight into China ́s role in the international climate change negotiations? The research is designed as a qualitative case study, applying an analytical framework by Young (1991). A content analysis in conjunction with the analytical framework is applied to policy documents, speeches and official reports produced by the Chinese Government, UNFCCC and IISD as a way to understand China ́s negotiation strategies and climate change goals. The findings suggest that China has shown weak leadership during the climate summit in 2009, since there was a huge lack of leadership capabilities applied in their negotiation strategies. However, in 2015 China met all leadership indicators to a certain degree and can therefore be seen to have exercised strong leadership capabilities. It can therefore be argued, that China has become a leading actor in the climate change regime due to their shift in negotiation approach from 2009 to 2015, through their influence and position in shaping the global climate change agenda.

This thesis seeks to examine the construction of legitimization strategies in Chinese state-run media connected to China’s role and efforts in international climate change negotiations. To understand how authoritarian environmentalism is legitimized, i.e., constructed, the thesis uses discourse analysis and three legitimization strategies to analyze the material and found that China is being legitimized through emphasizes on how China is a capable, responsible, and committed climate actor. It shows how China is perceived as a potential climate leader with the ability to lead the international climate community. The thesis also found that the Chinese state-run newspaper shifts blame surrounding historical emissions and sufficient change onto developed countries. Lastly, the thesis also shows how two of the strategies are being enhanced by a third strategy by using quotes from elites to validate the claims made in the state-run newspaper. The findings in this study are important because it can give a deeper understanding of how authoritarian environmentalism can be constructed as an effective approach for dealing with the threat of climate change and how authoritarian regimes can maintain power without using coercive measures.

This thesis analysis the problems facing the negotiators during their international efforts to create global climate change regimes. Without understanding why such negotiations failed in the past, it is difficult to learn how to negotiate them successfully in the future. The US and China are responsible for emitting almost half of the greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere. However, they are still laggards in the efforts to create an effective global climate change regime and are running away from their global responsibility by blaming each other for the failure to reach a global climate change deal. The EU has been taking the leadership in efforts to negotiate global climate change regimes. However, they can not influence and force the main two hegemonic powers to follow their leadership. This is because the EU is not hegemony in the global political arena. The EU persistence to find compromises during negotiations for future global climate change regimes is a source of hope to humankind. Flexibility during negotiations, openness to consider the views of other global actors to find optimum solutions, and the understanding that no one is secure from the threats of climate change are essential to bring the world leaders into a compromise global climate change regime.

After years of proposals for a Loss and Damage fund meant to deliver climate justice for developing states being blocked, such a fund was established at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on November 20, 2022. Based on constructivist theories of norm diffusion and persuasion, complemented by theories on strategic negotiating and normative discussions of justice, this thesis conducts a directed content analysis to examine the discourses used by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the EU in negotiations for the Loss and Damage fund. The results show that AOSIS has shifted from using multiple discourses to mainly justice-based arguments sometimes used strategically and was aided by a process favorable to discussing Loss and Damage at COP27. The EU, which represents itself as a leader in COPs, opposed creating new mechanisms to address loss and damage until COP27. Afterward, it positioned itself as an important contributor to the outcome. To evaluate the outcome, while the fund is aimed at distributive justice and climate justice is recognized in the COP27 text, justice discourse is absent from the Loss and Damage section. It remains to be seen whether the fund will advance climate justice.