The Impact of National Interests on Cooperation in Global Environmental Policy
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue Vol. 21 No. 1 (2026)
-
Global Resilience in the Face of Aggression: An Analysis of Sanctions Pressure on Russia's Economy
Olena Honcharenko, Olha Diachenko1-15
-
The Impact of National Interests on Cooperation in Global Environmental Policy
Mohamed Debbah, Sofiane Rimouche16-29
-
Environmental and Social Sustainability Pathways in the Development of Energy Storage Technologies: Global Scenario Analysis
Pawel Rydzewski30-41
-
Electricity Network Capacity Needs for Industrial Decarbonization in China: Pathways to Net-Zero under Grid Constraints
Mohammed Touitou42-60
-
Importance of Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 4 in Relation to overall Sustainable Development
Magdaléna Drastichová, Jiří Fišer61-78
-
From Antagonism to Peace with Nature: Paradigm Shifts in the Human–Nature Relationship
Ryszard F. Sadowski79-88
-
Threshold Role of Democracy in the Nexus of Sustainable Development and Fiscal Stance
Emin Efecan Aktaş89-110
-
Managing Sustainable Digital Marketing: Financial Implications, Security and Ethical Challenges
Ganna Likhonosova, Iryna Shevchenko, Valentyna Hatylo111-128
-
SDG-2: Food and Nutrition Security in BRICS Countries: Do GVC Participation and Carbon Footprints Matter?
SDG2- Food and nutrition Security, Carbon footprints and GVC ParticipationLiu Dan129-159 -
Eco-Taxation and Financial Development: Catalyst for Green Innovation and Environmental Sustainability in the EU
Seyi Saint Akadiri, Sani Abubakar, Fadhila Hamza160-172
-
Energy Transition, Environmental Sustainability and Healthcare Costs in Emerging Sub-Saharan Economies: Evidence from the Pre- and During-COVID-19 Periods – Implications for SDG 3, SDG 7 and SDG 13
Changhong Xu, Changhua Xu173-204
-
Carbon Intensity, Renewable Energy Consumption and SDG8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth in MINT Countries
Weiwei Zhang, Erfu Zhang205-228
-
Environmental Sustainability, Institutions, and Inclusive Growth in MINT Countries: Pathways to Achieving SDG 13- Climate Action
Mengya Wei, Aminat Olayinka Olohunlana, Musa Abdu, Evans Osabuohien229-246
-
Enduring Wisdom: Traditional Sustainable Livelihood Practices of Indian Tribes
Shivendra Shandilya, Dr. Rouchi Chaudhary247-255
-
Research on Sustainable Development Strategies for Folk Culture in Rural China: Based on the Experiencing Perspective
Huangdong Ma, Fenghua Lu, Jiqun Deng256-263
-
Public Governance of Smart Grid Implementation in Urban Energy Infrastructure
Nataliia Protsiuk, Hanna Komarnytska, Maksym Khozhylo, Olesya Lobyk, Tetiana Iankovets264-278
-
Carbon Emission, Human Capital and Adoption of Green Energy Technology in Sub- Saharan Africa
Qingli Li, Lihan Gu279-294
-
Sustainable Development Commitments in the Kenya–EU Economic Partnership Agreement
Mateusz Prorok295-304
-
Realizing Sustainability: An Analysis of Agroforestry Policy Coherence in Indonesia in the Forestry, Agriculture, and Environment Sectors
Eno Suwarno, Indra Gumay Febryano, Fazriyas, Saefudin305-316
-
Can Tourism be Sustainable? An International Perspective
Rupsha Chakraborty, Dipannita Chand317-325
-
Prospects for Development of the Global Automotive Industry in Context of Digitalization and Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
Serhii Kozlovskyi, Illya Khadzhynov, Vladyslav Bolhov, Inna Akhnovska, Vladislav Kabachii, Volodymyr Kozlovskyi, Oleksandr Kozlovskyi326-341
Archives
-
Vol. 21 No. 1
2026-01-12 21
-
Vol. 20 No. 2
2025-09-16 20
-
Vol. 20 No. 1
2025-01-10 22
-
Vol. 19 No. 2
2024-07-01 24
-
Vol. 19 No. 1
2024-01-08 27
-
Vol. 18 No. 2
2023-07-10 25
-
Vol. 18 No. 1
2023-01-01 25
-
Vol. 17 No. 2
2022-07-04 26
-
Vol. 17 No. 1
2022-01-03 28
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
sofiane.rimouche@univ-jijel.dz
Abstract
This study examines the interplay between national interests, domestic politics, and international climate cooperation, focusing on the Paris Climate Agreement as a landmark in global environmental policy. The agreement marked a potential shift toward enhanced multilateral cooperation. However, nearly a decade since its adoption, persistent compliance challenges have raised concerns about its effectiveness in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Employing an analytical-descriptive approach combined with a chronological analysis to evaluate states' compliance with the agreement's commitments. The analysis is grounded in a dual theoretical framework: institutional neoliberalism to assess the agreement's institutional achievements and realism to interpret how national interests and domestic pressures impede compliance. Findings indicate that domestic priorities significantly shape adherence, revealing a disparity between ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and their practical implementation.
Keywords:
References
1. ALLAN J.I., 2019, Dangerous incrementalism of the Paris agreement, Global Environmental Politics, 19(1): 4–11, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00488
2. BANG G., HOVI J., SKODVIN T., 2016, The Paris Agreement: Short-Term and Long-Term Effectiveness, Politics and Governance, 4(3): 209–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.640
3. BARRETT S., 2003, Environment and Statecraft, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. BARRETT S., DANNENBERG A., 2016, An experimental investigation into ‘pledge and review’ in climate negotia-tions, Climatic Change, 138(1): 339–351, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1711-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1711-4
5. BERKAN I., 2010, Analysis of Contemporary Conflicts in the Light of the Components of the Cultural Dimension in International Relations, Master’s thesis (unpublished), Faculty of Law and Political Science, Hajj Lakhdar University, Batna.
6. BIRO A., 2011, Critical Ecologies: The Frankfurt School and the Contemporary Environmental Crisis, University of Toronto Press, 352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442661660
7. BODANSKY D., 2016, The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement, Review of European, Comparative & Interna-tional Environmental Law, 25(2): 142–150, https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12154
8. BRULLE R.J., 2018, The climate lobby: A sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016, Climatic Change, 149(3): 289–303, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z
9. BRUN A., 2016, Conference Diplomacy: The making of the Paris Agreement, Politics and Governance, 4(3):115–123, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.649
10. CAMERON H., ALEXANDER T., 2017, Climate change policy after Brexit, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1): 144-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx004
11. CIPLET D., ROBERTS J.T., KHAN M., 2015, Geopolitics, Research Handbook on Climate Governance, 109–120, https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781783470594/9781783470594.00019.xml. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470600.00019
12. CORNELIA N., 2016, Hans Morgenthau and the National Interest, Ethics and International Affairs, 30(1): 47–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941500060X
13. CLIMATE ACTION TRACKER, 2024, Net zero targets, https://cliùm!§mateactiontracker.org/countries/india/net-zero-targets/?utm.
14. DANIEL B., ELLIOTT D., 2010, The Evolution of Multilateral Regimes: Implications for Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
15. DAVID S., MUYU X., 2019, China coal mine approvals surge despite climate pledges, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-coal-climate/china-coal-mine-approvalssurge-despite-climate-pledges-idUSKCN1UW0EM/.
16. DUNNE T., BRIAN C., SCHMIDT, 2020, Realism, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to Inter-national Relations, eds. Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., 130–144, https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198825548.003.0008
17. ECKERSLEY R., 2004, The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty, MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3364.001.0001
18. ECONOMIST,2019, Deathwatch for the Amazon, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/01/deathwatch-for-the-amazon.
19. Anthony D., MATS E., 2022, We’ll always have Paris: How to adapt multilateral climate cooperation to new reali-ties, European Council on Foreign Relations, https://ecfr.eu/publication/well-always-have-paris-how-to-adapt-multilateral-climate-cooperation-to-new-realities/
20. EUROPEAN COUNCIL, 2024, Timeline – European Green Deal and Fit for 55, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/european-green-deal/timeline-european-green-deal-and-fitfor-55/?taxonomyId=6b7901c5-1094-4713-add8-3364400eee98.
21. FALKNER R., 2016, The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate Politics, International Af-fairs, 92 (5): 1107–1125, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708
22. FALODE A., 2009, The Theoretical Foundation of Realism, Lagos State University, Nigerian Journal of Interna-tional Affairs, 35(2): 35-47, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347697
23. FRIEDRICH J., 2017, Global Stocktake (Article 14), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Analysis and Com-mentary, eds. Klein D.M., Carazo P., Bulmer D.M.B.J., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 319–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198789338.003.0019
24. GEMENIS K., KATSANIDOU A., VASILOPOULOU S., 2012, The politics of antienvironmentalism: Positional issue framing by the European radical right, MPSA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4736878/MPSA.pdf
25. HALLIDAY F., 1994, Rethinking International Relations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23658-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23658-9
26. HANS J.M., 1952, Great debate: The national interest of the United States, American Political Science Review, 46(4): 961–988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1952108
27. HARTMANN M., 2017, What Quitting the Paris Climate Accord Will Do to the U.S., and the Planet, Intelligencer, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/what-quitting-the-paris-deal-does-to-the-us-and-the-planet.htm
28. HEMPEL L., Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge, Washington, 1996.
29. IPCC, 2021, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
30. IPCC, 2022, Poverty, Livelihoods and Sustainable Development, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation Vul-nerability, IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter08.pdf.
31. JACKSON R., GEORG S., 2003, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford.
32. KARLSSON, HEE-YOON, K., 2015, Korea and climate change: Unpacking the domestic media discourse, Asian Politics & Policy, 7(2): 332–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12176
33. KAY, C., 2024, India’s hunger for fossil fuels drags on its push towards net zero, Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/0b494df4-db57-4d0e-b1e5-ce1a05c98034
34. KAMILA G., Maria P., 2022, Russia’s Climate Action and Geopolitics of Energy Transition, IAI Istituto Affari Inter-nazionali, https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/c03/russias-climate-action-and-geopolitics-energy-transition.
35. KENNETH W., 1979, Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
36. KEOHANE R.O., OPPENHEIMER M., 2016, Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through pledge and review, Poli-tics and Governance, 4(3): 142–151, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.634
37. KEOHANE R.O., VICTOR D.G., 2016, Cooperation and discord in global climate policy, Nature Climate Change, 6(6):570–575, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937
38. KLEIN N., 2014, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the climate, Simon and Schuster, New York.
39. LOCKWOOD M., 2018, Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages, Environmental Politics, 27(4):712–732, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411
40. LÜHRMANN A., DAHLUM S., LINDBERG S., MAXWELL L., MECHKOVA V., OLIN M., PILLAI S., SANHUEZA PETRARCA C., SIGMAN R., STEPANOVA N., 2018, V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2018. Democracy for All?, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3345071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3345071
41. MARTIN M., TERRY O., 2002, Basic Concepts in International Relations, The Gulf Research Center, Dubai.
42. MEARSHEIMER J., 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton.
43. MORGENTHAU H., 2006, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Alfred A. Knopf.
44. OECD/IEA, 2017, Key World Energy Statistics 2017.
45. OLIVIER J.G.J., SCHURE K.M., PETERS J.A.H.W., 2017, Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2017 Report, PBL Netherlands, The Hague.
46. OURBAK T., 2017, Analyse rétrospective de la Cop 21 et de l’accord de Paris, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/analyse-cop21-accord_de_paris-bat-web_cle063c66.pdf.
47. PURDON M., 2014, Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: Moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance, Journal of International Relations and Development, 17(3): 301–338, https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.5
48. ROBERT O.K., 1984, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy.
49. RORY S., ROBERT B., RICHARD P., CLARE R., 2022, Company lobbying and climate change: Good govern-ance for Paris-aligned outcomes, Grantham.
50. SAVARESI A., 2016, The Paris agreement: A new beginning?, Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 34(1): 16–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983
51. Shah, S., 2025, World’s Biggest Polluter, China, Is Ramping Up Renewables, https://time.com/7265783/how-china-is-boosting-renewable-energy-goals/.
52. STANWAY, D., 2025, China cuts carbon intensity in 2024 but still lags on key targets, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-cuts-carbon-intensity-2024-still-lags-key-targets-2025-02-28/.
53. STERLING J., FOLKER, 2010, Neoliberalism, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
54. SUNG-YOUNG K., RASMUS, THURBON E., 2015, Developmental environmentalism: Explaining South Korea’s ambitious pursuit of green growth, Politics & Society, 43(2): 213–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329215571287
55. SUTCH P., ELIAS J., 2007, International Relations: The Basics, Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203960936
56. TAVONI A., WINKLER R., 2021, Domestic Pressure and International Climate Cooperation, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 13: 225–243, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-105854 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-105854
57. THE WHITE HOUSE, 2024, Fact sheet: President Biden Sets 2035 Climate Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs, Reducing Costs for All Americans, and Securing U.S. Leadership in the Clean Energy Economy of the Future, https://bit.ly/4e9t5ns.
58. TØRSTAD V.H., 2020, Participation, ambition and compliance: Can the Paris Agreement solve the effectiveness trilemma?, Environmental Politics, 29 (5): 761-780. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1341372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1710322
59. TØRSTAD V., SÆLEN H., 2018, Fairness in the climate negotiations: What explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?, Climate Policy, 18(5): 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1341372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1341372
60. UNEP-UN Environment Programme, 2024, Emissions Gap Report 2024, https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024.
61. UNFCCC, 2015, Paris Agreement, https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_pars_agreement.pdf.
62. UNFCCC, 2024, The Paris Agreement, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.
63. UNITED NATIONS, 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
64. VAN DEURSEN M., GUPTA A., 2024, Transparency is what states make of it: Whose climate priorities are reflect-ed in the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework?, Climate Policy, 24(9):1293–1308, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2341945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2341945
65. VEZIRGIANNIDOU, n.d., The Kyoto Treaty.
66. VICTOR D.G., 2011, Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975714
67. VICTOR D., KEOHANE R., 2010, The Regime Complex for Climate Change, Perspective on Politics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068
68. VOGLER J., 2018, Energy, climate change, and global governance: The 2015 Paris agreement in perspective, Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society, eds. Debra J., Matthias G., Oxford University Press, 15–30, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190633851.013.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190633851.013.2
69. YOUNG O., 2016, The Paris Agreement: Destined to Succeed or Doomed to Fail?, Politics and Governance, 4(2):124-132, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.635
70. ZHANG Y.-X., CHAO Q.-C., ZHENG Q.-H., HUANG L., 2017, The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance, Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4): 213–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.005
Article Details
Abstract views: 3

