A Comparative Study on the Systems for Global Climate Governance between China and the United States from the Perspective of Leadership Competition

Authors

  • Yitao Wang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpssh.v16i.453

Keywords:

China-US Competition; Global Climate Governance; System Contrast; Leadership Competition; Paris Agreement.

Abstract

Global climate governance, as a public issue worldwide with mounting concern, faces the dual dilemma of an imperfect governance system and a lack of appropriate leader. Among them, China and the United States, as the main leaders of global climate governance, differ significantly in governance systems, and there is also a clear leadership competition between them in their governance practices. In this context, based on the perspective of leadership competition, this paper examines the specific institutions, characteristics, differences, and prospects of China and the United States in global climate governance practices, and hopefully provides policy proposals for China's future participation in global climate governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Li Z Y. Research on Multiple Games of Nation Groups in Global Climate Governance Based on International Public Goods Perspective*[J]. Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences), 2015 (3).

Li M H. International Leadership and the Strategic Choice of China in the Era of Fragmented Global Climate Governance System[J]. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 2015 (4).

Kang X. Institutional Competition for the Global Climate Change Governance*: A Comparison between the EU, the US, and China[J]. Global Review, 2018 (2).

Li W., Luo Y F. From Rules to Order: The Logic of International Institutional Competition[J]. World Economics and Politics, 2019 (4).

Ling S L., Wang Y F. Comparison of the International Institutional Strategy Orientation between China and the US: An Analysis from the Perspective of Topic Leadership[J]. Global Review, 2021 (5).

Climate Change after Kyoto: A Blueprint for a Realistic Approach[J]. The Brookings Review. 2002 (2).

Downloads

Published

2022-03-26