The Construction Of Global Environmental Governance Structural Model Of Subjects And The Experience Validation

Global environmental issues do not have the limitation of insurmountably political or national boundaries like sovereign states. Thus, the global environmental governance (GEG), which tending to address global environmental issues, has challenged the state of anarchy since the building of Westphalia system. In this sense, the correct response to the current global environmental problems, are mainly referring to the international political issues rather than simple economic, technical or conceptual problems. From 1930s to 1960s, the environmental pollution which caused by industrialization had led to a great amount of death and disease in such a short time. The serious pollution accidents happened frequently to shock the world, and the most representative events among them are so called "Eight Social Effects of Pollution". In order to prevent such ecological vicious accidents, western countries are the first to establish the environmental protection department respectively. And then, be marked by The United Nations Conference on Human Environment (UNCHE) in 1972, the international community have begun a joint response to this "Crisis of human survival". Nevertheless, environmental pollution which brought by the process of industrialization, did not stop for these efforts. On the contrary, deterioration of the ecological environment has shown a gradual trend of ever-expanding globalization.GEG, is a practice summary of the positive response of international community to the increasingly serious global environmental problems, and also is the core concepts for further theoretical analysis. In this basic analytical framework, the author not only covers Multi-faceted three-dimensional structure of subjects which are involved Sovereign states, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, but also view it as cooperative game in the GEG In other words, besides the nation-states being significant actors in the GEG, the emerging actors of intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and other actors have also become the important force of GEG Based on this understanding, the thesis aimed to investigate an ideal framework for such developments and the realities of these problems. And then, from subjective perspective to construct the structural model in the GEG This model not only helps to interpret the complex structural features in such field, but also helps to verify necessary conditions in this Special cooperative Game. Correspondingly, the thesis is divided into three parts, namely, model construction, empirical demonstration, and conclusion. And the model construction consists of the chapter one and two. The chapter one summarize and analyze the main theoretical schools of international relation from the perspective of governance subject, and intuitionally express them with the creative geometry figure by the view of the global governance structure of different theoretical schools. On the other hand, the author has a critical reference to the previous governance structure model. In the chapter two, the author points out that the global, permeability, non-contest, non-exclusive and externalities' nature of ecological environment, which determine GEG is a cooperative Game. Based on this understanding, the author qualitatively rather than quantitatively constructs the relationship among multiple subjects as a static three-dimensional polyhedron. Start with the necessary conditions of cooperative game, the author sets Research focus as:the interaction regimes of the multiple governance subjects and the fund support are supportive factors for the three-dimensional polyhedron model. And the theoretical assumption of this thesis is:only the interaction regimes of the multiple governance subjects run smoothly and the fund support is enough, the three-dimensional polyhedron model of GEG would have a good operation. Besides this, the author deduces four possible states of GEG, according to the two necessary conditions.The chapter three and four are the experience validation to the model. In chapter three, the author firstly verifies the static three-dimensional polyhedron structure has formed in the interaction regimes of GEG. Then, the author analyzes the interaction regimes, taking UNCHE, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as the cases. By the analysis to the agenda setting, dominant discourse, inter-subjective game, and achieved consensus, the author affirms the condition of interaction regimes in the cooperative game operates well. In chapter four, take Global Environmental Facility (GEF) as an example, the author gives a detailed validation to the fund support of GEG in the three aspects, which are total amount, procedure and principle, field and distribution. In the cooperative game of multiple governance subjects, the fixed fund support channel was formed. But, it still cannot afford adequate functions.In the conclusion part, the author reduces the current GEG as "there is cooperation existing among the governance main bodies, but short of capability to realize the cooperation target", so-called "desirable governance without enough strength", which based on the two necessary-condition judgments of interaction mechanisms and fund support in the first two chapters. Then, the author analyzes Copenhagen Climate Change Conference with the structural model of "three-dimensional polyhedron". Analysis showed that this Conference did confirm a three-dimensional existence of cooperation mechanisms, but highlights constrains of interactive regime and fund support. In addition, the author defines this single game as:Although the GEG model of "three-dimensional polyhedron" is basically available, the interaction mechanisms among governance main bodies does not operate well and lacks of fund support. In other words, the Copenhagen Conference matches the fourth theoretical assumption, "the model unworthy of the title".At last, the author prospects the post-Copenhagen environmental governance from the realistic environmentalist's perspective. On one hand, the author puts forwards that cooperative game is still the mainstream direction. Although we are not satisfied with the results of this conference, but in the end we will sit together again to find an alternative. On the other hand, the author reckons that the GEG will enter the era of "new inter-nationalism" in the foreseeable future, because of developed and developing countries experience significant differences on global environmental issues. In other words, no matter on the domestic level or international level, the GEG in the future tends to a situation of big powers game and governmental response. The author admits that the government and intergovernmental organizations are key roles to address the global environmental issues. As a result, the central position of nation-states will become more prominent. In addition, like the European Union, "ASEAN+3", Northeast Asia regional environmental cooperation and so on may be more favored by the nation-states.