International Negotiations And Domestic Politics: The United States And The Kyoto Protocol Level Game Analysis

The United States has been a key player in the progress of international negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol. As the only super power in the world and the largest producer of greenhouse gases, the U.S. has a paradox in its policy towards the Kyoto Protocol. For example, U.S.-funded research has played a leading role in advancing scientific knowledge of climate change globally while its commitments to addressing the threat of climate change through international regime have been quite weak. The U.S. has been a leader in making the Montreal Protocol effective and it is in the meantime labeled as a laggard in the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. This thesis hypothesizes that there must be a myriad of factors that have been influencing U.S. attitudes towards the Kyoto Protocol. But what are they and how? Which factor is most important and decisive? This thesis will examine these related issues in the context of Clinton Administration and George W. Bush Administration. Information or answers to these issues will help us explain and estimate U.S. policy towards the Kyoto Protocol, which has broader implications both in theory and practice.This thesis adopts Putnam's two-level games to explain U.S.'s policy in the topic of Kyoto Protocol. It argues that U.S.'s policy in the Kyoto Protocol is the result of Chief Negotiators" two-level games. During the progress of international negotiations on The Kyoto Protocol, U.S.'s Chief Negotiators have to take into consideration the factors on two levels before making decisions. On the one hand, they have to consider whether its proposals on the Kyoto Protocol will be accepted by other parties; On the other hand, they should think over whether their agreement with other parties in the international level would be ratified by domestic constituents. Therefore, the factors at two levels provide both opportunities and constraints for Chief Negotiators' decisions in U.S. environmental foreign policy of global climate change. Among all the factors, the strategies of the Chief Negotiators play decisive roles in leading to U.S.'s current policy in the Kyoto Protocol.Through the analysis of two administration's positions in the Kyoto Protocol, we can figure out the continuity and change of U.S. policy in this issue. It is evident that domestic distribution of power, preferences and possible coalitions of the U.S.,especially the Byrd-Hagel Resolution of the Congress has steadily influenced the size of U.S.'s win-set in the Kyoto Protocol. The distinction is that the strategies of the Chief Negotiators in the Clinton Administration have enlarged the size of U.S.'s win-set in the Kyoto Protocol while the strategies of the Chief Negotiators in the Bush Administration have reduced the size of its win-set. Therefore, it can be concluded that the acceptability set of Bill Clinton is larger than U.S.'s win-set at the second level in the Kyoto Protocol while George W. Bush's acceptability set is much smaller than U.S.'s win-set at the second level.Besides, this thesis has proved and improved the theory of two-level games. For example, it is proved that the Chief Negotiators of different countries, those of U.S. included, have adopted strategic actions and made the international negotiation process into a reactive one, which is decided both by the motivation of pursuit of interests and the domestic ratification of reached international agreements. That is to say, the factors at two levels simultaneously and reactively determine the result of international negotiations. This kind of two-level analysis has been more effective in explaining than one-level analysis. Furthermore, this thesis has made some critics towards the theory of two-level games after the analysis of U.S. policy towards the Kyoto Protocol.Last but not the least, this thesis emphasizes that the analysis of the factors that influence the U.S.'s position in the Kyoto Protocol has not only helped us to understand U.S.'s environmental foreign policy but also international cooperation in global climate change. These two issues are not...