| The proliferation of trans-boundary environmental concerns on the international political agenda is increasingly accompanied by calls to set up formal expert panels to assist the decision process. However, there has been little scholarly debate on how such bodies can be designed in ways that improve their relevance and credibility towards a diverse international audience. This dissertation employs the existence of three, very different scientific panels in the global climate regime as a unique natural experiment to address this research question. The bodies in question are: the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG)---a small, independent, blue-ribbon panel where experts interacted with a: select group of policy actors in a closed-door sitting; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)---a large, two-tier apparatus that relies both on scientific consensus and governmental endorsement; and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA)---a small, quasi-technical body that is directly under the control of its political clients within the Climate Convention.;This research shows that there is a direct relationship between the degree of control that governments have over an advisory process and its legitimacy in the international negotiation process. On the other hand, the degree of political control is inversely related to the ability of an advisory body to generate policy relevant information. This is because governments that are opposed to policy action routinely use their control over an advisory process to dilute its recommendations. Thus, the absence of political vetting in the AGGG enabled its experts to advocate highly specific policy actions. However, over the long term, the lack of political involvement in the activities of the group compromised its legitimacy, eventually leading to its marginalisation. On the other hand, the complete control over SBSTA by its political clients, while granting institutional legitimacy, has severely compromised its ability to generate any policy relevant information. The central finding of this research is that institutional innovations that facilitate mid-range compromises between political legitimacy and policy specificity---exemplified in this particular case by the IPCC---are much more effective than those which emphasize one at the cost of the other. |
