Is it only about science and policy? The 'intergovernmental epistemologies' of global environmental governance.

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Matteo De Donà
{"title":"Is it only about science and policy? The 'intergovernmental epistemologies' of global environmental governance.","authors":"Matteo De Donà","doi":"10.1057/s41268-022-00276-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although international actors operating under the United Nations umbrella put much faith in the possibility of bridging science and policy through various institutional arrangements, research in the Science and Technology Studies (STS) tradition suggests that different <i>civic epistemologies</i> revolve around environmental degradation issues. <i>Civic epistemologies</i>, which imply peculiar understandings of knowledge across cultures, are not easily bridged. This paper contends that conflicting (civic) epistemologies inevitably emerge in epistemic debates at the intergovernmental level, with strong implications for how science and knowledge are dealt with and understood in environmental negotiations. Drawing on the experience of global soil and land governance and building on the idiom of <i>civic epistemologies</i>, the concept of <i>intergovernmental epistemologies</i> is introduced as an analytical tool to capture the diverging ways of appreciating and validating knowledge in intergovernmental settings. Placing state actors and their perspectives center stage, <i>intergovernmental epistemologies</i> account for the tensions, contestations and politicisation processes of international institutional settings dealing with environmental issues. The paper concludes discussing the consequences of <i>intergovernmental epistemologies</i> for the study of global environmental governance: it cautions about overreliance on approaches based on learning and all-encompassing discourses, emphasizing the value of using STS-derived concepts to investigate the complexity of international environmental negotiations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Relations and Development","volume":"26 1","pages":"86-110"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9519403/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Relations and Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-022-00276-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Although international actors operating under the United Nations umbrella put much faith in the possibility of bridging science and policy through various institutional arrangements, research in the Science and Technology Studies (STS) tradition suggests that different civic epistemologies revolve around environmental degradation issues. Civic epistemologies, which imply peculiar understandings of knowledge across cultures, are not easily bridged. This paper contends that conflicting (civic) epistemologies inevitably emerge in epistemic debates at the intergovernmental level, with strong implications for how science and knowledge are dealt with and understood in environmental negotiations. Drawing on the experience of global soil and land governance and building on the idiom of civic epistemologies, the concept of intergovernmental epistemologies is introduced as an analytical tool to capture the diverging ways of appreciating and validating knowledge in intergovernmental settings. Placing state actors and their perspectives center stage, intergovernmental epistemologies account for the tensions, contestations and politicisation processes of international institutional settings dealing with environmental issues. The paper concludes discussing the consequences of intergovernmental epistemologies for the study of global environmental governance: it cautions about overreliance on approaches based on learning and all-encompassing discourses, emphasizing the value of using STS-derived concepts to investigate the complexity of international environmental negotiations.

Abstract Image

这仅仅是科学和政策的问题吗?全球环境治理的“政府间认识论”。
尽管在联合国保护伞下运作的国际行为体非常相信通过各种制度安排将科学和政策联系起来的可能性,但科学和技术研究(STS)传统的研究表明,不同的公民认识论围绕着环境退化问题。公民认识论意味着对跨文化知识的特殊理解,这并不容易跨越。本文认为,在政府间层面的认识论辩论中,不可避免地会出现相互冲突的(公民的)认识论,这对环境谈判中如何处理和理解科学和知识具有强烈的影响。根据全球土壤和土地治理的经验,并以公民认识论为基础,政府间认识论的概念作为一种分析工具被引入,以捕捉在政府间环境中欣赏和验证知识的不同方式。政府间认识论将国家行为者及其观点置于中心舞台,解释了处理环境问题的国际机构设置的紧张关系、争论和政治化过程。本文最后讨论了政府间认识论对全球环境治理研究的影响:它警告人们不要过度依赖基于学习和包涵一切的话语的方法,强调使用sts衍生的概念来调查国际环境谈判的复杂性的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: JIRD is an independent and internationally peer-reviewed journal in international relations and international political economy. It publishes articles on contemporary world politics and the global political economy from a variety of methodologies and approaches. The journal, whose history goes back to 1984, has been established to encourage scholarly publications by authors coming from Central/Eastern Europe. Open to all scholars since its refoundation in the late 1990s, yet keeping this initial aim, it applied a rigorous peer-review system and became the official journal of the Central and East European International Studies Association (CEEISA). JIRD seeks original manuscripts that provide theoretically informed empirical analyses of issues in international relations and international political economy, as well as original theoretical or conceptual analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信