Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Deadlines
Policies
Updating Your Submission
Requesting AV
Presentation Tips
Request a Visa Letter
FAQs
X (Twitter)
Search Tips
Annual Meeting App
About Annual Meeting
An unprecedented global environmental treaty, the Kyoto Protocol sets differing yet binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions during two commitment periods (2008 - 2012 and 2013- 2020). To date, most research has focused on opportunity-cost assessments and geopolitical processes surrounding Kyoto. Yet, both types of studies have failed to account for why individual countries have ratified and continually supported the Protocol while others have not. Our paper, in contrast, seeks to embed the economic and foreign-relations factors into the local contexts of individual nations. Specifically, we explore the role that local governance capacity, states’ receptiveness to domestic interests, and bottom-up pressure from grassroots actors have played in influencing the countries’ stance on Kyoto. Our focus falls on five country cases - the United States, Japan, The Netherlands, Australia, and Canada. Using comparative-historical methods, our paper presents a series of across- and within-case comparisons that help us evaluate the necessity and sufficiency of these three domestic factors for the ratification and continual support of the Kyoto protocol. We find that a strong capacity to govern and governmental receptiveness to local interests are both necessary and jointly sufficient for the outcome of interest, while strong bottom-up pressure is not found to be necessary for the countries’ adoption of Kyoto standards. In contrast to the social movements approaches to the international law, our findings suggest that the implementation of global legislation domestically remains a top-down process that requires strong and receptive leadership on the national level.