CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Climate Change and GeoengineeringInternational Relations and Foreign PolicySpace exploration and regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The International Politics of Climate Engineering: A Review and Prospectus for International Relations

Horton, Joshua B., Reynolds, Jesse L.·2016·International Studies Review
DOI 10.1093/isr/viv013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Proposed large-scale intentional interventions in natural systems in order to counter climate change, typically called “climate engineering” or “geoengineering,” stand to dramatically alter the international politics of climate change and potentially much more. There is currently a significant and growing literature on the international politics of climate engineering. However, it has been produced primarily by scholars from outside the discipline of International Relations (IR). We are concerned that IR scholars are missing a critical opportunity to offer insights into, and perhaps help shape, the emerging international politics of climate engineering. To that end, the primary goal of this paper is to call the attention of the IR community to these developments. Thus, we offer here an overview of the existing literature on the international politics of climate engineering and a preliminary assessment of its strengths and lacunae. We trace several key themes in this corpus, including problem structure, the concern that climate engineering could undermine emissions cuts, the potentially “slippery slope” of research and development, unilateral implementation, interstate conflict, militarization, rising tensions between industrialized and developing countries, and governance challenges and opportunities. The international politics of climate engineering is then considered through the lenses of the leading IR theories (Realism, Institutionalism, Liberalism, and Constructivism), e…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/isr/viv013

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

12 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Adger W. Neil Pulhin Juan M. Barnett Jon Dabelko Geoffrey D. Hovelsrud Grete K. Levy Marc Oswald Spring Úrsula Vogel Coleen H. Adams Helen Hodbod Jennifer Kent Stuart Tarazona Marcela . 2014. “Human Security.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Field Christopher B. Barros Vicente R. Dokken David Jon Mach Katharine J. Mastrandrea Michael D. Bilir T. Eren Chatterjee Monalisa Ebi Kristie L. Estrada Yuka Otsuki Genova Robert C. Girma Betelhem Kissel Eric S. Levy Andrew N. MacCracken Sandy Mastrandrea Patricia R. White Leslie L. , 755–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Benedick, 2011, “Considerations on Governance for Climate Remediation Technologies: Lessons from the ‘Ozone Hole.”, Stanford Journal of Law, Science, and Policy, 4, 6
  3. Briggs Chad M. (Forthcoming). “Is Geoengineering a National Security Risk?” In Geoengineering our Climate? Ethics, Politics and Governance, edited by Blackstock Jason Low Sean . London: Routledge.
  4. Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. “Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting X/33-Biodiversity and Climate Change.” U.N. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33, Nagoya, Japan: United Nations. Accessed December 21, 2015. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-33-en.pdf.
  5. Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia . 2011. “Submission to Joint Workshop of Experts on Geoengineering:” Lima, Peru, June 20–22. Accessed December 21, 2015. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/bolivian_submission_on_geoingeneering.pdf.
  6. Fleming James R. 2007. “The Climate Engineers.” Wilson Quarterly 2007 (Spring): 46–60.
  7. Heyward Clare Rayner Steve . (Forthcoming). “Apocalypse Nicked! Stolen Rhetoric in Early Geoengineering Advocacy.” In Anthropology and Climate Change . 2nd ed., edited by Susan Crate and Mark Nuttal. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  8. Horton, 2011, “Geoengineering and the Myth of Unilateralism: Pressures and Prospects for International Cooperation.”, Stanford Journal of Law, Science, and Policy, 4, 56
  9. Lane Lee . 2010. “Plan B: Climate Engineering to Cope with Global Warming.” The Milken Institute Review, Third Quarter: 44–53.
  10. Mcnutt Marcia K. Abdalati Waleed Caldeira Ken Doney Scott C. Falkowski Paul G. Fetter Steve Fleming James R. Hamburg Steven P. Morgan M. Granger Penner Joyce E. Pierrehumbert Raymond T. Rasch Philip J. Russell Lynn M. Snow John T. Titley David W. Wilcox Jennifer . 2015a. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  11. Mcnutt Marcia K. Abdalati Waleed Caldeira Ken Doney Scott C. Falkowski Paul G. Fetter Steve Fleming James R. Hamburg Steven P. Morgan M. Granger Penner Joyce E. Pierrehumbert Raymond T. Rasch Philip J. Russell Lynn M. Snow John T. Titley David W. Wilcox Jennifer 2015b. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington: National Academies Press.
  12. Michaelson, 1998, “Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project.”, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 17, 73
  13. Schütte Georg . 2014. “Climate Engineering – Critical Global Discussions” Paper presented at the Climate Engineering: Critical Global Discussions conference, Berlin, August 18. Accessed December 21, 2015. http://www.bmbf.de/pub/reden/Rede_StSchuette_IASS__Konferenz_18_08__engl.pdf.
  14. Smith Steve . 1995. “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, 1–37 . Cambridge: Polity.
  15. Victor, 2009, “The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort against Global Warming?”, 88, 64

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 118

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Horton, J. B., & Reynolds, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
International Studies Review
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-03-18
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
438-461
ISSN
  • 1468-2486 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-9488
DOI
10.1093/isr/viv013
OpenAlex
W917668197
Cited by
118
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
17.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Studies Review (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Space exploration and regulation
Keywords
geoengineering, interstate conflict, militarization, climate governance, international law, institutional design, realism, institutionalism, liberalism, constructivism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review