Cited by 335International Environmental Law and PoliciesInternational Relations and Foreign PolicySustainability and Climate Change Governance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses

Open access
Zelli, Fariborz, van Asselt, Harro·2013·Global Environmental Politics

Abstract

This article introduces a special issue on the expanding research agenda on institutional fragmentation. The term refers to the growing diversity and challenges to coordination among private and public norms, treaties, and organizations that address a given issue area of international politics. International relations scholars increasingly address this phenomenon, framing it with alternative concepts like regime complexes or polycentricity. A considerable part of the existing debate remains focused on whether a centralized or polycentric governance architecture is preferable. Instead, as this special issue shows, domains of global environmental governance—like climate change, biological diversity, renewable energy, and forestry—are already fragmented. It is time to address new, more pertinent questions and help advance institutionalist research on this phenomenon. We introduce four major research themes for analyzing the fragmentation of different domains of global environmental governance: taking stock, causes, consequences, and responses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/glep_a_00180

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bernstein Steven, 2007, Pauly, 161
  2. Guetzkow Harold, 1966, Bowers, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 333

Metadata

Authors
Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H.
Affiliations
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Stockholm Environment Institute (GB)
Venue
Global Environmental Politics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2013-08
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1526-3800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-0091
OpenAlex
W1968971240
Cited by
335
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6
FWCI
53.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Environmental Politics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keywords
institutional fragmentation, global environmental governance, polycentric governance, regime complexes, centralized governance, climate governance, biodiversity governance, renewable energy governance, forest governance, institutionalism

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