From Rio to Copenhagen: multilateral agreements, disagreements and situated actions

Governing climate change is arguably one of the most complex problems, environmental or otherwise, that the global community has had to contend with. This chapter highlights the innovations in governance that have characterized the global climate change regime as it sought to respond to and manage these complexities, political imperatives and competing interests. We suggest that the key contestations and innovations within climate governance can be understood in terms of four themes/questions all of which relate to issues of justice and equity.

Trust in authorities monitoring the distribution of genetically modified foods: dimensionality, measurement issues, and determinants

Based on a combined internet and mail survey in Germany the independence of indica-tors of trust in public authorities from indicators of attitudes toward genetically modified food is tested. Despite evidence of a link between trust indicators on the one hand and evaluation of benefits and perceived likelihoods of risks, correlation with other factors is found to be moderate on average. But the trust indicators exhibit only a moderate relation with the re-spondents’ preference for either sole public control or a cooperation of public and private bodies in the monitoring of GM food distribution. Instead, age and location in either the New or the Old Lander are found to be significantly related with such preferences.

Whose peace? Local ownership and UN peacebuilding

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the participation of national actors in United Nations peace operations, reflecting what has become a near orthodox commitment to ‘local ownership.’ Advocates of local ownership assert that it: (1) increases the legitimacy of UN peacebuilding efforts; (2) increases the sustainability of peacebuilding activities after the departure of the UN; and (3) increases democratic governance in post-conflict states. While such thinking about local ownership has informed UN peacebuilding policy to a large extent, the UN has, to date, assumed these positive benefits without critically examining the causal mechanisms that allegedly produce them, specifying the conditions under which this correlation holds, or providing convincing evidence for these assertions. Moreover, exactly what local ownership is, what is being owned, and who local ‘owners’ are remain unclear. Indeed a closer examination of ownership’s relation with legitimacy, sustainability, and democratization reveal a plethora of contradictions that imply that local ownership may in fact decrease the UN’s ability to deliver peacekeeping results. Crucially, however, the UN persists in adopting a local ownership approach to peacebuilding, suggesting that it does so because it is normatively appropriate rather than operationally effective.