The United States' Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Interpretation from Neo-Classical Realism
| Author | Xiaolong Zou, Sihan Xin & Jieruo Li |
| Position | Assistant Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University/Research Assistant, School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University/ Candidate, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand |
| Pages | 140-158 |
140
The United States’ Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement:
Interpretation from Neo-Classical Realism
Xiaolong Zou, Sihan Xin & Jieruo Li1
Abstract: As the world enters into a new era of “great powers competition” and
“great uncertainty”, the global attention has focused on how the US-China relation
would proceed under the current trajectory. As the world’s two largest economies and
greenhouse gas emitters, their climate positions and attitudes could consolidate or
Agreement, which was already shaken by President Trump’s withdrawal in 2017. This
paper offers an in-depth analysis of the domestic factors that influence the United States’
climate policies from four aspects, namely presidential preference, partisanship, civil
society, and special interest groups, to account for and make sense of the United States’
climate policy of the Trump Administration. Furthermore, it discusses the potential
implications for China regarding its climate position in the post Paris era to get some
new insights for relevant policy makers and stakeholders.
Keywords: Climate Change; The United States; Paris Agreement; Neo-classical
Realism
1. Introduction
The successful adoption of the Paris Agreement (hereinafter referred to as PA) in
2015 celebrated a hard-won global consensus on tackling climate change, which was
then dramatized by the United States’ announcement of withdrawal on June 1, 2017. It
appears that the biggest challenge for some countries to reduce their greenhouse gas
(hereinafter referred to as GHG) emissions lies not in the scientific debates but in the
politicization of such global issues that pertain stakes for vetted interests.2 As the
historically largest and currently second largest GHG emitting country, the position of
the United States on climate change and commitment to carbon emission reduction play
a pivotal role in global climate governance.
Change (hereinafter referred to as UNFCCC), the success of the convention partially
attributes to the active participation of the United States. However, during subsequent
conferences of parties (hereinafter referred to as COPs), the United States failed to
assign or rectify any legally binding climate agreement (such as Kyoto Protocol) until
1 The first author: Xiaolong Zou, Ph.D., Assistant Professor at the School of International and Public
Affairs, Jilin University; the second author: Sihan Xin, Research Assistant, School of International and
Public Affairs, Jilin University; the third author: Jieruo Li, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political
Science and International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. This paper is
supported by: (1) Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, Project of Humanities and
Social Sciences (NO.20YJCZH255); (2) Jilin University Integrality Building Center Research Funding
(NO.2020LZY012); (3) Jilin University Youth Funds for Tutors and Students (NO.2020gqt-05;
NO.2020-JCXK-50); (4) Research Fund of Education Department of Jilin Province
(NO.JJKH20211243SK). The authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions made by the
anonymous reviewers and appreciate editor’s generous effort throughout the revision process.
2 See Jianying Ma, Domestic Structure and Institutional Impact: Impact of Internationa l Climate
System in China and the United States (1990-2010), Ph.D. Dissertation, Fudan University, p.276
(2011).
141
President Obama, who exercised his presidential power by passing the Congress and
signing PA. Then, history repeated itself again for President Trump who denounced it.
Climate governance is a cross-disciplinary subject that is multi-approachable.
Scholars have thus tackled this issue from various facets including political-economic,
international politics and domestic politics. Peter Newell developed a political economy
that accounts for global governance of contemporary environmental politics in terms of
its potentials and barriers for effective reforms;3 Deere-Nirkbeck articulated that risk
parameters (social, economic, political and environmental) need consideration and
addressing to combat climate change; 4 Zhuang et al. enlisted three aspects of
willingness to explain the games between countries regarding fairness and efficiency in
the international climate governance;5 Li emphasized that climate change profoundly
affected the world economic and social development, and therefore the transformation
towards a low-carbon economy had become a rational choice for human society;6 In
Harris’ book “Climate Change and American Foreign Policy”, the author makes an
ethical evaluation of the United States’ climate policy and discusses controversies
caused by the Congress of the United States regarding climate change issues.7
With the United States’ withdrawal from PA, scholarship has been the most vocal
on analyzing its cause-and-effect, normally from an established set of variables or
factors. For example, Betsill depicts President Trump’s perceptions towards climate
change that leads to his decision of withdrawal.8 Zhang et al. discuss the potential
impacts of the United States’ absence in the global climate governance to the
international society.9 Some other scholars also address this topic from policy impacts10
and implications for other countries.11
Abundant studies have analyzed the reasons, effects and possible influences of the
United States’ withdrawal. Here the authors systematically review and summarize the
major domestic factors that lead to the inconsistent positions of the United States’
climate policy in the international community. As denoted by Cox that “Theory is
always for someone and for some purpose.”12 In this paper, the authors build analysis
using the neoclassical realism (hereinafter referred to as NCR) theory for domestic
factors’ interpretations, shedding more light on the factors that influence the making of
the United States’ climate policy, and its implications for China.
3 See Peter Newell, The political economy of global environmental governance, 34(3) Journal of
Review of International Studies 507, 507-29 (2008).
4 See Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, Global Governance in the context of climate change: the challenges of
increasingly complex risk para meters, 85(6) Journal of International Affairs 1173, 1173-94 (2009).
5 See Guiyang Zhuang & Xianli Zhu et al., Global Environment and Governance, Zhejiang People’s
Publishing Corp, pp. 207-11 (2009).
6 See Huiming Li, Ecological Modernization and Climate Governance-A study on European Union’s
Position in Internationa l Climate Negotiation, Social Science Academic Press, p.166 (2017).
7 See Paul G. Harris, Climate Change and American Foreign P olicy, Palgrave Macmillan, p.302
(2010).
8 See Michele Betsill, Trump’s Paris withdrawal and the reconfiguration of global climate change
governance, 15(1) Journal of Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 1, 2-3 (2017).
9 See Yongxiang Zhang & Qingchen Chao et al., The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement
and its impact on global climate change governance, 8(4) Journal of Advances in Climate Change
Research 213, 213-9 (2017).
10 See Haibin Zhang & Hancheng Dai et al., U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons,
Impacts and China’s Response, 8(4) Journal of Advances in Climate Change Research 220, 220-5
(2017).
11 See Xiaolong Zou & Yue Cui, the United States Withdrawal for the Pa ris Agreement: Reasons,
Impacts and China’s Response, 34(2) Journal of North University of China (Social Science Edition) 59,
60 (2018).
12 See Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, Columbia University Press, pp.204-54 (1986).
To continue reading
Request your trial