Multilateral Governance of Geoengineering Daniel Bodansky Arizona State University CEC14 August 20, 2014

Question: Is multilateral governance of climate engineering necessary for legitimacy?  Each term raises complexities Multilateral Governance Legitimacy

Unilateralism vs. multilateralism Unilateral Multilateral Regional multilateralism OAS, OAU Functional multilateralism ATS Elite multilateralism Security Council G-8, G-20 Inclusive multilateralism UNGA Consultations Alliances

Governance Enforcement Implementation Approval / authorization Standard-setting Information NationalMultilateral Prohibition on use of force by states Security Council Military Staff Committee UNGA: Uniting for Peace Self-defense Just War Theory Procedural norms Humanitarian intervention

Legitimacy  Legitimacy = Right to rule  Normative legitimacy Institution has a right to rule, as a matter of normative theory  Sociological legitimacy Institution is accepted as having a right to rule

Argument for legitimacy of multilateralism  Argument: Decisions with global effects should be made by global institutions Input-based: more inclusive, greater voice Output-based:  More equitable: take into account broader array of viewpoints  Better balancing of risks and benefits: better information

Questions about legitimacy of multilateralism  Questions What is moral status of states? What decision-making rule? Is multilateral decision-making likely to produce good decisions (i.e. decisions that reasonably balance risks and benefits)? Does a requirement of multilateral authorization = a prohibition on climate engineering?