The study of leadership in International Relations has followed two different paths: work on hegemony and work on different leadership types in international negotiations. Yet there is little overlap between them and no agreement on the distinctive features of leadership and what connects leaders and followers in a collective pursuit. This article critically engages with both literatures and offers a reconceptualization of leadership as a form of legitimated asymmetrical influence that is marked off from domination and performs an important social function in facilitating collective agency towards common goals in a given community. This account is then operationalised in relation to multilateral negotiations to examine and clarify the roles of the United States and China in the negotiation of the mitigation provisions of the Paris Agreement. It is shown that the US under the Obama administration performed a sustained but largely transactional leadership role in bringing the parties to an agreement while China’s role was predominantly that of a defensive co-operator but with significant moments of shared leadership with the US towards the endgame. The analysis shows that, despite growing international expectations, China, unlike the United States, did not see its role as leading the world.
AndresenSAgrawalaS (2002) Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change12(1): 41–51.
2.
BlondeelMVan de GraafT (2018) Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the USA, China, India and Australia. Climatic Change150(1-2): 89–101.
3.
BurnsJM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
4.
China (2013) China’s submission on the work of the ad hoc working group on Durban platform for enhanced action. 5 March. Available at: http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/6656.php(accessed 8 June 2016).
5.
China (2014) China’s submission on the work of the ad hoc working group on Durban platform for enhanced action. 6 March. Available at: http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/7398.php(accessed 15 June 2016).
ChristoffP (2010) Cold climate in Copenhagen: China and the United States and COP15. Environmental Politics19(4): 637–656.
8.
ChristoffP (2016) The promissory note: COP 21 and the Paris climate agreement. Environmental Politics25(5): 765–787.
9.
CipletDM (2015) Rethinking cooperation: inequality and consent in international climate change politics. Global Governance21(2): 247–274.
10.
ClémençonR (2016) The two sides of the Paris climate agreement: dismal failure or historic breakthrough?Journal of Environment & Development25(1): 3–24.
European Union (EU) (2013b) Further elaboration of elements of a step wise process for ambitious mitigation commitments in the 2015 Agreement. 16 September. Available at: http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/6656.php#workstreamone(accessed 23 July 2016).
20.
FoleyM (2013) Political Leadership: Themes, Contexts and Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
ForgacsD (ed.) (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916–1935. New York: New York University Press.
22.
GallagherKSXuanX (2018) Titans of the Climate: Explaining Policy Process in the United States and China. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23.
GallagherKPKamalRWangY (2016) Fueling growth and financing risk: the benefits and risks of China’s development finance in the global energy sector. Boston University GeGi Working paper002: 1–26.
24.
GaoX (2018) China’s evolving image in international climate negotiations: from Copenhagen to Paris. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies4(2): 213–239.
25.
GodboleA (2016) Paris accord and China’s climate change strategy: drivers and outcomes. India Quarterly72(4): 361–374.
GreenFSternN (2016) China’s changing economy: implications for its carbon dioxide emissions. Climate Policy17(4): 423–442.
28.
HiltonIKerrO (2017) The Paris agreement: China’s ‘new normal’ role in international climate negotiations. Climate Policy17(1): 48–58.
29.
HochstetlerKMilkoreitM (2014) Emerging powers in the climate negotiations: shifting identity conceptions. Political Research Quarterly67(1): 224–235.
30.
HolzCKarthaSAthanasiouT (2018) Fairly sharing 1.5: National fair shares of a 1.5°C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental Agreements18(1): 117–134.
31.
KongBGallagherKP (2017) Globalizing Chinese energy finance: the role of policy banks. Journal of Contemporary China26(108): 834–851.
32.
KopraS (2016) Great power management and China’s responsibility in international climate politics. Journal of China and International Relations4(1): 20–44.
33.
LMDC (2013) Submission by the like-minded group of developing countries. 13 March.
34.
LiefferinkDWurzelRKW (2017) Environmental leaders and pioneers: agents of change?Journal of European Public Policy24(7): 651–668.
35.
MalneR (1995) Leader and entrepreneur in international negotiations: a conceptual analysis. European Journal of International Relations1(1): 87–112.
36.
MathewsJTanH (2017) China’s new silk road: will it contribute to the export of the black fossil-fuelled economy?The Asia-Pacific Journal15(8): 1–14.
NgwadlaX (2014) An operational framework for equity in the 2015 agreement. Climate Policy14(1): 8–16.
39.
NyeJS (2008) The Powers to Lead. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
OlivierJGJJanssens-MaenhoutGMunteanM, et al. (2016) Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2016 Report. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
ParkerCKarlssonC (2014) Leadership and international cooperation. In: RhodesRAWt’HartP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–18.
43.
ParkerCKarlssonC (2018) The UN climate change negotiations and the role of the United States: assessing American leadership from Copenhagen to Paris. Environmental Politics27(3): 519–540.
44.
ParkerCKarlssonCHjerpeM (2015) Climate change leaders and followers: leadership recognition and selection in the UNFCCC negotiations. International Relations29(4): 434–454.
45.
PauwWPCastroPJBhasinS (2020) Conditional nationally determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: foothold for equity or Achilles heel?Climate Policy20(4): 468–484. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1635874
46.
RhodesRAWt’HartP (eds.) (2014) Puzzles of political leadership. In: RhodesRAWt’HartP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–24.
47.
SaulUSeidelC (2011) Does leadership promote cooperation in climate change mitigation policy?Climate Policy11(2): 901–921.
48.
SchreursMA (2016) The Paris climate agreement and the three largest emitters: China, the United States, and the European union. Politics and Governance4(3): 219–223.
49.
ShenWXie (2018a) Can China lead in multilateral environmental negotiations? Internal politics, self-depiction, and China’s contribution in climate change regime and Mekong governance. Eurasian Geography and Economics59(5–6): 708–732.
50.
ShenWXieL (2018b) The political economy for low-carbon energy transition in China: towards a new policy paradigm?New Political Economy23(4): 407–421.
51.
SkodvinTAndresenS (2006) Leadership revisited. Global Environmental Politics6(3): 13–27.
UnderdalA (1994) Leadership theory: rediscovering the arts of management. In: ZartmanI (ed.) International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 178–197.
UNFCCC (2014) The lima call to climate action, Decision 1/CP.20, FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1. Available at: https://unfccc.int/decisions (accessed 1 February 2020).
VictorD (2016) What the framework convention on climate change teaches us about cooperation on climate change. Politics and Governance4(3): 133–141.
62.
WirthDA (2016) Cracking the American climate negotiators’ hidden code: United States law and the Paris agreement. Climate Law6(1–2): 152–170.
63.
YoungOR (1991) Political leadership and regime formation: on the development of institutions in international society. International Organization45(3): 281–308.
