Climate change governance is extremely challenging because of both the intrinsic difficulty of the issues at stake and the plurality of values and world-views. For these reasons, the ethical concerns that characterise climate change should also be meaningfully addressed through a specific version of procedural justice. Accordingly, in this article we adopt an impure notion of procedural justice. On this theoretical basis, we define relevant fairness criteria and contextualise them for climate governance systems. Then, we empirically justify fairness criteria against a critical and divisive element for the future governance of the Green Climate Fund, i.e., the no-objection procedure. The article concludes with some considerations prompted by the analysis.
AlbinC.2001. Getting to Fairness: Negotiations over Global Public Goods. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’.
2.
AlbinC.2003. ‘Negotiating international cooperation: Global public goods and fairness’. Review of International Studies29: 365–385. CrossRef.
3.
AlexanderS. and RudermanM.. 1987. ‘The role of procedural and distributive justice in organization behavior’. Social Justice Research1 (2): 177–198. CrossRef.
4.
AtranS.2010. ‘Religion's social and cognitive: An evolutionary perspective’. In KitayamaS. and CohenD. (eds), Handbook of Cultural Psychology, pp. 417–453. New York: Guilford Press.
5.
BarryB.1965. Political Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
6.
BarryJ., MolA.P.J. and ZitoA.R.. 2013. ‘Climate change ethics, rights and policies: An introduction’. Environmental Politics22 (3): 361–376. CrossRef.
7.
BladerS.L. and TylerT.R.. 2003a. ‘A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29: 747–758. CrossRef.
8.
BladerS.L. and TylerT.R.. 2003b. ‘Advancing the assessment of procedural justice: What constitutes fairness in work settings?’. Human Resource Management Review13: 107–126. CrossRef.
9.
BodanskyD.1999. ‘The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law’. American Journal of International Law93 (3): 596–624. CrossRef.
10.
BoneR.G.2003. ‘Agreeing to fair process: The problem with contractarian theories of procedural fairness’. Boston University Law Review83: 485–552.
11.
Bretton Woods Project. 2011. A Faulty Model? What the Green Climate Fund Can Learn from the Climate Investment Funds. London: Bretton Woods Project. http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2011/06/art-568686/ (accessed 18 October 2014).
12.
BrocknerJ. and WiesenfeldB.M.. 1996. ‘An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures’. Psychological Bulletin120: 189–208. CrossRef.
13.
BuchananA. and KeohaneR.O.. 2006. ‘The legitimacy of global governance institutions’. Ethics and International Affairs20 (4): 405–437. CrossRef.
14.
CasebeerW.D.2003. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
15.
CevaE.2007. ‘Plural values and heterogeneous situations: Considerations on the scope for a political theory of justice’. European Journal of Political Theory6: 359–375. CrossRef.
16.
CevaE.2008. ‘Impure procedural justice and the management of conflicts about values’. Polish Journal of Philosophy2 (1): 5–22. CrossRef.
17.
CevaE.2009. ‘Just procedures with controversial outcomes: On the grounds for substantive disputation within a procedural theory of justice’. Res Publica15: 219–235. CrossRef.
18.
CevaE.2012. ‘Beyond legitimacy: Can proceduralism say anything relevant about justice?’ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy15 (2): 183–200. CrossRef.
19.
ChenY., BrocknerJ. and GreenbergJ.. 2003. ‘When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?”: The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness’. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes92: 1–15. CrossRef.
20.
CohenJ.1994. ‘Pluralism and proceduralism’. Chicago-Kent Law Review69: 589–618.
21.
CropanzanoR. and FolgerR.. 1991. ‘Procedural justice and worker motivation’. In SteersR.M. and PorterL.W. (eds), Motivation and Work Behavior, 2nd ed., pp. 131–143. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
DepledgeJ.2005. The Organization of Global Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Change Regime. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
23.
DolanP., EdlinR., TsuchiyaA. and WailooA.. 2007. ‘It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization64: 157–170. CrossRef.
24.
EckersleyR.2007. ‘Ambushed: The Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration's climate policy and the erosion of legitimacy’. International Politics44 (3): 306–324. CrossRef.
25.
FeiglH.1952. ‘Validation and vindication: An analysis of the nature and limits of ethical arguments’. In SellarsW. and HospersJ. (eds), Readings of Ethical Theory, pp. 667–680. New York: Appleton.
26.
FlanaganO.1999. Dreaming Souls: Sleep, Dreams and the Evolution of the Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
FolgerR. and CropanzanoR.. 1998. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
28.
FolgerR. and KonovskyM.A.. 1989. ‘Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions’. Academy of Management Journal32 (1): 115–130. CrossRef.
29.
FraserN.2005. ‘Reframing justice in a globalizing world’. New Left Review36: 1–19.
30.
GartnerD.2010. ‘Beyond the monopoly of states’. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law32: 595–641.
31.
GrassoM.2010. Justice in Funding Adaptation under the International Climate Change Regime. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef.
32.
GrassoM.2013. ‘Climate ethics: With a little help from moral cognitive neurosci-ence’. Environmental Politics22 (3), 377–394. CrossRef.
33.
GuptaJ.2010. ‘A history of international climate change policy’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change1 (5): 636–653. CrossRef.
34.
HabermasJ.1990. ‘Discourse ethics: Notes on philosophical justification’. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 43–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
HabermasJ.1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
HampshireS.1999. Justice Is Conflict. London: Duckworth.
38.
HayA.M.1995. ‘Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in geographical studies’. Transactions of the Institute of British GeographersNS 20: 500–508. CrossRef.
39.
Hollander-BlumoffR.2010. ‘Just negotiations’. Washington University Law Review88 (2): 381–432.
40.
Hollander-BlumoffR.2011. ‘The psychology of procedural justice in the federal courts’. Hastings Law Journal63 (1): 127–178.
41.
Hollander-BlumoffR. and TylerT.R.. 2008. ‘Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential’. Law and Social Inquiry33 (2): 473–500. CrossRef.
42.
HumeD. (1739) 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature. Glasgow: William Collins.
43.
HurrellA. and SenguptaS.. 2012. ‘Emerging powers, North–South relations and global climate politics’. International Affairs88 (3): 463–484. CrossRef.
44.
JaramilloM. and AminA-L.. 2014. ‘What was decided at the Seventh Green Climate Fund meeting and where does this take us?’. Briefing paper, E3G. http://e3g.org/x6uvb (accessed 18 October 2014).
45.
KonowJ.2003. ‘Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories’. Journal of Economic Literature41: 1188–1239. CrossRef.
46.
KonowJ.2009. ‘Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice’. Social Choice and Welfare33 (1): 101–127. CrossRef.
47.
LeventhalG.S.1976. ‘Fairness in social relationship’. In ThibautJ.W., SpenceJ.T. and CarsonR.C. (eds), Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, pp. 211–239. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. CrossRef.
48.
LeventhalG.S.1980. ‘What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships’. In GergenK.J., GreenbergM.S., WillisR.H. (eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Practice, pp. 27–35. New York: Plenum Press.
49.
LiA. and CropanzanoR.. 2009. ‘Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intrau-nit justice climate’. Journal of Management35: 564–599. CrossRef.
50.
LindE.A. and TylerT.R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press. CrossRef.
51.
MacCounR.J.2005. ‘Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness’. Annual Review of Law and Social Science1: 171–201. CrossRef.
52.
MillerD.1999. Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
MooreG.E. (1903) 1959. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PaavolaJ. and AdgerW.N.. 2006. ‘Fair adaptation to climate change’. Ecological Economics56: 594–609. CrossRef.
61.
PageE.A.2006. Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CrossRef.
62.
PageE.A.2011. ‘Cosmopolitanism, climate change, and greenhouse emissions trading’. International Theory3 (1): 37–69. CrossRef.
63.
PageE.A.2012. ‘The hidden costs of carbon commodification: Emissions trading, political legitimacy and procedural justice’. Democratization19 (5): 932–950. CrossRef.
64.
PanJ.2003. ‘Emission rights and their transferability: Equity concerns over climate change mitigation’. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics3: 1–16. CrossRef.
65.
ParksB.C. and RobertsJ.T.. 2010. ‘Climate change, social theory and justice’. Theory, Culture and Society27 (2–3): 134–166. CrossRef.
SchalatekL., 2014. Post-Bali: It's Crunch Time! Few Decisions at Its 6th Meeting Increase the Pressure on the GCF Board to Deliver in May for the Start of the Fund's Resource Mobilization This Fall. Washington, DC: Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America. http://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/boell_gcf_bm6_summary_report_crunchtime.pdf (accessed 18 October 2014).
ShueH.1992. ‘The unavoidability of justice’. In HurrellA. and KingsburyB. (eds), The International Politics of the Environment, pp. 373–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
SweeneyP.D. and McFarlinD.B.. 1993. ‘Workers' evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes55: 23–40. CrossRef.
79.
ThibautJ. and WalkerL.. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Erblaum.
80.
ThibautJ. and WalkerL.. 1978. ‘A theory of procedure’. California Law Review66: 541–566. CrossRef.
81.
ToddH. and ZografosC.. 2005. ‘Justice for the environment: Developing a set of indicators of environmental justice for Scotland’. Environmental Values14 (4): 483–501. CrossRef.
82.
TothF.L. and MwandosyaM.. 2001. ‘Decision-making frameworks’. In MetzB., DavidsonO., SwartR.J. and PanJ. (eds), Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
TylerT.R. and BladerS.L.. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
84.
TylerT.R. and BladerS.L.. 2004. ‘Justice in negotiation’. In GelfandM.J. and BrettJ.M. (eds), The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, pp. 295–300. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
85.
TylerT.R. and LindE.A.. 1992. ‘A relational model of authority in groups’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25: 115–191. CrossRef.
86.
VanderheidenS.2008. Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef.
87.
WelshN.2004. ‘Perceptions of fairness in negotiation’. Marquette Law Review87: 753–767.
88.
WelshN.2006. ‘Perceptions of fairness’. In SchneiderA. and HoneymanC. (eds), The Negotiator's Fieldbook, pp. 165–174. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
89.
YaminF. and DepledgeJ.. 2004. The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
