In the past few years, different authors have observed major shifts in the location of authority in global climate policy-making. They argue that the growing importance of non-nation-state actors in the issue area of climate change has generated a shift from state-centric multilateral treaty-making towards new modes of governance which form the basis for the global response to climate change. Many of these authors claim that multilateral treaty-making has lost much of its spark and highlight the emergence of non-state climate governance arrangements, ranging from business self-regulation over private standard-setting initiatives to transnational city networks. Scholars have conducted several case studies about these newly emerging climate governance arrangements and conceive them as new “spheres of authority” in global climate policy-making. In particular, they contend that existing modes of inter-state cooperation and the authority of the international climate regime are challenged by the emergence of non-state climate governance arrangements. However, only little attempt has been made to thoroughly analyze the interplay between the numerous non-state climate governance arrangements and the different multilateral institutions, clustered around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Therefore, this paper aims to address this research gap. Building upon the concept of authority, it explores the interrelationship between different non-state climate governance arrangements and the international climate regime. Preliminary empirical findings suggest that the development of non-state climate governance arrangements does not lead to a loss of authority at the expense of intergovernmental decision-making in the issue area of climate change. On the contrary, many non-state climate governance arrangements use the international climate regime as point of reference and have adopted various rules and procedures from international agreements. Thus, this paper emphasizes the centrality of the international climate regime and demonstrates that multilateral treaty-making continues to be more important than many scholars and policymakers suppose.
