請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92756完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 蔡季廷 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chi-Ting Tsai | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林慧萍 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hui-Ping Lin | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-06-21T16:06:55Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-06-22 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-06-21 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-06-18 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102513000502
Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, A/CONF.232/2023/4 1 (2023). Allee, T., & Elsig, M. (2019). Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied and Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 63(3), 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz029 Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2006). Nested and overlapping regimes in the transatlantic banana trade dispute. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760600560409 Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090033 Alter, K. J., & Raustiala, K. (2018). The Rise of International Regime Complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830 Andersen, R. (2002). The Time Dimension in International Regime Interplay. Global Environmental Politics, 2(3), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638002320310545 Balbar, A. C., & Metaxas, A. (2019). The current application of ecological connectivity in the design of marine protected areas. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00569 Barnard, S., Burdon, D., Strong, J., & Atkins, J. (2014). The Ecological Coherence and Economic & Social Benefits of the Northern Ireland MPA Network (Report to the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force YBB238-F-2014). Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS). Benvenisti, E., & Downs, G. W. (2007). The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 595–632. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14 Bigagli, E. (2016). The international legal framework for the management of the global oceans social-ecological system. Marine Policy, 68, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.005 Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press. Boyle, A. E. (1997). Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300060103 Bräuninger, T., & Swalve, T. (2020). Theory Building for Causal Inference: EITM Research Projects. In The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387 Busch, M. L. (2007). Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade. International Organization, 61(04), 735–761. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818307070257 Buzan, B., & Albert, M. (2010). Differentiation: A sociological approach to international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350064 Calado, H., Vergílio, M., Moniz, F., Grimmel, H., Monwar, Md. M., & Papaioannou, E. A. (2023). The Diverse Legal and Regulatory Framework for Marine Sustainability Policy in the North Atlantic Horrendograms as Tools to Assist Circumnavigating Through a Sea of Different Maritime Policies. In S. Partelow, M. Hadjimichael, & A.-K. Hornidge (Eds.), Ocean Governance: Knowledge Systems, Policy Foundations and Thematic Analyses (Vol. 25, pp. 137–174). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20740-2 Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212 Chairil, T., Wicaksono, G. A., & Nurbaitty, M. A. (2022). Establishing Maritime Power Competitiveness Index: Benchmarking Indonesian Navy’s Aspiration to Become World-Class Sea Power. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, 7(1), 343. https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v7n1.16 Chan, N. (2018). “Large Ocean States”: Sovereignty, Small Islands, and Marine Protected Areas in Global Oceans Governance. Global Governance, 24(4), 537–555. Chen, Y., & Liu, H. (2023). Critical Perspectives on the New Situation of Global Ocean Governance. Sustainability, 15(14), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410921 Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—Estimation with the R-package ordinal. Clark, R., & Pratt, T. (2023). Emulation as Legitimation: Treaty Design and Legitimacy in Global Governance [Unpublished Manuscript]. Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., & Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. The Review of International Organizations, 7(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-011-9130-9 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (2007). Text as amended on 24 July 1998, updated 9 May 2002, 7 February 2005 and 18 May 2006. Amendments to Annexes II and III adopted at OSPAR 2007. Correlates of War Project. (2017). State System Membership (v2016) – Correlates of War. https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/state-system-membership/ Danilenko, G. M. (1993). Law-making in the international community. M. Nijhoff. Dunn, D., Crespo G., O., Vierros, M., Freestone, D., Rosenthal, E., Roady, S., Alberini, A., A.-L, H., Cisneros, A., Moore J., W., Sloat M., R., Ota, Y., & Halpin P., N. (2017). Adjacency: How legal precedent, ecological connectivity, and Traditional Knowledge inform our understanding of proximity [Policy Brief]. Duke University. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.21359.12968 Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2020). Death of international organizations. The organizational ecology of intergovernmental organizations, 1815–2015. The Review of International Organizations, 15(2), 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9340-5 Encyclopedia of Mathematics. (2024, January 12). Random walk. https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Random_walk Fanning, L., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Angulo, J., Burrows, F., Chakalall, B., Gil, D., Haughton, M., Heileman, S., Martínez, S., Ostine, L., Oviedo, A., Parsons, S., Phillips, T., Santizo Arroya, C., Simmons, B., & Toro, C. (2007). A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Marine Policy, 31(4), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.01.003 Faude, B., & Fuss, J. (2020). Coordination or conflict? The causes and consequences of institutional overlap in a disaggregated world order. Global Constitutionalism, 9(2), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000376 Flannery, W. (2023). Making Marine Spatial Planning Matter. In S. Partelow, M. Hadjimichael, & A.-K. Hornidge (Eds.), Ocean Governance: Knowledge Systems, Policy Foundations and Thematic Analyses (Vol. 25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20740-2 Freestone, D., Johnson, D., Ardron, J., Morrison, K. K., & Unger, S. (2014). Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes. Marine Policy, 49, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.007 Friedman, K., Garcia, S. M., & Rice, J. (2018). Mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries. Marine Policy, 95, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.001 Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012 Garcia, S. M., & Hayashi, M. (2000). Division of the oceans and ecosystem management: A contrastive spatial evolution of marine fisheries governance. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 443–474. Garcia, S. M., Kolding, J., Rice, J., Rochet, M.-J., Zhou, S., Arimoto, T., Beyer, J. E., Borges, L., Bundy, A., Dunn, D., Fulton, E. A., Hall, M., Heino, M., Law, R., Makino, M., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Simard, F., & Smith, A. D. M. (2012). Reconsidering the Consequences of Selective Fisheries. Science, 335(2), 1045–1047. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214594 Garcia, S. M., Rice, J., & Charles, A. (2016a). Balanced harvesting in fisheries: A preliminary analysis of management implication. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(6), 1668–1678. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv156 Garcia, S. M., Rice, J., & Charles, A. (2016b). Bridging fisheries management and biodiversity conservation norms: Potential and challenges of balancing harvest in ecosystem-based frameworks. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(6), 1659–1667. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv230 García, S.-M., Rice, J., & Charles, A. (2014). Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation: A history. In S.-M. García, J. Rice, & A. Charles (Eds.), Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation Interaction and Coevolution (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Wiley-Blackwell FAO. Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2014). A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. The Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 471–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9197-1 Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108100055 Gjerde, K. M., & Yadav, S. S. (2021). Polycentricity and Regional Ocean Governance: Implications for the Emerging UN Agreement on Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.704748 Green, J. F. (2022). Hierarchy in Regime Complexes: Understanding Authority in Antarctic Governance. International Studies Quarterly, 66(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab084 Greenhill, B., & Lupu, Y. (2017). Clubs of Clubs: Fragmentation in the Network of Intergovernmental Organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx001 Grigorescu, A. (2010). The Spread of Bureaucratic Oversight Mechanisms across Intergovernmental Organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 871–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00613.x Grilo, C. (2010). The Impact of Maritime Boundaries on Cooperation in the Creation of Transboundary Marine Protected Areas: Insights from Three Cases. Ocean Yearbook, 24, 115–150. Grip, K. (2017). International marine environmental governance: A review. Ambio, 46(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0847-9 Gritsenko, D. (2017). Regulating GHG Emissions from shipping: Local, global, or polycentric approach? Marine Policy, 84, 130–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.010 Gustafsson, K. M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.001 Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge University Press. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. Hadden, J. (2015). Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2009). The Power Politics of Regime Complexity: Human Rights Trade Conditionality in Europe. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090057 Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002705281669 Helfer, L. R. (2004). Regime Shifting: The TRIPs Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking. Yale Journal of International Law, 29, 2–84. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.459740 Henning, C. R., & Pratt, T. (2023). Hierarchy and differentiation in international regime complexes: A theoretical framework for comparative research. Review of International Political Economy, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2023.2259424 Hey, E. (2022). The OSPAR NEAFC Collective Arrangement and Ocean Governance: Regional Seas Organisations as the Setters of Conservation Standards in ABNJ? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 37(4), 610–633. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10101 Hoel, A. H. (2021). Capacity Building in Marine Science–Added Value of the bbnj? In M. H. Nordquist & R. Long (Eds.), Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (pp. 213–230). Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004422438 Hoydal, K., Johnson, D., & Hoel, A. H. (2014). Regional governance: The case of NEAFC and OSPAR. In S. M. Garcia, J. Rice, & A. Charles (Eds.), Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation (1st ed., pp. 225–238). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118392607.ch16 IILSS. (2021, May 23). Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) map of the world. International Institute for Law of the Sea Studies (IILSS). https://iilss.net/exclusive-economic-zoneeez-map-of-the-world/ International Law Commission. (2006). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law [Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission]. Johnson, D. (2016). Conserving the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone: One of the world’s first high seas marine protected areas. In P. Mackelworth (Ed.), Marine transboundary conservation and protected areas (pp. 271–285). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Asselt, H. van, & Forster, J. (Eds.). (2018). Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108284646 Kedia, S., & Anand, M. (2021). Global Biodiversity Regime Complex and Sustainable Development Goals: Implications for India. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 23(2), 57–87. Kennard, A. (2023). Who Controls the Past: Far‐Sighted Bargaining in International Regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 67(3), 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12747 Keohane, R. O. (1984). Cooperation And International Regimes. In After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (pp. 49–64). Princeton University Press. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068 Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2013). The Transnational Politics of Energy. Daedalus, 142(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00196 Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 980–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.006 Kim, R. E. (2020). Is Global Governance Fragmented, Polycentric, or Complex? The State of the Art of the Network Approach. International Studies Review, 22(4), 903–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz052 Kinne, B. J. (2013). IGO membership, network convergence, and credible signaling in militarized disputes. Journal of Peace Research, 50(6), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313498615 Klein, N. (2005). The Dispute Settlement Procedure under UNCLOS. In Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1st ed., pp. 29–124). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494376 Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000269 Kvalvik, I. (2012). Managing institutional overlap in the protection of marine ecosystems on the high seas. The case of the North East Atlantic. Ocean & Coastal Management, 56, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.009 Lagoudis, I., Madentzoglou, E. M., Theotokas, I. N., & Yip, T. L. (2019). Maritime Cluster Attractiveness Index. Maritime Business Review, 4(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-11-2018-0044 Lake, D. A. (2009a). International Authority. In Hierarchy in International Relations (pp. 17–44). Cornell University Press. Lake, D. A. (2009b). International Hierarchy. In Hierarchy in International Relations (pp. 45–62). Cornell University Press. Lambach, D. (2021). The functional territorialization of the high seas. Marine Policy, 130, 104579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104579 Lambach, D. (2022). The Territorialization of the Global Commons: Evidence from Ocean Governance. Politics and Governance, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5323 Langlet, A., & Vadrot, A. (2023a). IOs in the BBNJ Regime Complex – the Dataset. Data in Brief, 48, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109153 Langlet, A., & Vadrot, A. B. (2023b). Not ‘undermining’ who? Unpacking the emerging BBNJ regime complex. Marine Policy, 147, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105372 Li, K. X., Lin, K.-C., Jin, M., Yuen, K. F., Yang, Z., & Xiao, Y. (2020). Impact of the belt and road initiative on commercial maritime power. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 135, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.02.023 Mahon, R., Cooke, A., Fanning, L., & McConney, P. (2013). Governance arrangements for marine ecosystems of the Wider Caribbean Region (CERMES Technical Report). Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus. Mahon, R., & Fanning, L. (2019). Regional ocean governance: Integrating and coordinating mechanisms for polycentric systems. Marine Policy, 107, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103589 Mahon, R., Fanning, L., Gjerde, K. M., Young, O., Reid, M., & Douglas, S. (2015). Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) Assessment of Governance Arrangements for the Ocean, Volume 2: Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (IOC Technical Series). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Mahon, R., Fanning, L., McConney, P., & Pollnac, R. (2010). Governance characteristics of large marine ecosystems. Marine Policy, 34(5), 919–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.016 Martinez Romera, B. (2017). Regime Interaction and Climate Change: The Case of International Aviation and Maritime Transport (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.9781315451817 McDorman, T. L. (2021). A Few Words on the “Cross-Cutting Issue”—The Relationship between a BBNJ Convention and Existing, Relevant Instruments and Frameworks and Relevant Global, Regional and Sectoral Bodies. In Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (pp. 273–284). World Maritime University. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004422438_015 Mendenhall, E. (2019). The Ocean Governance Regime: International Conventions and Institutions. In P. G. Harris (Ed.), Climate Change and Ocean Governance (1st ed., pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108502238.002 Menzel, A. (2022). Fragmentation or Effective Governance? The Regime Complex of Counter-Piracy in Asia. Politics and Governance, 10(3), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5380 Mondré, A., & Kuhn, A. (2022). Authority in Ocean Governance Architecture. Politics and Governance, 10(3), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5334 Morin, J.-F. (2020). Concentration despite competition: The organizational ecology of technical assistance providers. The Review of International Organizations, 15(1), 75–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9322-7 Morin, J.-F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A., & Oubenal, M. (2016). Boundary organizations in regime complexes: A social network profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(3), 543–577. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-016-0006-8 Morin, J.-F., Pauwelyn, J., & Hollway, J. (2017). The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law, 20(2), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgx013 Mossop, J., & Schofield, C. (2020). Adjacency and due regard: The role of coastal States in the BBNJ treaty. Marine Policy, 122, 103877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103877 NEAFC & OSPAR. (2015). On the Process of Forming a Cooperative Mechanism Between NEAFC and OSPAR: From the First Contact to a Formal Collective Arrangement (UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies) [Information Paper]. UNEP. Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (Eds.). (2006). Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3808.001.0001 Oral, N. (2020). The Institutional Schizophrenia of Ocean Governance through the Lens of the Conservation of Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. In S. Trevisanut, N. Giannopoulos, & R. R. Holst (Eds.), Regime interaction in ocean governance: Problems, theories, and methods. Brill Nijhoff. OSPAR. (2008). Memorandum of Understanding between the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the OSPAR Commission. OSPAR. (2023). Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021. OSPAR Assessment Portal. https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/committee-assessments/biodiversity-committee/status-ospar-network-marine-protected-areas/assessment-reports-mpa/mpa-2021/ Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 Paasi, A. (2003). Territory. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, & G. Toal (Eds.), A Companion to Political Geography (pp. 109–122). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998946.ch8 Pons, P., & Latapy, M. (2006). Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 10(2), 191–218. Pratt, T. (2018). Deference and Hierarchy in International Regime Complexes. International Organization, 72(3), 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000164 Raakjaer, J., Leeuwen, J. V., Tatenhove, J. V., & Hadjimichael, M. (2014). Ecosystem-based marine management in European regional seas calls for nested governance structures and coordination—A policy brief. Marine Policy, 50, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.007 Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization, 58(02), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582036 Rees, S. E., Pittman, S. J., Foster, N., Langmead, O., Griffiths, C., Fletcher, S., Johnson, D. E., & Attrill, M. (2018). Bridging the divide: Social-ecological coherence in Marine Protected Area network design (Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems). University of Plymouth. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2885 Rice, J., Lee, J., & Tandstad, M. (2014). Parallel initiatives: CBD’s Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) and FAO’s Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) criteria and processes. In S.-M. García, J. Rice, & A. Charles (Eds.), Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation Interaction and Coevolution (2nd ed, pp. 195–208). Wiley-Blackwell FAO. Rochette, J., Billé, R., Molenaar, E. J., Drankier, P., & Chabason, L. (2015). Regional oceans governance mechanisms: A review. Marine Policy, 60, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.012 Rochette, J., Unger, S., Herr, D., Johnson, D., Nakamura, T., Packeiser, T., Proelss, A., Visbeck, M., Wright, A., & Cebrian, D. (2014). The regional approach to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy, 49, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.005 Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of Overlapping International Regimes: The Case of Biodiversity. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 7(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-00701008 Ruggie, J. G. (2014). Global Governance and “New Governance Theory”: Lessons from Business and Human Rights. Global Governance, 20(1), 5–17. Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping Institutional Linkages in European Air Pollution Politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 14–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003322469268 Skjærseth, J. B. (2006). Protecting the North-East Atlantic: Enhancing synergies by institutional interplay. Marine Policy, 30(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.09.004 Sommerer, T., & Tallberg, J. (2019). Diffusion Across International Organizations: Connectivity and Convergence. International Organization, 73(02), 399–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000450 Struett, M. J., Nance, M. T., & Armstrong, D. (2013). Navigating the Maritime Piracy Regime Complex. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01901008 Sydnes, A. K. (2008). Overlapping regimes: The SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. In O. R. Young, W. B. Chambers, J. A. Kim, & C. ten Have (Eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 71–93). United Nations University Press. Tang, Y., Chen, W., & Zhang, Y. (2021). International cooperation and coordination in the Global Legislation of High Seas ABMTs including MPAs: Taking OSPAR practice as reference. Marine Policy, 133, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104767 Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2022). Governing a Divided Ocean: The Transformative Power of Ecological Connectivity in the BBNJ negotiations. Politics and Governance, 10(3), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5428 Till, G. (2018). Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-first Century. Routledge. http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/84 UNEP-WCMC. (2024). Human Activities in ABNJ. ABNJ Web Portal. http://abnj.grida.no/ UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. (2023). Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/marine-protected-areas United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (pp. 1–247) [UN Documents]. United Nations. (2012). The Future We Want [Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development]. United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library. (2023, March 8). What does it mean when a decision is taken “by consensus”? - Ask DAG! https://ask.un.org/faq/260981 United Nations General Assembly. (2005). 59/24. Oceans and the law of the sea. United Nations General Assembly. (2007). 61/105. Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments. Van de Graaf, T. (2013). The Politics and Institutions of Global Energy Governance. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137320735 van Leeuwen, J. (2015). The regionalization of maritime governance: Towards a polycentric governance system for sustainable shipping in the European Union. Ocean & Coastal Management, 117, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.013 van Tatenhove, J. P. M. (2013). How to turn the tide: Developing legitimate marine governance arrangements at the level of the regional seas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 71, 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.004 Walton, A., White, A. T., Tighe, S., Aliño, P. M., Laroya, L., Dermawan, A., Kasasiah, A., Hamid, S. A., Vave-Karamui, A., Genia, V., De Jesus Martins, L., & Green, A. L. (2014). Establishing a Functional Region-Wide Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System. Coastal Management, 42(2), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.877765 Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley. Wang, B., & Liu, J. (2019). Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis of Maritime Soft Power Based on the Entropy Weight Method (EWM). Journal of Physics, 1168, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032108 Wang, Z. (2022). A Study on Early Warning of Financial Indicators of Listed Companies Based on Random Forest. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2022, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1314798 Warner, R. M. (2014). Conserving marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: Co-evolution and interaction with the law of the sea. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00006 Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. Watson-Wright, W., & Valdés, J. L. (2018). Fragmented Governance of Our One Global Ocean. In International Ocean Institute-Canada (Ed.), The future of ocean governance and capacity development: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Mann Borgese (1918–2002) (pp. 16–22). Brill Nijhoff. Westerwinter, O., Abbott, K. W., & Biersteker, T. (2021). Informal governance in world politics. The Review of International Organizations, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09382-1 World Directory of Modern Military Warships. (2024). Global Naval Powers Ranking (2024). WDMMW. https://www.wdmmw.org/ranking.php World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). Frequently Asked Questions: Patents. https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq_patents.html Wright, G., Rochette, J., Gjerde, K., Seeger, I., Tubiana, F. L., & Charles, E. (2018). The long and winding road: Negotiating a treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (N°08/18; Studies). Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (IDDRI). Wynberg, R. (2015). Marine Genetic Resources and Bioprospecting in the Western Indian Ocean. In UNEP-Nairobi Convention & WIOMSA, The Regional State of the Coast Report: Western Indian Ocean (pp. 407–416). UNEP and WIOMSA. Yadav, S. S., & Gjerde, K. M. (2020). The ocean, climate change and resilience: Making ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction more resilient to climate change and other anthropogenic activities. Marine Policy, 122, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104184 Yao, J. (2021). An international hierarchy of science: Conquest, cooperation, and the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System. European Journal of International Relations, 27(4), 995–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211033889 Zelli, F. (2011). The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. WIREs Climate Change, 2(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.104 Zhukov, L. E. (2015a, April 10). Descriptive Network Analysis. Social Network Analysis MAGoLEGO course, National Research University Higher School of Economics. http://www.leonidzhukov.net/hse/2015/sna/lectures/lecture2.pdf Zhukov, L. E. (2015b, April 24). Node Centrality and Ranking on Networks. Social Network Analysis MAGoLEGO course, National Research University Higher School of Economics. http://www.leonidzhukov.net/hse/2015/sna/lectures/lecture4.pdf Zhukov, L. E. (2015c, May 15). Network communities. Social Network Analysis MAGoLEGO course, National Research University Higher School of Economics. http://www.leonidzhukov.net/hse/2015/sna/lectures/lecture5.pdf Zürn, M., & Faude, B. (2013). Commentary: On Fragmentation, Differentiation, and Coordination. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00186 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92756 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 《國家管轄外海洋生物多樣性協定》（Agreement on Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, BBNJ協定 ）旨在協調國家管轄外海洋生物多樣性（Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, BBNJ）現有的建制複雜性，以促進BBNJ之永續使用與保育。關於建制複雜性，學者們在過去廣泛接受 Raustiala 和 Victor（2004）的定義：「治理特定議題領域的一系列部分重疊且無階層的制度」。然而，已有實證研究指出「非正式」階層存在於國際制度互動。本論文偏離國際建制複雜性的「碎片化」論述，以制度遵從理論（Pratt，2018）為基礎，考量國際組織擴散的連結性（Sommerer & Tallberg，2019），並結合海洋治理的脈絡特徵，來分析既有的BBNJ建制互動。
本研究自32個國際制度的官網爬梳將近兩千份政策與法律文件，為本研究所使用的變項進行編碼。首先，透過社會網絡分析來探究BBNJ建制複合體的結構特徵，本文指出BBNJ 建制複合體具有「多中心性」之特色。儘管該複合體不具有嚴謹之單一中心權威，卻呈現數個國際制度作為該複合體之「樞紐」，且制度之間展現一定程度之協調性；此發現與過去認為海洋治理係「碎片化」，而不看好BBNJ治理前景的悲觀看法有所不同。本論文完成之際，BBNJ協定尚待國際批准生效，而本研究的分析結果令筆者樂觀看待BBNJ協定作為既有相關制度的協調者之潛力。 其次，本論文檢驗制度遵從理論，探究了 BBNJ 建制複合體內的遵從程度是否可歸因於國際組織之間成員國權力和功能效率的不對稱；抑或是國際制度之間的正式、非正式，以及生態連結性能夠更好地解釋BBNJ建制複合體之制度遵從現象。作者透過順序羅吉斯迴歸（ordinal logistic regression）分析形塑該複合體中制度遵從的可能影響因素，並針對兩對國際制度的互動案例（《生物多樣性公約》 –《聯合國糧食及農業組織》；《東北大西洋漁業委員會》 – 《保護東北大西洋海洋環境公約》）進行個案研究，分析結果支持以下結論：在BBNJ建制複合體中，不同面向的連結性（成員重疊、官方夥伴關係、地理鄰近等）容易促進國際組織趨同，比起國際組織間的權力政治和功能效率不對稱，能更好地解釋制度遵從的現象。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The Agreement on Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) is a novel attempt to coordinate the existing regime complexity of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) with the aim of enhancing the sustainable use and conservation of BBNJ. Regarding regime complexity, scholars widely accepted Raustiala and Victor’s (2004) definition of regime complexity as “an array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions governing a particular issue-area” in the past. However, empirical evidence has proven the existence of an informal hierarchy. This thesis deviates from the “fragmentation” discourse of regime complexity. It builds on the theory of institutional deference (Pratt, 2018), considers the connectivity in the diffusion of international organizations (IOs) (Sommerer and Tallberg, 2019), and incorporates contextual features of ocean governance to analyze regime interaction in current BBNJ governance.
The author parsed through nearly 2,000 policy and legal documents from the official websites of 32 international institutions to code the variables used in this study. This thesis then investigates the structural features of the BBNJ regime complex through social network analysis. The results reveal the “polycentricity” and coordination of the BBNJ regime complex, challenging the previous view of fragmented ocean governance and the prospects of BBNJ governance. As the BBNJ Agreement awaits international ratification, the author remains optimistic about its potential as the coordinator of existing relevant institutions. Also, this thesis tests the theory of institutional deference. It examines whether the degree of deference in the BBNJ regime complex may be attributed to asymmetries of member state power and functional efficiency among IOs; or if the formal, informal, and ecological connectivity could better explain the institutional deference within BBNJ regime complex. The author conducts ordinal logistic regression to analyze the potential influencing factors of institutional deference within this complex and focuses on two pairs of international institutions (Convention on Biological Diversity – Food and Agriculture Organization; and North-east Atlantic Fisheries Commission – Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-east Atlantic) as case studies. The results support the following conclusion: within the BBNJ regime complex, connectivity in different aspects (overlapping membership, official partnership, geographic proximity, etc.) is more easily to facilitate the IO convergence, which can better explain institutional deference than asymmetry in power politics and functional efficiency among IOs. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-06-21T16:06:55Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-06-21T16:06:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
誌謝 iii 中文摘要 v Abstract vii Table of Contents ix List of Tables xii List of Figures xii Chapter I Introduction 1 I. Research Background and Motivation 1 II. Research Questions and Scope 6 III. Research Contributions 9 IV. Overview 11 Chapter II Literature Review 13 I. International Regime Complex: From Fragmentation to Coordination? 13 A. What is Regime Complex/Complexity? 13 B. Causes and Consequences of Regime Complex 14 C. Managing Fragmentation 15 D. Coordination and Informal Hierarchy 19 E. Discussion 22 II. Regime Interaction in the Ocean Governance and Marine Biodiversity 23 A. Legal Principles on the Sea 24 B. Environmental Nature of the Oceans 27 C. Trend of Global Ocean Governance 28 D. Discussion 32 III. The Status Quo of BBNJ Regime Complex 33 Chapter III Theoretical Claim and Hypothesis 37 I. Theoretical Base 37 A. Theory of Institutional Deference 38 B. Theoretical Limitation and the Alternative 39 II. Building Hypothesis 42 A. Power Politics and Institutional Deference 43 B. Functional Efficiency and Institutional Deference 45 C. Connectivity and Institutional Deference 47 Chapter IV Research Design and Methods 51 I. Scope of BBNJ Regime Complex and Unit of Analysis 52 II. Operationalization of Variables 55 A. Outcome Variable: Institutional Deference 56 B. Predictor Variables 56 C. Control Variables 64 D. Index Variables 65 Chapter V Observing Deference: Network Analysis 67 I. Analytical Framework of Network Measurements 67 II. Network Properties 69 A. Level of Nodes and Links 71 B. Level of Subsystems: Modularity and Community Detection 72 C. Level of System 75 III. Discussion 76 Chapter VI Regression Analysis 81 I. Descriptive Statistics 81 II. Model Specification 85 A. Full Model 1 and Full Model 2 85 B. Full Model 3 and Full Model 4 88 C. Full Model 5 to Full Model 9 89 III. Diagnostic of Model Assumptions 91 IV. Results and Discussion 92 A. The Influence of Power Politics on Institutional Deference 93 B. The Influence of Functional Efficiency on Institutional Deference 97 C. The Influence of Connectivity on Institutional Deference 100 V. Robustness Check 106 A. Alternative Variables 106 B. Alternative Model Specification: Linear Regression 109 Chapter VII Case Studies 113 I. CBD and FAO 114 A. Overview 114 B. ABMT Case 117 II. NEAFC and OSPAR 121 A. Overview 121 B. ABMT Case 123 III. Discussion 128 Chapter VIII Conclusion 133 I. Review of Research Findings 133 II. Research Limitation and Future Works 135 Reference 137 Appendix I. List of BBNJ IOs 165 Appendix II. List of Other Abbreviations and Acronyms 168 Appendix III. Coding Scheme of Institutional Deference 171 Appendix IV. Description of Variables 173 Appendix V. Summary of Descriptive Statistics 176 Appendix VI. Complete Regression Tables 178 Appendix VII. Variable Importance and Correlation Plots 185 Appendix VIII. BBNJ Agreement Text 187 List of Tables Table IV 1. Definitions of Index Variables 65 Table V 1. Revised Analytical Framework of Network Measures 77 Table V 2. Comparison of Network Measures among Regime Complexes 77 List of Figures Figure V 1. Network Perspective of Three Types of Governance Architecture 68 Figure V 2. Network of Institutional Deference in BBNJ Regime Complex 70 Figure V 3. Histogram of Node In-degree Distribution 71 Figure V 4. Community Detection of BBNJ Regime Complex 73 Figure V 5. Network of Institutional Deference in Three Regime Complexes from Pratt (2018) 77 Figure VI 1. Deference Occurrences by Year 82 Figure VI 2. Distribution of Predictor Variables (Whole Dataset) 83 Figure VI 3. Distribution of Predictor Variables (Regional Subset) 84 Figure VI 4. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 1 95 Figure VI 5. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 2 96 Figure VI 6. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 3 98 Figure VI 7. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 4 99 Figure VI 8. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 5 101 Figure VI 9. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 6 102 Figure VI 10. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 7 103 Figure VI 11. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 8 104 Figure VI 12. Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 9 105 Figure VI 13. Alternative Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 1 107 Figure VI 14. Alternative Variable Coefficients Corresponding to Model 2 108 Figure VI 15. Coefficients of Model 1 (upper) and Model 2 (lower) in GLM setting 110 Figure VI 16. Coefficients of Model 3 (upper) and Model 4 (lower) in GLM setting 110 Figure VI 17. Coefficients of Model 5 (upper) and Model 6 (lower) in GLM setting 111 Figure VI 18. Coefficients of Model 7 (upper) and Model 8 (lower) in GLM setting 111 Figure VI 19. Coefficients of Model 9 in GLM setting 112 Figure VII 1. Overlapping between Several ABMTs in Northern Atlantic Ocean 120 Figure VII 2. OSPAR High Seas MPA and NEAFC Closures (as of October 2021) 127 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 制度遵從 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國家管轄外海洋生物多樣性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 海洋治理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 多中心性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 建制複合體 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Ocean Governance | en |
| dc.subject | Institutional Deference | en |
| dc.subject | Regime Complex | en |
| dc.subject | Polycentricity | en |
| dc.subject | BBNJ | en |
| dc.title | 國家管轄外海洋生物多樣性之建制複合體：制度遵從之分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Regime Complex of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Institutional Deference | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳秉逵;郭銘傑 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Ping-Kuei Chen;Jason Kuo | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 制度遵從,國家管轄外海洋生物多樣性,海洋治理,多中心性,建制複合體, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Institutional Deference,BBNJ,Ocean Governance,Polycentricity,Regime Complex, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 239 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202401117 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-06-18 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 20.95 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。