Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-1 (section)

=== 1.4.9 Legal Framework and Institutions ===

<div id="h2-15-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Institutions are rules and norms held in common by social actors that guide, constrain and shape human interaction ( [[#IPCC--2018b|IPCC 2018b]] ). Institutions can be formal, such as laws and policies, or informal, such as norms and conventions. Institutions can both facilitate or constrain climate policymaking and implementation in multiple ways. Institutions set the economic incentives for action or inaction on climate change at national, regional and individual levels ( [[#Dorsch--2017|Dorsch and Flachsland 2017]] ; [[#Sullivan--2017|Sullivan 2017]] ).

Institutions entrench specific political decision-making processes, often empowering some interests over others, including powerful interest groups who have vested interests in maintaining the current high-carbon economic structures ( [[#Okereke--2010|Okereke and Russel 2010]] ; [[#Wilhite--2016|Wilhite 2016]] ; [[#Engau--2017|Engau et al. 2017]] ); see also [[#1.4.6|Section 1.4.6]] and [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-13 Chapter 13] on the sub-national and national governance challenges including coordination, mediating politics and strategy setting.

Some suggest that societal transformation towards a low-carbon future requires new politics that involves thinking in intergenerational time horizons, as well as new forms of partnerships between private and public actors ( [[#Westman--2018|Westman and Broto 2018]] ), and associated institutions and social innovations to increase involvement of non-state actors in climate governance ( [[#Fuhr--2018|Fuhr et al. 2018]] ). However literature is divided as to how much democratisation of climate politics, with greater emphasis on equity and community participation, would advance societal transformation in the face of climate change ( [[#Stehr--2005|Stehr 2005]] ), or may actually hinder radical climate action in some circumstances ( [[#Povitkina--2018|Povitkina 2018]] ).

Since 2016, the number of climate litigation cases has increased rapidly. The UN Environment Programme’s Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review ( [[#UNEP--2020|UNEP 2020]] ) noted that between March 2017 and 1 July 2020, the number of cases nearly doubled with at least 1550 climate cases filed in eight countries. Several important cases such as Urgenda Foundation vs The State of the Netherlands (‘Urgenda’) and Juliana et al. vs United States (‘Juliana’) have had ripple effects, inspiring other similar cases ( [[#Lin--2020|Lin and Kysar 2020]] ).

Numerous international climate governance initiatives engage national and sub-national governments, NGOs and private corporations, constituting a ‘regime complex’ ( [[#Raustiala--2004|Raustiala and Victor 2004]] ; [[#Keohane--2011|Keohane and]] [[#Victor--2011|Victor 2011]] ). They may have longer-run and second-order effects if commitments are more precise and binding ( [[#Kahler--2017|Kahler 2017]] ). However, without targets, incentives, defined baselines or monitoring, reporting, and verification, they are not likely to fill the ‘mitigation gap’ ( [[#Michaelowa--2017|Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017]] ).

<div id="1.4.10" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="international-cooperation"></span>