Transcript: India, China, and Climate Change Governance: Leadership and Responsibility in the Asian Global South

[[RP_SECTION:status-competition-framework|Status Competition Framework]]

Alex: When India and China talk about climate responsibility, they're not signing onto some shared moral code — they're running a status contest, using climate pledges as leverage to project power. That's the picture that emerges from an edited volume put together by Amit Ranjan, Agnieszka Nitza-Makowska, and Elo Süld.

Sam: Before I buy that, what's actually behind it? Is this built on systematic coding of negotiating transcripts, or is it more a set of illustrative case studies stitched together by the editors?

Alex: It's the latter — a collection of country and regional case chapters, read through a common lens of status-seeking rather than a quantitative content analysis. So the evidence is interpretive: close reading of diplomatic statements, summit behavior, bilateral disputes. That matters, because the causal story — rivalry produces fractured cooperation — is really an inference drawn across cases, not something tested against a counterfactual where the rivalry was absent.

Sam: Right, so it's plausible but not something you could falsify easily. What's the actual mechanism they point to for China versus India? [[RP_SECTION:competing-diplomatic-strategies|Competing Diplomatic Strategies]]

Alex: China leans on the framing of the responsible stakeholder — climate finance pledges, renewable manufacturing dominance, positioning itself as the reliable partner the West failed to be. India instead invokes an older civilizational register, the idea of itself as a moral guide, a Vishvaguru, using restraint and equity arguments — low per-capita emissions, historical responsibility — to claim leadership on principle rather than capacity. Both are status claims, just built on different currencies: one material, one moral. [[RP_SECTION:fracturing-global-south-coalitions|Fracturing Global South Coalitions]]

Sam: And the authors' load-bearing claim is that this dyad-level competition is what actually fractures the wider Global South coalition, not Western pressure or internal poverty constraints?

Alex: That's the central claim, yes, and it's worth being precise about what it rests on. The main evidence is the observation that India and China's bilateral friction — border tensions, competing regional initiatives — spills directly into climate forums, so summits meant to build collective leverage against Western-led agendas instead become another arena for the two to jockey for position. The clearest illustration the volume gives is India excluding China from its own Voice of Global South summits. That's a concrete, checkable data point rather than a general impression, and it does real work in the argument.

But it's one example. Is that treated as representative, or more as an anecdote that happens to fit the thesis nicely?

India, China, and Climate Change Governance: Leadership and Responsibility in the Asian Global South

Amit Ranjan, Agnieszka Nitza-Makowska, Elo Süld

Sep 24, 2026·4:10·user_upload

Climate GovernanceGlobal SouthClimate DiplomacyAgency and ResponsibilityClimate Change GovernanceGlobal South Leadership

Listen

4 min

Briefing

Understanding Climate Leadership in the Global South

This volume examines how India and China, the two dominant powers of the Asian Global South, exercise agency and responsibility within the international climate regime. While both nations are critical to global environmental outcomes, their engagement with climate governance is deeply intertwined with their internal strategic goals, national identities, and competitive bilateral relationship. The book moves beyond traditional North-South binary analyses to explore how these states navigate the complexities of climate politics while simultaneously vying for regional and global leadership.

The Responsibility-Power Nexus

The authors argue that responsibility in climate governance is not merely a normative commitment but a diplomatic and geopolitical tool. China, for instance, has sought to project itself as a responsible stakeholder by integrating environmental priorities into its foreign policy and the Belt and Road Initiative. India, conversely, frames its climate leadership through the lens of equity and justice, often positioning itself as a moral guide or Vishvaguru. These distinct approaches reflect broader efforts to shape global norms while securing national development, often leading to a complex interplay of cooperation and competition.

Intra-South Rivalries and Regional Dynamics

A central theme of the book is the impact of intra-South rivalries on collective climate action. The "abnormal" bilateral ties between India and China, characterized by intermittent border tensions and strategic competition, complicate their ability to lead the Global South effectively. Through case studies spanning the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Himalayas, the contributors illustrate how these geopolitical frictions influence transboundary water management, renewable energy transitions, and environmental advocacy. The volume highlights that while both nations often align in international forums like the UNFCCC to defend the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC), their regional competition frequently hinders deeper, more operationalized cooperation.

Why This Matters

By bridging international geopolitics with climate governance, this study provides a critical lens for understanding the future of global environmental policy. It challenges prevailing assumptions about hierarchy and influence, suggesting that the Global South is not a monolithic bloc but a space of diverse interests and strategic maneuvering. For researchers and policymakers, this work underscores that effective climate action in the coming decades will depend as much on managing the political relationships between emerging powers as it will on technical or financial solutions.

Key Terms and Definitions

Global South — A grouping of postcolonial, developing nations that share common interests in international negotiations, often emphasizing equity and historical responsibility in climate change.
Responsible Stakeholder — A status-seeking role where a state acts to sustain and shape the international system from which it benefits, often used to describe China's evolving climate posture.
Vishvaguru — A concept representing India's self-projection as a moral guide or teacher to the world, which informs its approach to environmental stewardship and global climate diplomacy.
CBDR-RC — The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities, which serves as the normative core for Global South demands for climate justice.
Issue Linkage — A diplomatic strategy used in climate negotiations where different policy areas are connected to create "package deals" that allow diverse parties to reach a consensus.

India, China, and Climate Change Governance: Leadership and Responsibility in the Asian Global South | Amit Ranjan et al. | ResearchPod

India, China, and Climate Change Governance: Leadership and Responsibility in the Asian Global South: Research Paper Podcast