1.Dimitrov, R. (2012). The politics of persuasion: The UN climate change negotiations. In Dauvergne, P., ed., Handbook of global environmental politics, 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 72–86.Google Scholar

Emphasizes the important role of the dynamics and circumstances of the negotiation process and, consequently, the need to observe the negotiation sites in order to explain negotiation outcomes.Google Scholar

2.Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O. and Lövbrand, E. (2017). Non-state actors in global climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 561–579.Google Scholar

Provides a good overview of the history of nonstate actor participation in the UNFCCC, and is a good introduction to a larger body of excellent critical work in this space.Google Scholar

3.Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The voice of science on marine biodiversity negotiations: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 1044.Google Scholar

Introduces the reader to the complex negotiations and highlights its relevance for future marine biodiversity governance by giving an overview of the current state of the art on the main topics identified in peer-reviewed literature related to the BBNJ process until 2020.Google Scholar

4.Paterson, M. (2019). Using negotiation sites for richer collection of network data. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 81–92.Google Scholar

Highlights the immense opportunities of negotiation sites for the collection of network data and pragmatically addresses issues researchers may encounter when sampling network data.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance: collaborative event ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.Google Scholar

De Santo, E. M., Ásgeirsdóttir, Á. , Barros-Platiau, A. et al. (2019). Protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: An earth system governance perspective. Earth System Governance 2, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100029.Google Scholar

Dimitrov, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 1–11.Google Scholar

Eastwood, L. E. (2019). Negotiating the environment: Civil society, globalisation and the UN. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research, 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. W. (2000). Towards public accountability: Beyond sampling, reliability and validity. In Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. W., eds., Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook for social research. London: Sage, pp. 336–350.Google Scholar

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., eds., Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 163–194.Google Scholar

Hale, T. (2016). “All hands on deck”: The Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12–22.Google Scholar

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hughes, H., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the world: IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 14–37.Google Scholar

Hughes, H., Vadrot, A. B. M., Allan, J. I. et al. (2021). Global environmental agreement-making: Upping the methodological and ethical stakes of studying negotiations. Earth System Governance, 10, 100121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission UNESCO. (2020). The science we need for the ocean we want: The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265198.Google Scholar

Kahler, M. (2011). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), 1–28.Google Scholar

Kerr, R. and Sturm, D. (2019). Moving beyond “insider or outsider”: The ethnographic challenges of researching elite sport facilities in New Zealand. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9–10), 1137–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758–770.Google Scholar

Leiter, T. (2021a). Progress in implementing adaptation: Insights from project proposals and scientific literature. In United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ed., The Adaptation Gap Report 2020, pp. 33–40. www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2020.Google Scholar

Leiter, T. (2021b). Do governments track the implementation of national climate change adaptation plans? An evidence-based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 125, 179–188.Google Scholar

Leiter, T., and Pringle, P. (2018). Pitfalls and potential of measuring climate change adaptation through adaptation metrics. In Christiansen, L., Martinez, G., and Naswa, P., eds., Adaptation metrics: Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results. Copenhagen: UNEP DTU Partnership, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar

Madden, R. (2010). Being ethnographic: A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Mandani, K. (2013). Modeling international climate change negotiations more responsibly: Can highly simplified game theory models provide reliable policy insights? Ecological Economics, 90, 68–76.Google Scholar

Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2020). “Youth is not a political position”: Exploring justice claims-making in the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 61, 102036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2021). Does youth participation increase the democratic legitimacy of UNFCCC-orchestrated global climate change governance? Environmental Politics, 30(6), 873–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2022). “You need a month’s holiday just to get over it!” Exploring young people’s lived experiences of the UN climate change negotiations. Sustainability, 14(7), 4259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Multilateralism as “site” of struggle over environmental knowledge: The North-South divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14, 233–245.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021). Marine biodiversity negotiations during COVID-19: A new role for digital diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3): 169–186.Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

1.Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021). Marine biodiversity negotiations during COVID-19: A new role for digital diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

One of the first papers to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on global environmental agreement-making and the study thereof; uses the BBNJ case and describes the results of a survey conducted to assess state and nonstate actors communication patterns and use of digital formats during the global lockdown in 2020.Google Scholar

2.Chasek, P. (2021). Is it the end of the COP as we know it? An analysis of the first year of virtual meetings in the UN Environment and Sustainable Development arena. International Negotiation, 12(3), 1–32.Google Scholar

Provides an overview on how different agreements adapted to COVID-19 and what the future of the COP might look like after the pandemic.Google Scholar

3.Vadrot, A. B. M., and Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C. (2022). Digital multilateralism in practice: Extending critical policy ethnography to digital negotiation sites. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Proposes a definition of digital multilateralism as a set of digital and physical diplomatic practices performed across space and time by state and nonstate actors engaged in a joint enterprise of simultaneous negotiation through physical and digital infrastructures in information-rich, highly interactive environments and illustrates how critical policy ethnography can be expanded to digital negotaiton sites using the BBNJ case.Google Scholar

Adler, E., and Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Adler-Nissen, R., and Drieschova, A. (2019). Track-change diplomacy: Technology, affordances, and the practice of international negotiations. International Studies Quarterly, 63, 531–45.Google Scholar

Adler-Nissen, R., and Eggeling, K. (2022). Blended diplomacy: The entanglement and contestation of digital technologies in everyday diplomatic practice. European Journal of International Relations, 28(3), 640–666.Google Scholar

Allan, J., Soubry, B., Rosen, T. and Tsioumani, E. (2021). The State of Global Environmental Governance 2020. Report, International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar

Beaulieu, A. (2017). Vectors for fieldwork: Computational thinking and new modes of ethnography. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G.., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography, London: Routledge, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance: Collaborative event ethnography at the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.Google Scholar

Chasek, P. (2001). Earth Negotiations: Analyzing Thirty Years of Environmental Diplomacy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar

Craggs, R. and Mahony, M. (2014). The geographies of the conference: Knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6), 414–430.Google Scholar

Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19.Google Scholar

Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., and Foot, K. A., eds., Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 167–193.Google Scholar

Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., and Kirsten, A., eds. (2014). Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gray, P. A. (2016). Memory, body, and the online researcher: Following Russian street demonstrations via social media. American Ethnologist, 43(3), 500–510.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2017). From virtual ethnography to the embedded, embodied and everyday internet. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London: Routledge, pp.21–28.Google Scholar

Hughes, H., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the world: IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 14–37.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, D. and Wajcman, J., eds. (1985). The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

O’Neill, K. and Haas, P. M. (2019). Being there: International negotiations as study sites in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 4–13.Google Scholar

Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Pink, S. (2014). Digital–visual–sensory design anthropology: Ethnography, imagination and intervention. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 13(4), 412–427.Google Scholar

Suiseeya, K. R. M., and Zanotti, L. (2019). Making influence visible: Innovating ethnography at the Paris Climate Summit. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 38–60.Google Scholar

Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The voice of science on marine biodiversity negotiations: Systematic literature review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 614282.Google Scholar

Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2022). Governing a divided ocean: The transformative power of ecological connectivity in the BBNJ negotiations. Politics and Governance, 10(3).Google Scholar

Tunçalp, D., and Lê, P. L. (2014). (Re)Locating boundaries: A systematic review of online ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(1), 59–79.Google Scholar

Beaulieu, A. (2017). Vectors for fieldwork: Computational thinking and new modes of ethnography. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G.., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London: Routledge, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar

Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E., eds. (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar

Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C. Y. A. et al. (2019). New directions in earth system governance research. Earth System Governance 1, 100006.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.Google Scholar

Chasek, P. (2021). Is it the end of the COP as we know it? An analysis of the first year of virtual meetings in the UN environment and sustainable development arena. International Negotiation 27, 1–32.Google Scholar

Coleman, L. M., and Hughes, H. (2014). Distance. In Aradau, C, Huysmans, J, Neal, A, and Voelkner, N, eds., Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis. Oxon and New York; Routledge, pp. 142–158.Google Scholar

Craggs, R., and Mahony, M (2014). The geographies of the conference: Knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6), 414–30Google Scholar

Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19Google Scholar

Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2017). From virtual ethnography to the embedded, embodied and everyday internet. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London: Routledge, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar

Hughes, H., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the world: IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, H., Vadrot, A., Allan, J. I. et al. (2021). Global environmental agreement-making: Upping the methodological and ethical stakes of studying negotiations. Earth System Governance, 10, 100121Google Scholar

Mackenzie, D. and Wajcman, J., eds. (1985). The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M. et al. (2020). What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 20, 103–121.Google Scholar

O’Neill, K., and Haas, P. M. (2019). Being there: International negotiations as study sites in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 4–13.Google Scholar

O’Neill, K., Weinthal, E., Marion Suiseeya, K. R. et al. (2013). Methods and global environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 441–471.Google Scholar

Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Suiseeya, K. R. M., and Zanotti, L. (2019). Making influence visible: Innovating ethnography at the Paris Climate Summit. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 38–60.Google Scholar

Tunçalp, D., and Lê, P. L. (2014). (Re)Locating boundaries: A systematic review of online ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(1), 59–79.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M., and Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C. (2022). Digital multilateralism in practice: Extending critical policy ethnography to digital negotiation sites. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac051.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M., Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C., Brogat, E. et al. (2022). Towards a reflexive, policy-relevant and engaged ocean science for the UN decade: A social science research agenda. Earth System Governance, 14, 100150.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021). Marine biodiversity negotiations during COVID-19: A new role for digital diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3): 169–186.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Multilateralism as a ‘site’ of struggle over environmental knowledge: The North–South divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14(2), 233–245.Google Scholar