Theorising Bad Faith in International Relations: Climate Change, Deception and the Negotiation of International Order

This study examines how climate-vulnerable states charge major carbon
emitters with bad faith behaviors, how those emitters respond in ways that
often confirm the bad faith charges, and what vulnerable states propose
as policy alternatives. Using an existentialist conceptualization of bad faith
and Bassan-Nygate and Heimann’s four response mechanisms – projection,
distortion, displacement, and rationalization – we identify how major
emitters try to negate bad faith claims in ways that are deceptive of the
self and the other. Major emitters require self-ref lection to identify how
they are not meeting international climate policy agreements and begin
to address what they must change (about themselves), but vulnerable states
note that this ref lection is absent. This study of 399 speeches by national
leaders at three climate summits opens directions for scholars, activists and
policymakers to understand how interactions around bad faith illuminate
the politics of bad faith and the potential for change this contains.