This thesis asks the question: in multilateral climate change negotiations, how do small Pacific island states build and reach a consensus? The general question then becomes: in multilateral negotiations, how do states build and reach consensus? It puts parameters around the enquiry of multilateral negotiations, and specifically negotiations by consensus. At the same time, the question rests on three assumptions:
1) Assumption that states are active in building consensus (process). 2) Assumption that states are active in reaching consensus (process). 3) Assumption that multilateral negotiations achieve or lead to a consensus
(outcome).
This line of enquiry supposes that consensus is an outcome, that is achieved from a consensus process. There is no consensus on what the term consensus means; however, there is an understanding of where it takes place, in decision making situations. “When it is combined with words like procedure, process or technique, consensus denotes a specific form of decision making…but used alone consensus usually denotes the product of the process- outcome”67. Therefore, this research is concerned with consensus decision making as a product of process, and the ability of group actors (Pacific island states) to effectively participate in regional, international and global climate change negotiations.
Across the humanities and science disciplines, consensus is a concept used to explain the rationality of group decision making. Wherever and whenever individuals gather to make decisions, the sum decision is perceived to be the consensus: whether it is an agreement to conclude, continue or defer. Whether it be a group of friends deciding on what movie to watch, or a village meeting to decide a moratorium on fishing grounds, or states negotiating a treaty on conservation of forests – consensus decision making is a
67 Mary E Footer, "Role of Concensus in GATT/WTO Decision-making," Northwestern Journal of
practice of everyday life. Studies by anthropologists and historians have identified forms of consensus decision making that were present in societies throughout history and across the globe. From early hunter‐gatherer societies68, to village communities in Japan69 Sierra Leone,70 India71, Vietnam72 and Papua New Guinea73. The various disciplines differ in their approaches, not to mention the subjects at the focus of their analysis. For psychology the behaviour and mind of individuals in a group are key in their analysis; sociology and anthropology explore societal groups and their
relationships, interactions and cultures of individuals in a decision making setting; while international relations and diplomatic studies focus on the behaviour of states in a multilateral setting. In other words, consensus decision making is present and studied at three levels: the individual, societal groups, and states. Despite these differences of unit analysis there is general understanding even as presented in the simplest of definitions: consensus is achieved (an agreed outcome), and what it represents (a group solidarity or belief in an idea or opinion)74.
By exploring the process in which individuals, societal groups or states come together to make decisions, there is an added richness in understanding the complexity and management of this endeavour. Through tracing the complexity of actors and issues, and the management of activities in consensus decision making, this can help explain factors in building and reaching consensus. When unpacking the process or the negotiations that lead to universality, there are many differences in what consensus could be. In essence, this thesis attempts to understand consensus decision making in a multilateral setting: the outcome of regional, international and global climate
68 George Silberbauer, "Political process in G/wi bands," in Politics and History in Band Societies, ed.
Eleanor Burke Leacock and Richard B. Lee (Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
69 Thomas C. Smith, The agrarian origins of modern Japan (Stanford: Standord University Press, 1959). 70 Mariane Ferme, "The violence of numbers: Consensus, competition, and the negotiation of disputes in
Sierra Leone," Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines 38, no. 2-4 (1998).
71 Louis Dumont, Homo hierarchicus: the caste system and its implications, Complete rev. English ed.
(Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1980).
72 Samuel L. Popkin, The rational peasant: the political economy of rural society in Vietnam (Berkeley:
University Of California Press, 1979).
73 Leo Marai, "The Psychology of Consensus in Melanesia," Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 1, no. 2
(2007).
31
negotiations that Pacific island states participated in 2015, and more importantly the processes of negotiations in these forums. With this in mind, the chosen literature from psychology, international relations and diplomatic studies helps us to understand state behaviour. These building blocks will form the analytical framework in order to unpack the various multilateral forums as explored in Chapters Four, Five and Six.
Defining Consensus Decision Making
Despite the differences across disciplines, there is an understanding of what consensus decision making is not. Consensus is and should not be seen as unanimity, where unanimity is a situation where all parties agree; it is one of many outcomes of group decision making. This is a common misunderstanding, as elaborated further in this chapter, where it is postulated that unanimity is an action that takes place in finalising a consensus process where a stalemate may occur. This usually is the form of a voting model that may be applied to affirm a group’s agreement. Whether it be a small
community group or international organisations, consensus is viewed as a substitute, or a decision made without having to use a vote.
The process of consensus decision making involves “reducing the uncertainty about the participants’ future actions by jointly accepting a position that obligates them to act accordingly and thereby coordinates collective action”75. It is a political concept that yields to the practice of persuasion by parties to influence, compromise and agree on solutions.76 At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that not all participants have an equal footing in terms of power. This power imbalance is more pronounced in multilateral negotiations where states are answerable to domestic constituencies with a wide spectrum of interests. Thus, the process of consensus decision making is not a discussion of straightforward yes or no questions; but rather a forum or situation of negotiating multiple options proposed by interested parties. Not all participants would
75 Christoph Haug, "What is consensus and how is it achieved in meetings? Four practices of consensus
decision-making," in The Cambridge handbook of meeting science., ed. Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann- Willenbrock, and Steven G. Rogelberg (New york: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 562.
76 Louis B. Sohn, "United Nations Decision-Making: Confrontation or Consensus," Harvard
agree on one option or combinations; consensus decision making is a forum of disagreements.
Reaching an agreement can prove to be a time-consuming affair, and so the complex process has to be both dynamic and creative. Consensus decision making is used to avoid a process that either leads to a formal voting system, or where one or small number of parties make decisions on behalf of the rest of the group. This leads to what some may call consensus as an agreement not to disagree77 or the lowest common denominator of residual possibilities78. Here we identify three key elements of this study: Consensus Decision Making, Building Consensus and Reaching Consensus.
This thesis finds a more useful definition of consensus decision making: as the outcome agreement that is achieved from a non-voting decision making process that involves negotiating disagreements of interests, values and ideas among three or more parties collaboratively. This definition underscores both the outcome and process of decision negotiations that involves two key critical phases: the phase of building consensus, and the phase of reaching consensus. This dual process is the main
theoretical hypothesis for this research: multilateral consensus decision making is the sum of two processes of building and reaching consensus.
Before exploring the literature of consensus decision making in international relations and diplomatic studies, we should note that psychology uses approaches from
organisational sociology and anthropology to explain how humans behave in small consensus decision making units.
77 Courtney B Smith, "The politics of global consensus building: a comparative analysis," Global
Governance 5, no. 2 (1999).
78 Pamela S Chasek, Earth negotiations: Analyzing thirty years of environmental diplomacy (United
33