ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND CLIMATE DIPLOMACY IN THE CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC FRAGMENTATION OF THE GLOBALIZED WORLD: ASIA’S CONTRIBUTIONS

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published: May 15, 2026

  Maksym Zhyvko

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to examine the role of environmental stewardship and climate diplomacy as strategic instruments of economic governance in the context of the growing fragmentation of the globalized world, with a particular focus on Asia’s contributions. The study aims to conceptualize how Asian economies integrate environmental responsibility and climate initiatives into foreign economic policy, regional cooperation, and global climate governance amid escalating geopolitical tensions, supply chain reconfiguration, and competing development models. Methodology. The research is based on a qualitative and comparative analytical framework that combines institutional analysis, policy review, and systemic comparison of key Asian actors, including China, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN member states, and India. The study applies elements of political economy, international environmental economics, and climate diplomacy analysis, supported by secondary data from international organizations, regional climate agreements, and national sustainability strategies. Results. The findings demonstrate that Asian countries increasingly use environmental stewardship and climate diplomacy not only as tools for addressing climate risks, but also as mechanisms for strengthening regional influence, securing access to green technologies, and mitigating the economic costs of global fragmentation. Asia’s contributions are characterized by a dual logic: on the one hand, pragmatic climate cooperation within regional frameworks, and on the other, strategic competition in green finance, renewable energy, and low-carbon industrial policy. This duality reflects the broader transformation of globalization into a more fragmented and geopolitically conditioned system. Practical implications. The results may be applied in the design of national and regional climate strategies, international economic policies, and diplomatic initiatives aimed at balancing environmental objectives with economic resilience. For policymakers and international institutions, the Asian experience offers transferable models of integrating climate diplomacy into economic development strategies under conditions of systemic uncertainty. Value. The paper provides an original analytical perspective by linking environmental stewardship and climate diplomacy with the phenomenon of economic fragmentation, highlighting Asia’s active and evolving role in reshaping global climate governance within a fractured global economic order.

How to Cite

Zhyvko, M. (2026). ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND CLIMATE DIPLOMACY IN THE CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC FRAGMENTATION OF THE GLOBALIZED WORLD: ASIA’S CONTRIBUTIONS. Three Seas Economic Journal, 7(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2026-1-1
Article views: 0 | PDF Downloads: 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

environmental stewardship, climate diplomacy, economic fragmentation, globalized world, Asia, sustainable development, green economy

References

Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2018). Renewables: The politics of a global energy transition. MIT Press.

Altenburg, T., & Rodrik, D. (2017). "Green industrial policy: accelerating structural change towards wealthy green economies." In T. Altenburg and C. Assmann (eds), Green Industrial Policy: Concepts, Policies, Country Experiences, 2–20. Geneva and Bonn: UN Environment; German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

Baldwin, R., & Freeman, R. (2021). Risks and global supply chains: What we know and what we need to know. National Bureau of Economic Research, (No. w29444).

Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107–1125.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International security, 44(1), 42–79.

IRENA. (2025). Renewable capacity statistics 2025. International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/Publications/2025/Mar/Renewable-capacity-statistics-2025

Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–575.

Lee, H., Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P., ... & Park, Y. (2023). IPCC, 2023: Climate change 2023: Synthesis report, summary for policymakers. Contribution of working groups i, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [core writing team, h. Lee and j. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E., & Zysman, J. (2015). Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science, 349(6253), 1170–1171.

Raimi, D., Zhu, Y., Newell, R. G., & Prest, B. C. (2024). Global energy outlook 2024: Peaks or plateaus. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W. W. Norton and Company. New York and London: W.W. Norton; p. 368. http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Globalization-Paradox/

Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.

Tooze, A. (2021). Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy. New York: Viking, 368 p. ISBN 978-0593297551.