Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article describes the global problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The topic is extremely important from the point of view of the climate change and – unfortunately – mainly causes political storms. The link with international politics is clear, as is the fact that the authors’ critical comments are primarily formulated from the point of view of poor countries. Among other things, they point out that, in terms of GHG emissions per capita, India and China emit fewer pollutants than developed countries. However, this approach is wrong when looking at the global scale, as the overall contribution to total emissions is significant in these countries.

The paper is less scientific in nature and more of an analysis of the failures of international policy and of the world’s largest GHG emitting companies. The objective is not clearly stated and there is no summary chapter, the article ends with a Discussion chapter.

Despite the missing chapters, the article is too long. If the authors do not want to shorten their analysis, it would be better to publish the material in two articles. The first could be a presentation of global responsibility – at the level of states and biggest companies – while the second article could be devoted to options and proposals for solutions.

Formally, there are some parts of the article that could be improved:

In several places, the references appear in a different font/letter size and format.

In line 824, the spelling ”climate-poilcy” should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is it okay to talk about Imperial-Subimperial in the title? I think it's too long and confuses the reader.

This section should summarize a lot in a 5-page introduction; it's not clear when discussing what the authors actually said in more than 5 lines.

The methodology section says almost nothing; it should be expanded and clearly detailed as to how the intended topic is developed.

Figure 1 should be developed by the author, not pasted, and so on with the rest of the images and tables.

The Climate Change Performance Index is mentioned, but there is little discussion or detail, which is noticeable as only images are pasted without editorial support.

Footnotes should be a maximum of 3 lines and not a short story at the end of the page.

There is no mention of strengthening multilateral cooperation within the G20 by creating specific climate working groups that include both imperial and subimperial powers to promote joint initiatives and exchange good practices.

There is no broad-based discussion of prioritizing the establishment of transparent and equitable climate finance mechanisms to address the needs of vulnerable countries and ensure a fair distribution of resources for mitigation and adaptation.

Nor do the tables identify the need to promote inclusive decision-making by institutionalizing regular consultations with non-G20 states and non-state actors, ensuring that global climate policy is based on diverse perspectives.

There are no clear conclusions, nor are there any such sections.

There are no future research projects to be conducted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article objective and alignment with the Journal

The stated aim of the article (L203-206) is to analyse a range of primary and secondary data sources to test a hypothesis ‘that the West and BRICS are tightly aligned on climate policy’. L218-219 then states that ‘The Discussion section addresses both theoretical and political implications.’

Personally, I found the article interesting in that it does bring together a range of hard and soft data under five climate policy themes to support a view that BRIC countries are often more aligned with the G7 countries than might normally be assumed. It also adds the provocation that BRIC elites may be more concerned with how to position themselves in a neoliberal financial world order and ‘sub-imperial’ behaviour, than whether the outcomes are good for their citizens. The article concludes that the most promising response to all this would be coalitions of ‘from-below’ action.

Whether you agree with this interpretation or not, these are important and topical issues for anyone who cares about sustainable development and more equitable environmental and social outcomes. The topic is therefore very aligned with the Journal’s scope.

Consistent with the Journal’s own guidance, to be published in an academic journal such as Social Science the article also needs to demonstrate that it

1. presents substantial new data and relevant information;
2. relates this to the most recent and relevant literature in the field;
3. evidences originality in the findings.

Summary of Review findings

The Review suggests some significant enhancements to address the stated objective and the above three expectations. Because of the great significance of the topic and the fact that the author(s) have clearly invested significantly in bringing the article to its current stage, I have gone into some detail as to how it could be taken forward to more fully meet the stated objective, and my understanding of Journal expectations. It would then significantly contribute to literature, policy and practice, and the need to address this important objective through a very valuable lens.

The detailed review that follows considers each of the above three expectations in turn.

1. Data and Information

1.1 In respect of the data and information used in the draft article the Materials and Methods section needs more detail. This section is the main opportunity to provide the necessary confidence in how the data/information is collected, selected and used, and that it meets the usual research expectations (for example being legitimate/ authoritative; credible/ reliable/ complete; and unbiased). It appears that the majority of the data used is secondary data collected and reported initially by others, so what selection principles were used to ensure it meets the above criteria? The section should also be more explicit as to which data types are based on the author(s) own observations/ collection processes (ie the ‘primary’ data referred to in the text) and how those processes were carried out to meet the above criteria.

1.2 In the Results section it is important to include in the caption for each Figure/Table explicit documentation of the data/information sources used, especially as this is not always clear from the text.

1.3 Some of the Results section could be significantly reduced in length and/or appendicised (e.g. the extensive evidence that G7 and BRICS countries are the cause of much of the GHG issue, both to date and projected, is not surprising given the size of their economies and populations, but takes about 120 lines and much data. The key points need to be made but the main text and evidence should be on the new or less known data).

1.4 I also noticed some data where the textual analysis is not quite consistent with the tabulated data (e.g. Figure 1 country ranking slightly different for Iran, Saudi Arabia etc between Figure 1 and corresponding text? (Though in this case the differences are probably not material to the conclusions drawn).

2. Engaging with the relevant literature and theories

2.1 The Methods and Discussions sections are an opportunity to engage with the relevant literature and (importantly for an academic journal) especially the peer-reviewed literature and any relevant theories or frameworks. However, the draft article’s references currently include only a handful of peer-reviewed articles - around 4 or 5 altogether I think, and even fewer engaged with theory(s) relevant to G7 and BRICS international and domestic behaviours over time. If necessary, space for such engagement could be made by tightening the Introduction section (which seems to anticipate some of the later analysis) and the Results section (see 1.3 above). (I should add that I an all for using non-peer reviewed literature as well in a topic like this, but not to the exclusion of key peer-reviewed literature).

2.2 The Methods section should explicitly identify (and also justify against any obvious alternatives) the author’s reading of any relevant theories and/or frameworks that are to be used to interpret the data in the Results section. For example, reading the Introduction and Results sections it becomes clear that this Article is drawing on a Marxian/Marini interpretation (including that sub-imperialism is manifest through international financial and corporate capitalist interests, rather than just geo-political imperialism; and that this has been accompanied by the super-exploitation of domestic labour).

2.3 If the Methods section is explicit about this framing and provides good research and practice reasons to follow this line, the article is then properly positioned to use the Results to confirm, finetune/extend, overhaul or reject the Marxian/Marini theories in the Discussion section. There is an example of such thinking at L831-838, but this approach needs to be explicit and mainstreamed as part of the research logic of the article, so as to justify the important claim to cover ‘both theoretical and political implications.’

2.4 To address 2.1 to 2.3 the article should draw on what is likely be considerable additional and relevant peer reviewed literature in the 50 plus years since Marini’s seminal contribution, reflecting how both theory and evidence have evolved since 1972.  In reading around for this review I came across an article “Linda Chisholm & Adelino Chissale (2025) BRICS, sub-imperialism and education in Mozambique, Comparative Education, 61:2, 225-243, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2024.2372209”. I am not putting it forward as the perfect balanced article, and it is in a quite different policy field (education) and 3^rd country (Mozambique)/BRICS context. However, it does provide, in a similar theoretical field, one example of relevant literature discussion. There are certain to be other peer reviewed articles that should be drawn on addressing various policy areas from an imperialist/sub-imperialist standpoint, like the education example above..

2.5 The article should also draw on any peer-reviewed literature addressing how G20/G7/BRICS countries have evolved their international and domestic climate policies. In this respect there have also been some major changes in the international climate policy environment and drivers in the last 40-50 years. The article should express to what extent any such changes are seen to affect the central thesis of the article (or not) from both a theory and policy viewpoint. Two examples of such change drivers (there may well be others):

1. With the recent notable USA exception, it seems many G20 countries have moved on significantly to recognise the existential nature of the environmental crises, at least compared with say 15 years ago and especially 40-50 years ago. Yes, progress is glacial and there is much back-sliding, but the public and policy mood seems to have gradually been shifting towards recognising environmental values. Is such a gradual values shift potentially triggering a more Constructivist view of international relations to complement Marxian theories?
2. At the same time there seems to be a continuing shift towards a multipolar and maybe more fragmented and fractious world order. This is being driven by various G20 countries and might well be impacting all international policy areas including climate change. It could even undo trend (a) above. Might it require more of a Realist interpretation to complement a Marxian view?

Behind both these trends is the importance that such an article (as opposed to say straight advocacy) address the major observed changes over time, and whether the author(s) believe such changes in any way modify or qualify (or not) the diagnosis and the conclusions.

3. Originality

In the Discussion section it is important for the article to lay claim to the specific original/unique contribution of the article. Discussion of the recent literature (see 2 above) can support this. Originality in this case may be in the theoretical or policy/practice findings or (desirably) both.

Author Response

Please see the attachment below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the new version, the Materials and Methods section now describes Marini's theoretical framework, the concept of sub imperialism, and the analytical steps, including primary and secondary sources. However, it still lacks sufficient detail for replication and remains largely conceptual.

There isn’t a clear justification for why this theoretical framework is appropriate for examining climate policy dynamics within the G7-BRICS context would provide stronger academic grounding.

The Methodology is still limited. Despite some expansion, it still lacks clear details of the steps, criteria, and analytical tools, which limits transparency and reproducibility.

The manuscript has improved its organization but still needs substantial revisions in content and analytical depth to meet publication standards. There is no methodological detail, no critical analysis of indices and graphs, no incorporation of missing key themes (cooperation, equitable funding, inclusion), much less a projection of future lines of research.

The manuscript requires structural and clarity improvements. The introduction should conclude with a clear paragraph that explicitly defines the main research question, objectives, and the original contribution of the study. Additionally, some transitions between sections are abrupt, particularly between the political discussion and the sections addressing climate finance. Adding linking sentences will improve coherence and flow. The abstract should also be restructured to provide a balanced overview of context, methodology, key findings, and conclusions in no more than 250 words.

In terms of academic rigor and style, the manuscript should update its references, especially by incorporating recent data and literature from COP29 and the 2024 G20 summit. The language should be made more neutral by avoiding politically charged expressions such as “dubious” or “hide behind the poor,” replacing them with objective, analytical terminology.

Citation formatting must also be standardized, and redundancies reduced by defining key concepts, such as climate debt or CBDR once and referring to them consistently throughout the text.

Author Response

In the new version, the Materials and Methods section now describes Marini's theoretical framework, the concept of sub imperialism, and the analytical steps, including primary and secondary sources. However, it still lacks sufficient detail for replication and remains largely conceptual.

Author: The point of this particular method isn’t replication. However, the following sentence is now in the methodological section to indicate potential future analysis along these lines:

“While the choice of climate policy is of utmost importance to current and future generations, this study’s approach to imperial-subimperial fusions and frictions is replicable within other sectors of apparent contestation between the Global North and Global South. These include diverse features such as financial regulation through the Bretton Woods Institutions; the potential for a US Dollar alternative or replacement; international trade management (especially intellectual property regimes); and global value chains that benefit G7 headquarters and BRICS middle men.”

The analytical steps are the five parts of the article (in Part 3) in which the argument is constructed; those steps are summarized in the Methods section. The conceptual part of this study does indeed belong in the methods section, with the concrete analysis coming in the Findings section.

There isn’t a clear justification for why this theoretical framework is appropriate for examining climate policy dynamics within the G7-BRICS context would provide stronger academic grounding.

Author: The justification is explained as follows in the introductory section:

“Prevailing conventional wisdom is that a ‘Global South’ is distinctly different than the ‘Global North,’ and that two distinct blocs have emerged in conflict, especially in relation to the ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’ (CBDR) associated with combatting climate change. This principle is often invoked so as to criticize Western emitters which – especially in the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada (collectively known as the G7) and others like Australia and Korea – are collectively responsible for the majority of historic emissions. Such liabilities are even more obvious when corrections are made: per capita measurement; accounting for colonial emissions (as British, European and Soviet responsibilities); and integrating ‘outsourced’ emissions, i.e., when production is done in one place where emissions result, but consumption is enjoyed elsewhere. In these respects, the CBDR became a profound tool of Southern negotiatiors and advocates of Global South interests (Prashad 2021).  But the Global South is bifurcated, because a few middle-income countries stand out for their very high contributions to climate catastrophe, even after correcting emissions for history, population and outsourcing.”

The Methodology is still limited. Despite some expansion, it still lacks clear details of the steps, criteria, and analytical tools, which limits transparency and reproducibility.

Author: There is a detailing of the steps taken to make the argument clear.

“First, the pages below provide documentation of both the G20 regimes’ failure to cut emissions sufficiently and leave fossil fuels underground, and relatedly, their failure to acknowledge climate debt to pay for extreme weather disasters, as well as their responsibility to adequately fund resilience and adaptation expenses of victims of extreme weather events. Second, we review several controversies associated with the pricing of greenhouse gas – especially carbon dioxide (CO2) – emissions, including leading Western and BRICS economies’ attempts to ‘privatize the air’ through carbon trading and offset strategies. Third, as noted, friction has arisen in trade between the West (especially Europe and Britain) and the BRICS, in the form of inclement border tariffs to account for embedded greenhouse gases carbon-taxed far below EU and UK rates. Fourth, the roles of Western and BRICS ruling classes within the G20 network that emerged as the main multipolar vehicle in 2008 – especially as hosts of the largest corporate and parastatal fossil-fuel firms – also implicate their leadership in what we will describe as an imperial-subimperial fusion. Fifth, the same is true for G20 members’ appearances in international climate-related court proceedings such as the International Court of Justice’s considerations of climate liability, culminating in a July 2025 advisory opinion that breaks new grounds for reparations advocates. G20 climate policy documents confirm these problems.”

The analytical tools are also discussed in the Methods section:

“The analysis below utilizes a textual close reading and official documentation, as well as drawing upon primary data (including widely-accepted statistics and news reports) and secondary analysis, so as to consider five areas where a working hypothesis can be tested: that the West and BRICS are in all major ways tightly aligned on climate policy (with the exception of European and British border tariffs), to the detriment of their most vulnerable citizens and of the world at large… This paper’s methodology assesses not only discourses, but also structural relations and self-interests, and delves into particular policy, program and project sites where the G20, G7 and BRICS are finding obvious fusions.”

The manuscript has improved its organization but still needs substantial revisions in content and analytical depth to meet publication standards. There is no methodological detail, no critical analysis of indices and graphs, no incorporation of missing key themes (cooperation, equitable funding, inclusion), much less a projection of future lines of research.

Author: The methodological detail required for a close textual reading with indicative statistics is now present. The indices are summarized (and now more comprehensively referenced) in the text, but the accompanying graphs – which took up disproportionate amounts of space in the first draft (in an article well over 12 000 words) – were subsequently omitted in the second and in this. The summaries of the information are true to indices and these original graphs, and the latter are cited and can easily be accessed if there is any doubt. The topics of North-South cooperation (JETP) and ‘equitable funding’ are included in the subsection on ‘climate finance.’ This version now does have a paragraph in the conclusion on ‘future lines of research’:

The manuscript requires structural and clarity improvements. The introduction should conclude with a clear paragraph that explicitly defines the main research question, objectives, and the original contribution of the study.

Author: This paragraph is now at the end of the Intro section:

“One reason is that, as the study’s main research hypothesis suggests, the G20 economies have largely harmonious objectives within global climate policy, when it comes to, first, avoiding emissions cuts; second, rejecting liability for climate-related damage; and third, promoting market strategies through emissions trading and carbon offsets. The purposes of the article, then, are to question Global North and Global South categories, by identifying the most relevant aspects of climate policy where instead of representing the interests of the world majority, the BRICS states and corporations become more self-consciously allied with the G7 historic emitters, in pursuing their objectives – and then exploring international litigation as a site where recourse might be sought.”

Additionally, some transitions between sections are abrupt, particularly between the political discussion and the sections addressing climate finance.

Author: This is the linkage (transition) sentence, which I think suffices:

“The West and BRICS regimes not only avoid making sufficient emissions reductions, but with the exception of the U.S. after January 2025 (when climate denialism became policy), they have also been broadly unified when it comes to climate-related financing, promoting a neo-liberal agenda associated with markets and interest-bearing debt, instead of reparations grants.”

Adding linking sentences will improve coherence and flow. The abstract should also be restructured to provide a balanced overview of context, methodology, key findings, and conclusions in no more than 250 words.

Author: The abstract (which was 205 words) now has an additional 40 words at the end to clarify interests:

“Global climate policy requires constant attention due to shifting interests and alliances between national negotiators. Whether represented at global or national scales, three universal features of fused climate policy conjoin the wealthy and emerging G20 economies that are historically responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions. The former are represented by G7 Western powers – the United States, Europe, United Kingdom, Japan and Canada – and the latter are centered on the fast-expanding ‘BRICS’ bloc: Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (2010-23), new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates and potentially also Saudi Arabia (a member invitee), along with ten new ‘partners’ designated in 2024, many of which have carbon-intensive economies. Although conflicts regularly arise – especially over emissions-related trade policy and climate financing – the consensual principles uniting these diverse Western and BRICS governments at multilateral climate summits include: 1) not cutting corporate, state and household emissions to the extent necessary for avoiding unmanageable planetary disasters, in the process denying effective ways of leaving fossil fuels underground (by reimbursing poor countries); 2) not pricing carbon properly or acknowledging their economies’ ‘climate debt’; and 3) instead promoting dubious carbon trading and offset mechanisms. The implications are important for alliance-formation involving climate-victimized, low-income countries and climate justice activists, alike. In sum, there is an increasingly urgent rationale to transcend ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ dichotomies and instead consider climate (like many other aspects of G7-BRICS relations) with a perspective open to critique of the imperial-subimperial fusions, not only oft-assumed frictions.”

In terms of academic rigor and style, the manuscript should update its references, especially by incorporating recent data and literature from COP29 and the 2024 G20 summit.

Author: The data are the most up-to-date available. The COP29 summit is discussed with 512 words. The 2024 G20 summit is discussed with 524 words.

The language should be made more neutral by avoiding politically charged expressions such as “dubious” or “hide behind the poor,” replacing them with objective, analytical terminology.

Author: The word dubious has been removed from the abstract (even though the references to carbon market fraud are current and powerful). The term ‘hide behind the poor’ comes from the most respected Indian organic intellectual involved in 2000s climate debates (Praful Bidwai).

Citation formatting must also be standardized, and redundancies reduced by defining key concepts, such as climate debt or CBDR once and referring to them consistently throughout the text.

Author: The broader question of ecological ‘reparations’ and polluter-pays are important phrases that cannot be avoided; climate debt is a subset. (Same for CBDR, given its abuse dating to the Kyoto Protocol annexures.)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments

I would like to thank the author for seriously considering and responding to the Review. The revised article has fully addressed my Review Comments (1.3-1.4, and 2.1-2.2) and partially met the other Review Comments (1.1-1.2, 2.3-2.5 and 3).

The remaining aspects of 1.1-1.2 are about clarifying the sources of data and information used.

The remaining aspects of 2.3-2.5 and 3 can be addressed by inserting a clearer statement of the theoretical/conceptual value of the article in the Discussion section which will also support its claim to originality; and I make a suggestion to that end.

I hope the authors can address the outstanding issues along the following lines:

Review Comment 1.1 Principles of data/ information source selection (Methods Section)

This Comment was about clarifying the basis for selecting and sourcing data and information (not only its presentation as suggested in the author response).

 

The most relevant sentences in the revised Section 2 Methods are at L127-131 “The analysis below utilizes a textual close reading and official documentation, as well as critical primary data (including news reports) and secondary analysis, so as to consider five areas where a working hypothesis can be tested: …” and at L148-151 “This paper’s methodology assesses not only discourses, but also structural relations and self-interests, and delves into particular policy, program and project sites where the G20, G7 and BRICS are finding obvious fusions”

 

This text is ok, however more is needed in this Section to assist anyone wishing to understand and reproduce how and why the specific types of materials have been selected to test the hypotheses. This really requires a brief statement addressing this for each hypothesis as they are quite distinctive in this respect.

 

Review Comment 1.2 Citing specific data/information sources (Results Section)

There are still many paragraphs in the Results Section with the specific data/information sources used (quantitative or qualitative) not cited. Each paragraph of the Results Section should be checked to add necessary citations/references.                                                                            

 

Review Comment 2.3 and aspects of 2.4, 2.5 and 3: Addressing theoretical findings and originality (Discussion Section)

The author response to Review Comment 2.3 says “With more theory in the methodology section, this is accomplished.”

However, the point of this Comment is that identifying in the Methods Section the theoretical lens to be used (which is now done), sets it up to then be applied in analysing the Results Section (which it is) and evaluated in the Discussion Section.  The current extent of this evaluation in the Discussion is at L776-782 which does not go far enough to fully address Comment 2.3 or the subsequent Comments 2.4, 2.5 and 3.

What is needed in addition here is a more explicit statement along the lines that (this is just a suggestion based on my reading of the article - it is of course for the authors to use their own evaluation and words):

• the article confirms Marini’s theory in respect of …(subimperialism and antagonistic cooperation, based on national elites self-interest?) (to address Review Comment 2.3)
• the article also extends this theory in respect of …. (subimperialism now exercised through international neoliberal institutions such as WB, IMF, WTO etc rather than geopolitical coercion?) (see Review Comment 2.3)
• the articles findings add to the Bond (2012) Politics of Climate Justice in the following evidentiary, theoretical and policy respects………….? - this being the only other study known to the authors linking subimperialism with climate policy (to address Review Comment 2.4)
• on the question of whether any of the other possible drivers of climate policy over the years (eg changes in environmental values; or in means of exercising power; or in technology) might also benefit from some non-Marxist theories of international relations (eg constructivism; realism; liberalism) the authors believe that…. (this is the case OR not the case OR is worth investigating OR have no view OR…?) (see Review Comment 2.5)

These points are also fundamental to establishing the originality of the article (Review Comment 3). The first three points are hopefully self-evident. 

I will try to clarify the fourth point (see original Review Comment 2.5 and author responses).

There are understandable views that the world is making multiple complex and interconnected transitions, including in the possible drivers of climate change policy. Given the Marxist interpretation is a central theme of the article and itself involves a theory of change, the article should at least acknowledge in the Discussion Section any possible alternative and/or complementary non-Marxist theories (as per the Comment) that could be considered to be driving climate policies; and then clarify whether or not (and why) the article’s evidence suggests they have (or not) any relevance. The Review Comment provided two examples (Comment 2.5a and 2.5b) of possible complementary drivers just to explain why this is important, and certainly not to restrict the author in how this is addressed.

At the very least the author(s) should state if they have considered the possible complementary role of non-Marxist interpretations of any aspects of climate policy and their underlying drivers over time; and if they have, whether (or not) they conclude they may have any interpretive value. 

At the moment the author responds to the example 2.5a) with additional information on the observed climate policy symptoms, which does not therefore address the theoretical interpretation of those symptoms that the Comment was raising; and to the example 2.5b) with a claim that the realist view of current international power-plays and competition pursuing national self-interest, is “rhetorical” rather than real (which I guess means they believe no additional interpretation is necessary in this respect?)

The author response then says that the modified Conclusion Section now “puts these views more forthrightly.”  However, I don’t see them there or (perhaps more appropriately as suggested above) in the Discussion Section.

For the record, and if not already obvious, I do find single theory interpretations of such complex socio-political issues often don’t match their complexity. However, what I think about that is ultimately irrelevant here. I merely want the author’s reporting of their findings to meet the research Journal’s stated expectations and to help readers of whatever persuasion fully understand and appreciate those findings and the author’s interpretation.

As a final comment it would be good to ensure the Conclusion Section reflects any adjustments from the above, and especially a clear claim as to the originality and added value of the article.

Minor Comments

Key words: Suggest include ‘sub-imperialism’ especially now this is dropped from the title

L92: Suggest close the Introduction Section by inserting something like “In the above context the purpose of this article is to apply the concept of sub-imperialism to contemporary global climate politics, drawing on several streams of evidence that the G7 and BRICS are tightly aligned on climate policy and supported by neoliberal global institutions. Splitting the Global South, this alignment serves G20 over smaller powers, and their national elite and global corporate self-interests rather than the interests of their societies or the environment”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for responding to the second review comments in a positive way. I have provided an attachment with some detailed final comments mapped to the second review comments and the responses. In brief:

Second Review Comment 1.1 Principles of data/ information source selection (Methods Section)

I think the response inadvertently misinterpreted my use of the words “reproduce” and “replicate”, so this Comment still needs to be addressed. However, the additional text proposed by the authors on potential replication of the study’s approach to other areas of BRICS activity, should make a very useful addition to the Conclusion section (see below).

Second Review Comment 1.2 Citing specific data/information sources (Results Section)

The citations added are certainly important and helpful. I have not had time to confirm if all important sources in the Results Section are cited.

Second Review Comment 2.3 and aspects of 2.4, 2.5 and 3: Addressing theoretical findings and originality (Discussion and Conclusion Section)

The text added by the authors clarifies the authors positioning of the findings vis a vis various theories (the first, second and fourth of four issues raised in the Comment). I suggest the need to add a citation on world-systems theory, and a slight wording change on the fourth issue. I then fully agree with the authors that there is no further need to expand on the theory in this article.

However, the third issue (citing Bond 2012 on subimperialism and climate change and indicating how the current article relates and extends) still needs to be covered in an appropriate part of the Discussion and as part of demonstrating the current article’s originality.

Finally, I suggest how the authors views on the unique contribution of the article and potential further research topics (both now made much clearer) be brought into the beginning of the Conclusion.

Second Review Minor Comments:

I have only a minor change suggestion to the ‘article purpose’ paragraph the authors are adding to the end of the Introduction.

Overall assessment:

The changes proposed by the authors address many aspects but not quite all of the issues. Comments 1.1 and 1.2 are probably the most fundamental given the increased focus in recent years on the ability to replicate methodologies, methods and results. The other issues are mostly about demonstrating as clearly as possible the unique contribution of the article.

If the above issues (as elaborated in the uploaded attachment) are addressed I would suggest the article is ready to move to publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached for more clarity by virtue of the useful color-coding of different stages.

 

 

REVIEWER 3 Comments on authors response to second round comments 

[Note: I have left my second-round review comments in normal type for context. My final comments are in red bold italics below each authors response]

 

Second Round Review Comment 1.1 Principles of data/ information source selection (Methods Section)

This Comment was about clarifying the basis for selecting and sourcing data and information (not only its presentation as suggested in the author response).

The most relevant sentences in the revised Section 2 Methods are at L127-131 “The analysis below utilizes a textual close reading and official documentation, as well as critical primary data (including news reports) and secondary analysis, so as to consider five areas where a working hypothesis can be tested:

…” and at L148-151 “This paper’s methodology assesses not only discourses, but also structural relations

and self-interests, and delves into particular policy, program and project sites where the G20, G7 and

BRICS are finding obvious fusions”

This text is ok, however more is needed in this Section to assist anyone wishing to understand and reproduce how and why the specific types of materials have been selected to test the hypotheses. This really requires a brief statement addressing this for each hypothesis as they are quite distinctive in this respect.

Author: There is potential for reproduction or replication, in other sectors, with this sentence added to the methodology:

“While the choice of climate policy is of utmost importance to current and future generations, this study’s approach to imperial-subimperial fusions and frictions is replicable within other sectors of apparent contestation between the Global North and Global South. These include diverse features such as financial regulation through the Bretton Woods Institutions; the potential for a US Dollar alternative or replacement; international trade management (especially intellectual property regimes); and global value chains that benefit G7 headquarters and BRICS middle men.”

 

Reviewer 3: This interesting paragraph should be added to Section 5 Conclusion (see later comment). It does not however address this Comment which, as it says, is about "clarifying the basis for selecting and sourcing data and information" as a key part of the methodology. By "reproduction" and "replication" in my comment I meant in the sense that other researchers could follow the rationale/principles adopted by the authors for sourcing materials and then assess how well the actual sources used meet those rationales; and assess if they would agree with or challenge the rationales or sources and how they are used and interpreted by the author. This is important especially for an article that relies primarily on secondary sources.

 

The author did add some text at L141-2 “as well as drawing upon primary data (including widely-accepted statistics and news reports)” but on what basis are the statistics and news reports “widely accepted”? In contentious areas like this, sources often and inevitably reflect certain ideological or special interest views and origins – this is the opportunity to say how this was handled.

 

AUTHOR: Full agreement. There is new wording as follows:

 

All of these features provide opportunities for social scientists to develop primary data and establish conceptual approaches to assessing and measuring power relations. In many sites, the data require nuance, e.g. so as to avoid drawing upon inappropriate units of analysis (e.g. a national state) when more nuance is required. Hence a full range of comparative data need to be considered, so that ‘emissions’ are not considered out of context.

 

Second Round Review Comment 1.2 Citing specific data/information sources (Results Section)

There are still many paragraphs in the Results Section with the specific data/information sources used (quantitative or qualitative) not cited. Each paragraph of the Results Section should be checked to add necessary citations/references.

Author: These are now fully cited.

 

Reviewer 3: Some key data citations have been added which is good. I apologise that in the time available I will need to leave to the authors and editor the final assessment as to whether the citations now cover all the sources of data and information relied on by the authors in the quite lengthy Results section.

 

AUTHOR: The data are as updated as possible. There were several reports from reputable climate research agencies issued in November 2025 (during COP30) that are not yet integrated due to time, but as far as I have determined, they do not affect the broad argument.

 

Second Round Review Comment 2.3 and aspects of 2.4, 2.5 and 3: Addressing theoretical findings and originality (Discussion Section)

The author response to Review Comment 2.3 says “With more theory in the methodology section, this is

accomplished.”

However, the point of this Comment is that identifying in the Methods Section the theoretical lens to be used (which is now done), sets it up to then be applied in analysing the Results Section (which it is) and evaluated in the Discussion Section. The current extent of this evaluation in the Discussion is at L776- 782 which does not go far enough to fully address Comment 2.3 or the subsequent Comments 2.4, 2.5 and 3.

What is needed in addition here is a more explicit statement along the lines that (this is just a suggestion based on my reading of the article - it is of course for the authors to use their own evaluation and words):

• the article confirms Marini’s theory in respect of …(subimperialism and antagonistic cooperation, based on national elites self-interest?) (to address Review Comment 3)
• the article also extends this theory in respect of …. (subimperialism now exercised through international neoliberal institutions such as WB, IMF, WTO etc rather than geopolitical coercion?) (see Review Comment 2.3)
• the articles findings add to the Bond (2012) Politics of Climate Justice in the following evidentiary, theoretical and policy respects… ? - this being the only other study known to the authors linking subimperialism with climate policy (to address Review Comment 2.4)
• on the question of whether any of the other possible drivers of climate policy over the years (eg changes in environmental values; or in means of exercising power; or in technology) might also benefit from some non-Marxist theories of international relations (eg constructivism; realism; liberalism) the authors believe that…. (this is the case OR not the case OR is worth investigating OR have no view OR…?) (see Review Comment 2.5)

These points are also fundamental to establishing the originality of the article (Review Comment 3). The first three points are hopefully self-evident.

Author: excellent summary. Here is a restatement added to the text, albeit without elaboration of the final point:

“The overarching thesis of Marini (1972) – especially the ‘key nation’ function that subimperial states play within imperialism’s expansion – revolves around a broader critique of semi- peripheral elites and their capital accumulation strategies. Marini was not conscious of the extent of ecosystem crises during his most productive years (from 1965 through the early 1980s), and nor did he apply his approach to what at the time were somewhat ossified multilateral institutions. Only later were the broadly like-minded semi-peripheral rulers welcomed to the latter, e.g. to the G20 in 2008, to the Bretton Woods Institutions through greater roles in the 1990s and to the WTO and UNFCCC when the BRICS were more prominent since the early 2000s. Still, the findings above confirm that Marini’s category of subimperialism should therefore be explored, especially for future research agendas, when key nations in imperialism’s expansion are better able to expand their own major capitalists’ interests, through assimilation within neoliberal multilateral institutions as well as fast- expanding global value chains (at least through the 2010s). It is this World Systems framing that allows for the depth of critical analysis required, as opposed to most others in the discipline of International Relations which treat subimperial states and capitals as merely ‘middle powers.’”

 

Reviewer 3 The paragraph added here addresses the first two dot points in the comment making it much clearer that the author is suggesting the findings confirm an overarching world system framing, with Marini's 1972 subimperialism concept adding "semi-peripheral elites and their capital accumulation strategies" to Wallersteins 1970's onwards concept of the semi periphery in world-systems theory (WST). The most relevant work on WST should also be cited in this paragraph.

 

AUTHOR: I have cited the main analysis of Wallerstein on the semi-periphery, and also added a remark of his regarding semi-peripheral class structure:

For Immanuel Wallerstein (1976, 468), the semi-periphery often suffers an “inefficacious, stunted, irreducibly comprador bourgeoisie, incapable of identifying its interest with those of the nation and, having missed its historical calling.”

 

The authors should also address the third dot point as they said in response to my round 1 comments that Bond (2012) is the only previous ‘article in the literature that deals with the subimperial character of BRICS in relation to climate’. As such it should be cited and interpreted as to how it is relates (or not) to the current article – how the current article moves beyond or adds to the earlier should be part of this article, part of its claimed originality and contribution.

 

AUTHOR: The citation of Bond 2012 is now in the new parenthetical remark below.

 

The application of Marini’s ideas to climate policy is long overdue; there is only one study, by Steffen Böhm, Maria Misoczky and Sandra Moog (2012, 13) aimed at explaining how carbon market financing is “being leveraged by elites from these BRICS countries, to help underwrite these forms of subimperialist expansion.” (See also Bond 2012 for more early analysis in this spirit.)

 

The final sentence of the inserted paragraph is one way of addressing the fourth dot point. If I understand the authors position, and given their understandable reluctance to address the full complexity of alternative IR theories in this article (see below), my suggestion would be to slightly modify the sentence to something like ".           ,as opposed to the treatment of sub-imperial states and capitals as merely 'middle'

or 'rising' powers so prevalent in international relations analyses". In the original authors version, the ”discipline of [capital I R] International Relations” has too many subtle and relevant theories in play to take on directly in half a sentence; and adding “rising powers” allows that most would no longer see China (as the most obvious example) as a “middle power”. The sentence is however helpful in addressing the fourth dot point, and understandably does not go as far as I was suggesting below.

 

AUTHOR: The ‘middle’ and ‘rising’ power language is absolutely fine, and the other new(ish) book that tackles exactly that quandary within IR is Clinton Fernandes’ Sub-imperial Power, which is now cited below.

The overarching thesis of Marini (1972) – especially the ‘key nation’ function that subimperial states play within imperialism’s expansion – revolves around a broader critique of semi-peripheral elites and their capital accumulation strategies. Marini was not conscious of the extent of ecosystem crises during his most productive years (from 1965 through the early 1980s), and nor did he apply his approach to what at the time were somewhat ossified multilateral institutions. Only later were the broadly like-minded semi-peripheral rulers welcomed to the latter, e.g. to the G20 in 2008, to the Bretton Woods Institutions through greater roles in the 1990s and to the WTO and UNFCCC when the BRICS were more prominent since the early 2000s. Still, the findings above confirm that Marini’s category of subimperialism should therefore be explored, especially for future research agendas, when key nations in imperialism’s expansion are better able to expand their own major capitalists’ interests, through assimilation within neoliberal multilateral institutions as well as fast-expanding global value chains (at least through the 2010s). It is this World-Systems framing that allows for the depth of critical analysis required, as opposed to most others in the discipline of International Relations which treat subimperial states and capitals as merely ‘middle’ or ‘rising’ powers (also seen as inadequate by Fernandes 2022). The overarching thesis of Marini (1972) – especially the ‘key nation’ function that subimperial states play within imperialism’s expansion – revolves around a broader critique of semi-peripheral elites and their capital accumulation strategies. Marini was not conscious of the extent of ecosystem crises during his most productive years (from 1965 through the early 1980s), and nor did he apply his approach to what at the time were somewhat ossified multilateral institutions. Only later were the broadly like-minded semi-peripheral rulers welcomed to the latter, e.g. to the G20 in 2008, to the Bretton Woods Institutions through greater roles in the 1990s and to the WTO and UNFCCC when the BRICS were more prominent since the early 2000s. Still, the findings above confirm that Marini’s category of subimperialism should therefore be explored, especially for future research agendas, when key nations in imperialism’s expansion are better able to expand their own major capitalists’ interests, through assimilation within neoliberal multilateral institutions as well as fast-expanding global value chains (at least through the 2010s). It is this World-Systems framing that allows for the depth of critical analysis required, as opposed to most others in the discipline of International Relations which treat subimperial states and capitalists as merely ‘middle’ or ‘rising’ powers (which is also considered inadequate, compared to the subimperial location, by Fernandes 2022).

 

 

I will try to clarify the fourth point (see original Review Comment 2.5 and author responses).

There are understandable views that the world is making multiple complex and interconnected transitions, including in the possible drivers of climate change policy. Given the Marxist interpretation is a central theme of the article and itself involves a theory of change, the article should at least acknowledge in the Discussion Section any possible alternative and/or complementary non-Marxist theories (as per the Comment) that could be considered to be driving climate policies; and then clarify whether or not (and why) the article’s evidence suggests they have (or not) any relevance. The Review Comment provided two examples (Comment 2.5a and 2.5b) of possible complementary drivers just to

 

explain why this is important, and certainly not to restrict the author in how this is addressed.

At the very least the author(s) should state if they have considered the possible complementary role of non-Marxist interpretations of any aspects of climate policy and their underlying drivers over time; and if they have, whether (or not) they conclude they may have any interpretive value.

At the moment the author responds to the example 2.5a) with additional information on the observed climate policy symptoms, which does not therefore address the theoretical interpretation of those symptoms that the Comment was raising; and to the example 2.5b) with a claim that the realist view of current international power-plays and competition pursuing national self-interest, is “rhetorical” rather than real (which I guess means they believe no additional interpretation is necessary in this respect?)

Author: The paper is extremely lengthy as it stands, and would take thousands more words to properly provide comparative analysis of theoretical explanations. Since the World Systems approach is generally understood to have very different assumptions and explanatory features than conventional international relations, I have chosen not to use the text to rehearse why these are incopatiable approaches. A full theoretical treatment was not the purpose, and there is simply not the space given the large amount of empirical material discussed.

 

Reviewer 3: Agreed. I guess I was mostly wanting the authors to be clearer about their theoretical positioning to help the reader and I think this is now covered by the inserted paragraph (above), as well as the clearer statement of the article’s primary purpose and contribution (see under Minor Comments below).

The author response then says that the modified Conclusion Section now “puts these views more

forthrightly.” However, I don’t see them there or (perhaps more appropriately as suggested above) in

the Discussion Section.

For the record, and if not already obvious, I do find single theory interpretations of such complex socio- political issues often don’t match their complexity. However, what I think about that is ultimately irrelevant here. I merely want the author’s reporting of their findings to meet the research Journal’s stated expectations and to help readers of whatever persuasion fully understand and appreciate those findings and the author’s interpretation.

As a final comment it would be good to ensure the Conclusion Section reflects any adjustments from the above, and especially a clear claim as to the originality and added value of the article.

Author: The general contribution is to critique Global North and Global South binary perspectives – and in the process to offer analysis suggesting the damage done by the ‘subimperial’ alliance of large semi- peripheral countries’ rulers within the UNFCCC – which may lend itself to theoretical comparison. But the first step is to at least establish that the empirical information and analysis stands up on its own terms.

 

Reviewer 3. Ok, so suggest the article say exactly this as the first para of the Conclusion, as the

article’s central claimed contribution/ added value. It also helpfully points to the need and potential for future research in theoretical comparison, important for a research journal.

 

AUTHOR: This sentence from the paragraph above is now inserted as the second sentence of the conclusion: “The general contribution is to critique Global North and Global South binary perspectives – and in the process to offer analysis suggesting the damage done by the subimperial alliance of large semi-peripheral countries’ rulers within the UNFCCC.”

 

I suggest the second para of the Conclusion then be the additional paragraph proposed by the author

under the initial Comment 1.1 above, that starts “While the choice of climate policy is of utmost

 

importance…” and then raises the potential for investigation of possible ‘replication’ of the above findings in areas of international relations policy/practice other than climate change. I suggest this also be positioned as a potential for future research that might add robustness to the above contribution of this article.

 

AUTHOR: This has been done.

 

Second Round Minor Comments

Key words: Suggest include ‘sub-imperialism’ especially now this is dropped from the title

Author: done

 

 

L92 (now L 96): Suggest close the Introduction Section by inserting something like “In the above context the purpose of this article is to apply the concept of sub-imperialism to contemporary global climate politics, drawing on several streams of evidence that the G7 and BRICS are tightly aligned on climate policy and supported by neoliberal global institutions. Splitting the Global South, this alignment serves G20 over smaller powers, and their national elite and global corporate self-interests rather than the

interests of their societies or the environment”

Author: This paragraph is now added to end of Intro:

“One reason is that, as the study’s main research hypothesis suggests, the G20 economies have largely harmonious objectives within global climate policy, when it comes to, first, avoiding emissions cuts; second, rejecting liability for climate-related damage; and third, promoting market strategies through emissions trading and carbon offsets. The purposes of the article, then, are to question Global North and Global South categories, by identifying the most relevant aspects of climate policy where instead of representing the interests of the world majority, the BRICS states and corporations become more self-consciously allied with the G7 historic emitters, in pursuing their objectives – and then exploring international litigation as a site where recourse might be sought.”

 

Reviewer 3 This is ok, except in what sense are BRICS "exploring international litigation as a site where recourse might be sought.”? I thought the descriptions of the ICJ and other litigation case studies here indicated they were forced into the courts by what the author would call the ‘periphery’ and, when there, aligned themselves more with G7 and fossil fuel corporate responses to the litigation rather than the ‘peripheral’ litigants? Maybe needs clearer wording to express this?

AUTHOR: This is a helpful suggestion because the point, of course, is that ‘international litigation’ by the periphery and by G7 and BRICS is the point of that discussion, so the phrase is removed from the introduction, due to the confusion.

 

 

AUTHOR: Because of the long gestation of this article, I felt the need to provide November 2025 updates due to the COP30 and G20 summits, and new revelations. Therefore a few paragraphs were added, e.g.:

 

In 2025, the balance of forces was even more adverse in Belém, and again in Johannesburg where the G20 was held immediately afterwards. Summing up the climate-justice movement critique, Cape Town-based organizer Brian Ashley (2025, 16) remarked how “COP30 offered no mechanisms for enforcement, no firm deadlines, and no clear pathways to keep warming below 1.5°C. Nor did it include a fossil-fuel phase out; oil-producing nations blocked binding language, and the final deal focused on voluntary road-maps instead. What it did offer was an expanded space for corporate actors, carbon traders, and mining interests seeking to greenwash extractivist projects.” Just as in the 2017-20 period when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the UNFCCC, there was no formal objection, punishment or accountability system – such as carbon taxation (or even outright sanctions) of U.S. increasingly high-carbon exports (an idea endorsed by figures as diverse as Naomi Klein, Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Sarkozy) (Bond 2019). The G20 summit in Johannesburg was held immediately after the COP30 closed (Bond 2025b). Just as in the COP30, Trump called for a U.S. boycott of most G20 meetings including the final summit because – as he repeatedly claimed without evidence – that the government was engaged in ‘white genocide’ against Afrikaner farmers. The other G20 members who adopted the Leaders’ Declaration did mention climate change 28 times but claimed the COP30 had ‘successful outcomes’ while failing to acknowledge the UN summit’s inability to enforce sufficient emissions cuts, to keep fossil fuels underground or to acknowledge liability – usually termed ‘polluter pays’ – for climate debt. As shown below, these three positions are central to G20 member unity when it comes to climate politics.

More honest was Ebrahim Rasool, South Africa’s former ambassador to Washington, DC, who in the immediate wake of the G20 admitted that host Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa’s President since 2018) and his team “collapsed the ambitious agenda we had about revitalizing the Global South in this G20.” This was due entirely to Trump’s repeated threats, Rasool continued, meaning “South Africa had to say, ‘listen we’re not going to achieve this, what we want to achieve on climate, go to COP30… let’s stick to the financial economic agenda for this G20.’ So we gave into Trump’s idea that we’ve widened the G20 too much.” Rasool claimed that Ramaphosa had sought “a declaration that is comfortable for them as well” – yet nevertheless, Trump quickly announced that South Africa would be expelled from the December 2026 G20 that he is due to host in Miami (Bond 2025b).

And a few others.