Abstract
Climate change presents not only a global environmental threat but also a profound challenge to democratic legitimacy and justice. This thesis explores how deliberative democratic innovations— specifically citizens’ assemblies (CAs)— can shape more just and effective national climate policies. Using a comparative case study of the French Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat (C3) (2019-2021) and the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss (CABL) (2022-2023), the research investigates how assembly recommendations are integrated (or not) into national law and policy. The study employs qualitative methods, including document analysis and semi-structured interviews with civil servants and experts, to assess the institutional pathways, political will, and implementation dynamics following both assemblies. Findings reveal that while Ireland’s CABL benefited from formal political support and clearer institutional procedures, it still faced limitations in substantive uptake. France’s C3, by contrast, was marked by executive dominance and selective implementation despite high visibility. The research highlights how assemblies can enhance participatory legitimacy but require robust institutional mechanisms to ensure long-term impact. This study contributes to ongoing discussions on democratic innovation and participatory climate governance in high-income democracies.
