שטוטאקוי, אתר מאמרים אישי

Bodansky D (2016) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A New Hope? Law J Int 110:288-319. doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.110.2.0288 A dichotomized interpretation of CBDR-RC has led to international agreement on the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised countries (Annex I) committed to absolute emission reduction or limit targets, while all other countries (excluding Appendix I) did not have such commitments. However, this rigid distinction does not reflect the dynamic diversification between developing countries since 1992, as evidenced by the diversity of contributions to global emissions and economic growth models (Deleuil, 2012). Dubash, 2009). This led Depledge and Yamin (2009, 443) to refer to UnFCCC Schedule I/non-Annex I as the dichotomy and “greatest weakness of the regime.” Compared to the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and even the Copenhagen agreement, the subtle differentiation of the 2015 Paris Agreement is much more pronounced (see Table 2 in the additional online material). There are 19 cases of subtle differentiation from country by-products, some substantive issues or procedures (see Table 1). This is most clearly apparent from funding and capacity building, but also from mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer (both in the preamble and in Article 13, but not in Article 10 on technology transfer) and the transparency framework. In this sense, the subtle differentiation covers the main objectives of the Paris Agreement in accordance with Article 2 (reduction, adaptation and funding), even if this provision does not lack subtle differentiation. Article 8 on losses and damages does not make the state of differentiation, as it does not include any obligation for parties other than “improving understanding” (UNFCCC, 2015, Section 8.3).

Rajamani L (2015) Negotiating the 2015 climate agreement: questions of legal form and nature. Research paper 28. To ensure effective and safe participation, a comprehensive agreement on climate change must be seen as fair by the countries concerned. The Paris Agreement has moved closer to differentiating countries` responsibilities in the fight against climate change by removing the rigid distinction between developed and developing countries, by providing for “subtle differentiation” of certain subgroups of countries (e.B LDCs) on substantive issues (e.g. B climate change financing) and/or for specific procedures (for example. B calendars and reports). In this article, we analyze whether countries of self-differentiation are compatible with the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement in formulating their own climate plans or national contributions (NDC). We find that there is a consistency for mitigation and adaptation, but not for support (climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building). Given that NPNs are the main instrument for achieving the long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement, this inconsistency needs to be addressed so that the next final stages are more ambitious.