The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in the International Regime of Climate Change

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Armin Rosencranz ◽  
Kanika Jamwal

This article argues that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s conception of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) was never effectively implemented through the Kyoto Protocol. The investments under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism suggest that CBDRRC has been used by developed countries to buy a “right to pollute”, i.e., maintaining or even increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, while investing in clean energy in developing nations, thus defeating the essence of CBDRRC as intended under the UNFCCC. Second, it points out that the Paris Agreement reflects a significant shift in the CBDRRC, both in terms of its textual understanding as well as its implementation. A qualifier, “in the light of national circumstances”, was added to the principle of CBDRRC in the Paris Agreement, allowing a form of voluntary self-differentiation. This qualifier diluted a top-down, objective analysis of States’ commitments. For several scholars, this shift has meant a softening of the principle, making the “differentiation” more dynamic and flexible. In the authors’ opinion, the qualifier is a fundamental modification of the principle to make it politically more palatable. It completely disregards the notion of historical responsibility for climate change, which was the cornerstone of CBDRRC as conceived under the UNFCCC. Therefore, rather than presenting a more flexible understanding of UNFCCC’s conception of CBDRRC, the Paris Agreement marks a total departure from it. Lacking an explicit redefinition of the principle of CBDRRC, it is misleading to contend that the Paris Agreement is still anchored in it.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Huggins ◽  
Md Saiful Karim

AbstractThe Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signifies a shift in how the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) manifests in the international climate change regime. Unlike the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement does not enshrine differentiated substantive mitigation obligations for developed and developing countries. However, an increasingly proceduralized variant of the CBDR principle, which facilitates regard for the interests of developing countries with respect to treaty implementation yet does not guarantee favourable substantive outcomes for these states, is evident in the emerging regime. The experience of the International Maritime Organization’s climate change regime provides a cautionary tale with respect to procedurally oriented differentiation that is not reinforced by effective processes to ensure that developed states honour their finance and technology transfer commitments. Accordingly, this article posits that strong accountability mechanisms are required to transform opportunities for procedural differentiation in the Paris Agreement into a robust framework for procedural regard for the interests of developing states.


Author(s):  
Christopher Kurt Kiessling

El principio de las responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas, ha sido una norma constitutiva de la política climática global. Su interpretación tradicional sostiene que diferentes niveles de protección ambiental deben esperarse entre los países desarrollados y los países emergentes y/o en vías de desarrollo. Sin embargo, dicho sentido comenzó a ser cuestionado y contestado por actores de la sociedad civil, tanto a escala global como en contextos domésticos particulares. En este artículo se describe el proceso de localización del principio de las responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas, en el discurso doméstico brasilero de la sociedad civil organizada sobre cambio climático entre los años 2005 y 2015, desde una perspectiva constructivista de las Relaciones Internacionales. Para alcanzar este objetivo, se plantean las diversas interpretaciones y reinterpretaciones del principio por parte de actores no estatales en Brasil.   Abstract The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities has been a constitutive norm since the origins of the global climate policy. The traditional interpretation of this norm maintains that different levels of environmental protection should be expected between developed countries and emerging and/or developing countries. However, this interpretation began to be questioned and challenged by civil society actors, both globally and in particular domestic contexts. This article describes the process of localization of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the Brazilian domestic discourse of organized civil society on climate change between the years 2005 and 2015, from a constructivist perspective of International Relations. To achieve this objective, the different interpretations and reinterpretations of the principle by non-state actors in Brazil are presented.


Climate Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-111
Author(s):  
Tomáš Bruner

Abstract The UN Security Council has turned its attention to the link between climate change and security several times. Its members and other UN member states participating in discussions have remained divided over the Council’s engagement. Among vocal opponents are the bric countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. This article examines the argumentation of these countries during seven UN Security Council meetings between 2007 and 2020. The bric countries often concede that climate change is a threat, but they strongly resist the idea that such a threat could be addressed by the Council. I use a Critical Legal Studies approach to analyse how the bric countries bolstered their key argumentation before the Council. I find that the bric countries exploited a ‘background rule’ concerning the unsc mandate and used it to reaffirm the limits on the Council’s action. They were thus able to avoid self-contradiction and strengthen their political position through a legal argument. This complemented other objections they raised against the Council’s involvement: its insufficient expertise, inefficient tools, and the inapplicability of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to its decision-making.


Author(s):  
Andrew Light

This chapter explores the ethical dimensions of diplomatic efforts to form a global agreement on climate change. It offers a brief historical background on the core multilateral climate negotiation body, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and highlights some contentious moral elements of these negotiations. In particular, it explores the complex ways in which the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) has driven debates on how burdens for mitigation, adaptation, and finance should be distributed between developed and developing countries. It then considers the transformation in these climate negotiations since 2009, including the move toward a bottom-up architecture as part from the Copenhagen Accord to the Paris Agreement. Finally, it assesses the current state of climate diplomacy in relation to broader diplomatic priorities, arguing that climate diplomacy must be elevated alongside other top-tier foreign policy issues today in order to eventually achieve some level of climate stability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document