The Establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as the Basis of the International Climate Legal Regime (1985–1992)

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Toward a Super-COP? Timing, Temporality, and Rethinking World Climate Governance

Editorial: Governing the EU's climate and energy transition through the 2030 Framework

Context The MRV of territorial/jurisdictional emissions, especially in the frame of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, is the longest-lasting implementation of monitoring, reporting and verifying of GHG emissions. The concept of MRV was developed progressively in the frame of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol through negotiation and scientific inputs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UNFCCC created an actual dynamic in this field, bringing together scientists, politicians, technicians and economists to build international consensus on how to track GHG emissions and their trends, in order to demonstrate compliance with emissions reduction targets. This MRV process has been applied for several years on a national scale the related experience and feedback are also useful for application to other scales. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the “Rio Earth Summit” in 1992. Initially signed by 154 nations, it has 195 parties to date (end of 2014). The ultimate objective of this Convention is “to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article 2 of the Convention). The scope of this Convention was to monitor all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. The countries which signed the Convention (so-called Parties) meet annually to assess progress in combating climate change and possible changes in the framework of the Convention. This is called the Conferences of the Parties (COP). Thus, common rules on MRV, among other topics, have been decided at the COPs. In particular, the 9th COP in 2003 decided that Parties have to use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines as a reference of good practice for the national GHG emissions inventories. The Convention divides countries into two sets of Parties. Annex I Parties are the industrialized countries which were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1992 as well as countries with Economies In Transition (EITs), i.e., the former communist bloc.

478Environment — Treaties — Interpretation — Climate change — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 — Annex I — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — Greenhouse gases — Emissions reduction targets — Whether Netherlands obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario — Treaty interpretationHuman rights — Treaties — Interpretation — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Right to life — Article 8 — Right to private and family life — Climate change — Greenhouse gases — Emissions reduction targets — Whether Netherlands having positive obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — Principle of effective interpretation of treaties — Right to effective protectionState responsibility — Partial responsibility — Climate change — Human rights — Global problem — Treaties — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 — Paris Agreement, 2015 — Whether Netherlands partially responsible for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions — Individual responsibilityRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 — Decisions of Conference of the Parties — Whether having effect in interpretation and application of domestic law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right to life — Right to private and family life — The law of the Netherlands

Risking the earth Part 2: Power politics and structural reform of the IPCC and UNFCCC

Climate negotiations: time to implement planetary health promises

Scientists welcome new global climate change pact

This chapter looks at how the emergence of new powerhouses challenges global cooperation to combat climate change. That cooperation has mainly taken place within an institutional framework that scholars call the “global climate regime,” which is designed “to mitigate human-induced climate change by limiting anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs] such as carbon dioxide and methane and protecting associated sinks” (Downie, 2011: 74). Its main components include, but are not limited to, the principles, norms, rules and procedures of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of the UNFCCC’s annual Conference of the Parties (COP) and of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (Downie, 2011). Similar to many fields of environmental politics, the global climate regime is characterized by a lack of environmental effectiveness, which is partly due to a discrepancy between the regime’s institutional design and real-life developments. While the UNFCCC targets the “stabilization” of GHG concentrations (UNFCCC, 1992: §2), emissions have risen by 49% between 1990 and 2012 (PBL, 2012). That discrepancy was embedded in the regime from the start, but it worsens at a growing pace and calls for an increasing sense of urgency. Furthermore, the evolution is to a significant extent linked to the emergence of new economic and political powerhouses.

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its associated protocols like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, represents the preeminent global forum for addressing the existential threat of climate change. As a rapidly developing nation with a monumental population and significant energy demands, India occupies a significant position within these negotiations. This paper examines India's multifaceted engagement with the COP process, analysing its evolving policy stances, contributions, challenges, and the inherent tensions between its developmental aspirations and its commitment to international environmental protection. It is described India's historical participation, its key negotiating positions on issues such as emissions reduction, climate finance, technology transfer, and adaptation, and its domestic policy responses that underpin its international commitments. It also scrutinizes the complexities of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) in the context of India's unique circumstances, alongside the pressures exerted by developed nations and the opportunities presented by renewable energy transitions. By exploring these dynamics, this research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of India's crucial role in shaping the trajectory of global climate action.

This chapter examines how international legal institutions foster cooperation in the presence of scientific uncertainty, especially in the area of international climate change law. It analyses the theory of epistemic institutions and applies it to the primary international scientific organization working on climate change issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s assessment reports play a major role in setting the terms of the public debate about climate change negotiations that takes place within the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Although independent of the UNFCCC, the IPCC’s work product is thus a key input into the UNFCCC’s efforts to negotiate international climate change rules. However, the IPCC’s credibility has been called into question due to a relative lack of participation by scientists from developing countries in the assessment process.

Edwards, Guy, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2015. <i>A Fragmented Continent: Latin America and the Global Politics of Climate Change</i>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Risking the earth Part 1: Reassessing dangerous anthropogenic interference and climate risk in IPCC processes

Does increased participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) improve the democratic quality at intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)? Multilateral institutions and global governance mechanisms have emerged during the past few decades to tackle global challenges, such as climate change. However, policy making institutions such as IGOs are often viewed as lacking democratic legitimacy. The decision- making process remains tied to nation-states represented often by non-elected delegates, yet the decisions affect people who do not have a say in the process. One remedy proposed by global governance scholars to close such democratic deficit is to include a variety of stakeholders such as non-governmental actors. I challenge the conventional wisdom that assumes the democratic potential of these actors, and unpack the “blackbox” of NGOs to assess their internal politics.To assess their role in global governance, we need to understand the substantive participation and patterns of interaction among the NGOs at the governance institutions. I construct a multilevel theoretical framework from a social network perspective to understand their participation and interaction. The theoretical framework is based on transnational social movement theory and social network theory.I draw on the example of women’s groups working at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) annual conferences. Employing both quantitative statistical analysis and network analysis, I demonstrate an evident increase in women’s groups that participate substantively at the UNFCCC. How- ever, the growth is accompanied by inequality in participation. Not all groups that attend the UNFCCC participate in collective advocacy or network actively. The variation is associated with the capacity and social embeddedness of a given organization. Furthermore, the community working on women’s issues has become fragmented over- time. The fragmentation is a result of NGOs’ different strategies and understandings of their role in global climate governance. The institutional context of UNFCCC has also contributed to the fragmentation. Overall, these civil society actors contribute to the democratization of the UNFCCC process by adding new voices, establishing new issue linkages, and raising awareness for women’s rights and gender equality. At the same time, however, the internal inequality and the power imbalance could further exacerbate the democratic deficit in the global climate governance process.I have independently collected data on over 800 actors at the UN climate conferences. I have also conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with civil society representatives at the UN climate change summits in 2017 and 2018. The findings contribute to the understanding of democratic legitimacy in global governance of large-scale, transnational challenges by analyzing both macro-level network relation- ships among actors and the micro-level mechanisms among network members.

Climate change is the justice challenge of our century, and the increasingly serious impacts of climate change on human societies and ecosystems are raising important international legal challenges. States and stakeholders are appealing to international courts for clarity concerning their responsibilities in the global response to climate change, as well as their accountability for climaterelated loss and damage. Through advisory proceedings, these institutions are being asked to clarify the legal obligations of States in addressing climate change, including the prevention of ocean impacts, the protection of human rights, and in international law more broadly. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are at the forefront of such proceedings with the potential to reshape international climate law and governance. In this article, expert legal scholars highlight the significance of climate advisory proceedings in these tribunals, briefly underlining the legal reasoning of the ITLOS advisory opinion, its implications for international climate governance, and the questions and arguments before the IACtHR and the ICJ. The article explores, in the context of global efforts to implement the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other climate litigation including in international courts and tribunals, the transformative potential of recent advisory opinions sought from the ITLOS, the IACtHR and the ICJ. In their responses to the pressing need for legal clarity in a world grappling with unprecedented climate challenges, the article suggests, courts are offered an historic opportunity to shape the contributions of international law to global sustainability, justice and the survival of life on Earth.