Purpose: This study examines how BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) discursively represent historical and future climate responsibilities in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and explores the underlying ideological and identity dynamics. Methodology: This study employs the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach, particularly the three-dimensional model proposed by Fairclough, which involves describing the textual features, interpreting how responsibility claims are constructed, and explaining the relations between discursive patterns and ideological stance as well as identity formation. The data consist of 5 NDCs documents submitted by BRICS countries to the UNFCCC. Findings: The results show that the BRICS countries employ foregrounding/backgrounding strategies in framing historical responsibility via highlighting developed countries’ historical emissions while downplaying their own, though with nuanced national variations, and modalization/modulation in articulating future responsibility, where divergent use of modal verbs and evaluative languages signals varying levels of ambition and priorities. These strategies reveal a shared equity-anchored ideological stance rooted in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities (CDDR),” yet tensions between collective identity and individual national identity persist, as reflected in varied future commitment discourse. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: This study contributes to understanding BRICS’ role global climate governance, highlighting their dual position as equity advocates and pragmatic actors navigating collective and national imperatives. It also suggests that international climate negotiations should recognize the divergent yet equity-centered discursive strategies adopted by BRICS countries, and create more flexible institutional arrangements that accommodate both collective climate ambitions and national developmental constraints

As a potentially important component of natural climate solutions, blue carbon is increasingly bridging climate change mitigation and adaptation with biodiversity conservation. This Policy and Practice Review provides comprehensive coverage and a balanced overview of the global blue carbon governance landscape, focusing on the United Nations system. The analysis systematically examines the policy interfaces and coupling mechanisms between blue carbon governance and five key international instruments: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs), and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Based on this assessment, this review identifies four structural bottlenecks hindering effective UN-led governance: (1) conceptual and accounting discrepancies between “coastal blue carbon” and emerging “broad-sense blue carbon” definitions; (2) insufficient cross-convention synergy, leading to fragmented regulations and high transaction costs; (3) inadequate implementation of the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle, particularly for coastal developing countries and small island nations; and (4) persistent funding and capacity gaps throughout the entire lifecycle of blue carbon projects. In response, this review proposes three actionable recommendations for institutional reform: (1) establishing a “minimum consistency standards package” with cross-institution mutual recognition within the UN system; (2) developing “nationally integrated blue carbon policy packages” aligned with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), Ramsar designations, and national disaster reduction strategies; and (3) implementing the CBDR principle through concrete pathways for mandatory funding and technology transfer

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.

Marine plastic governance has become one of the most pressing challenges facing the marine environment. The existing international legal framework is inadequate to address this issue, characterized by a lack of systemic comprehensiveness and targeted measures. Furthermore, imperfect implementation and monitoring mechanisms make it difficult to ensure effective compliance by states. Although the “Legally Binding International Instrument on Plastic Pollution (including Marine Plastic Pollution)” (hereinafter referred to as the Global Plastics Treaty) proposes a series of ambitious governance measures, its negotiations reached a deadlock after the Geneva session in August 2025. This stalemate underscores the conflicting interests and divergent views among nations and stakeholder groups regarding global plastic governance. This paper analyzes perspectives on marine plastic governance drawn from existing treaties and literature, proposes principled constraints together with feasible technical solutions and pathways, and offers potential options for the next phase of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. The analysis demonstrates that effective marine plastic governance depends on pragmatic political commitment and the active cooperation of all nations. The Global Plastics Treaty should adopt a progressive, standards-driven framework that implements the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) through political commitments to appropriate standards, supported by technical and financial assistance. The non-regression principle should be implemented through mandatory national reporting and unified monitoring. Building upon these two principles, marine plastic governance can be strengthened through the development, adoption, and implementation of progressive standards.

The increasingly complex global environmental crisis demands a resource governance approach that is no longer sectoral, but rather integrative, involving the disciplines of law, economics, and environmental science. This study aims to analyze how the integration of these three disciplines can create a just and sustainable model for global resource governance. Using normative legal research methods with a conceptual and comparative approach, this study examines various national and international legal instruments, such as Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, Presidential Regulation Number 98 of 2021 concerning the Economic Value of Carbon, and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The analysis shows that law serves as a normative framework to ensure certainty and fairness in resource management, economics acts as an incentive instrument through carbon market mechanisms and green investment, while environmental science provides an empirical basis for evidence-based policymaking. Integration of these three is necessary to create multi-level governance that balances the interests of development and environmental conservation. This study also recommends strengthening global coordination through the application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and harmonization of regulations between countries to support the transition to sustainable prosperity.

Climate change poses a profound threat to ASEAN island nations, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, and Singapore. These countries are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels, tropical storms, coastal ecosystem degradation, and biodiversity loss, requiring comprehensive legal and policy responses. This study adopts a normative legal approach to examine international environmental law instruments, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, alongside ASEAN regional frameworks, including the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). Using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the research analyzes the extent to which international legal principles are integrated into national and regional adaptation policies. Findings indicate that principles such as the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) approach, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development have been incorporated, although implementation varies significantly across states. The Philippines demonstrates a strong disaster adaptation legal framework, while Indonesia struggles with interagency coordination. Brunei emphasises ecosystem conservation, and Singapore pursues technology-driven adaptation policies. At the regional level, ASEAN has introduced cooperative mechanisms; however, these largely remain in the realm of soft law, with limited enforcement power. The study emphasizes the need to strengthen regional legal instruments, align national policies with international frameworks, and increase access to international funding and technology.

The European Union (EU) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) offers a practical solution to prevent carbon leakage, and its success has sparked discussions about implementing similar regulatory mechanisms in other countries. These discussions have been limited to the adoption of EU-style CBAM in developed countries, overlooking the significant carbon leakage challenges faced by highly industrialized developing countries (HIDCs). This article argues that EU-style CBAMs are equally essential in HIDCs to achieve carbon neutrality and emphasizes the role of WTO law in facilitating their international adoption. It explores the motivations for HIDCs to implement such mechanisms and analyses how WTO law can support their dissemination, contributing to global climate governance. The key contribution of this article is its pioneering exploration of the potential of establishing EU-style CBAMs in HIDCs and the role of WTO law in driving this regulatory shift. Additionally, it addresses the application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDRs) in potential CBAM-related disputes, offering a fresh perspective that complements existing research on the EU CBAM’s compliance with WTO rules.

This study examines the commitments made in the Conference of the Parties (COP) summits, COP 3 (Kyoto), COP 15 (Copenhagen), COP 21 (Paris), and COP 28 (Dubai). It critically investigates global climate initiatives concerning sustainability and environmental justice. While these summits have played a pivotal role in shaping international climate diplomacy, persistent gaps remain between pledges and their implementation — particularly in mobilising adequate financial and technical support for developing countries. Drawing on Political Ecology Theory and Environmental Justice Theory, the study examines how structural asymmetries and historical inequalities may continue to shape global climate governance. We highlight how, in some instances, well-intentioned environmental leadership may risk overlooking equity and inclusion, particularly when developing nations are expected to meet ambitious climate standards without proportionate support. At the same time, the paper acknowledges critical progress made through COP processes — such as the Paris Agreement’s recognition of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDRs) and the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP 27 and COP 28. Policy recommendations include the institutionalisation of independent climate finance audits and the integration of justice-centred accountability frameworks into global climate policy. By situating contemporary climate negotiations within a historical and justice-based framework, the paper calls for more inclusive, transparent, and accountable COP mechanisms. This includes amplifying the voices and needs of those most vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Global South.

With the rise of trade-related climate measures, common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) discussions gained traction and expanded beyond climate to trade negotiations. In the early 2020s, when carbon border adjustment appeared on the agenda of policymakers, the role of this principle in international trade started occupying delegates to the WTO. As the reader may expect, the views of Members differ. The positions range from understanding CBDR as an inherent part of international trade law to incomprehension why this topic is raised at the WTO, which has its own rules to facilitate the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system. There may not be one truth, as the differing opinions of academics indicate. However, we argue that the interpretation of Article XX General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in light of the Paris Agreement (PA) leads to a legally accurate and just solution.

INTRODUCTION. The article examines the historical establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its role as the foundational framework for the international climate legal regime. The study highlights the importance of the choices made during the drafting of the Convention, analyzing their long–term impact on global climate governance. The research explores the events leading up to the Earth Summit (Rio Conference) in 1992, where the UNFCCC was adopted, and investigates how its fundamental principles and obligations shaped subsequent climate policies, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The study aims to contextualize the Convention within the broader historical and legal developments in international environmental law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research follows a qualitative legal–historical approach, utilizing primary sources, including treaty texts, General Assembly resolutions, advisory opinions from international courts, and official conference proceedings. Additionally, secondary sources, such as academic commentary, environmental law textbooks, and journal articles, provide insights into the evolution of international climate law. The study is divided into two key phases. 1. Historical Analysis: A chronological examination of the negotiations preceding the UNFCCC, focusing on the Stockholm Conference (1972), the Montreal Protocol (1987), and scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2. Legal Framework Analysis: An evaluation of the legal principles enshrined in the UNFCCC, such as sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and intergenerational equity, as well as an assessment of its institutional mechanisms, including the role of the Conference of the Parties (COP).RESEARCH RESULTS. The UNFCCC as a Normative Framework: Despite being considered a “framework convention” with broad and non– binding commitments, the UNFCCC introduced fundamental legal principles that later became the cornerstone of climate governance. Legal Innovations and Institutionalization: The Convention established a system of cooperation among states, creating institutional mechanisms such as the COPs, which facilitated continued legal evolution in climate governance. The establishment of the UNFCCC Secretariat further institutionalized climate negotiations. Enduring Influence on International Law: The Convention remains a reference point for climate litigation and international advisory opinions, particularly in recent cases before the Inter–American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. These legal bodies have increasingly drawn upon UNFCCC principles to determine states' obligations concerning climate change.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The article concludes that the UNFCCC, despite its perceived initial weaknesses, has proven to be a resilient and foundational legal instrument in international climate governance. The Convention's principles and procedural mechanisms have enabled the development of binding legal commitments, such as those found in the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Moreover, its flexible institutional design has allowed it to adapt to emerging challenges, such as climate litigation and advisory proceedings in international courts. Looking forward, the UNFCCC is expected to continue shaping future legal obligations related to climate action, particularly as climate disputes become more prominent in international judicial bodies. The study underscores the ongoing relevance of the UNFCCC in the face of evolving environmental challenges, reaffirming its status as the standard framework for global climate governance.

Indonesia is an archipelago rich in aquatic resources that include various types of fish resources and coral reef ecosystems. However, the sustainability of these resources is increasingly threatened by the irresponsible actions of some parties, one of which is the act of Illegal Fishing. Illegal fishing is very detrimental to the country, not only damaging vulnerable fish populations, but also causing economic losses and even social impacts on society. The case of Run Zeng 03 is one of the illegal fishing cases in Indonesia, which has been fishing illegally in Indonesia's Exclusive Economic Zone since January 12, 2024. The Russian-flagged foreign vessel was arrested on May 19, 2024 in the Arafura Sea. The principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) can be applied in handling cross-border illegal fishing. The Run Zeng 03 ship itself has caused great losses to the countries in its area of operation. Whereas, the CBDR Principle emphasizes cooperation between countries to integrate in achieving common goals, despite having different responsibilities. In addition to establishing international coordination and cooperation, Indonesia itself must improve internal supervision and protection in handling these illegal fishing cases.

Abstract Ancillary services are crucial for supporting the reliable operation of power systems and constitute an integral part of the power market. The increasing integration of volatile renewable energy sources has introduced new challenges into China's traditional ancillary service markets, such as escalating ancillary service costs. Historically, the ancillary service cost‐sharing approach in China has been a redistribution of revenue among generators, resulting in increasing cost‐sharing pressure on the supply side. Therefore, based on the basic market logic of ‘who causes the demand, who pays,’ sharing the ancillary service costs with power consumers becomes urgent. This paper presents an overview of the latest research and practical experiences in China and other countries, and proposes an ancillary service cost allocation mechanism considering the participation of consumers. First, the ancillary service cost allocation mechanisms in China and other countries are summarized, including common rules and individual characteristics. Subsequently, a framework for the rights and responsibilities associated with ancillary services is systematically outlined from a market design perspective. Moreover, an ancillary service cost allocation mechanism was introduced based on the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).’ Finally, the construction path of the ancillary service cost allocation mechanism under the new round of power industry reforms was proposed. The findings summarized in this study can promote the reasonable allocation of ancillary service costs and improve the flexibility of power systems and the consumption of renewable energy.

Abstract The ongoing plastic treaty negotiation hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) marks an ambitious international effort to address plastic pollution, particularly in the marine environment. The application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) is one of the most controversial issues raised during negotiations. This article examines the origin, development, and basic components of the CBDR principle. Then current debates are illustrated by presenting statements from delegates and the negotiating materials. The emphasis on historical responsibility is used to justify the application of the principle as a mechanism for equity and fairness in international law. In conclusion, this article offers some reflections concerning the incorporation of the CBDR principle into the future plastic treaty.

International climate governance depends on the principle of CBDR that protects both developed and developing nations during emissions reduction and sustainable development efforts. The UNFCCC introduced CBDR in 1992 with later updates in the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Climate talks now work with a more adaptable system for splitting developed and developing countries even though they began as strict categories.This study explores how CBDR developed into its present form after Kyoto and addresses its existing problems plus predicted options. The relationship between rich countries and emerging markets now depends on how much they produced in the past and what resources they have compared to their financial support requirements. The report reviews the importance of global organizations when sharing climate funds and technology. Through its advocacy work, India takes the lead in shaping how the framework of CBDR will develop in the future.The study shows that changes in climate governance require us to fix the existing principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility by making it work better across different situations. Climate governance requires new rules that blend measurements of personal emissions with country prosperity levels and different usage of each sector to bring fairness to global climate action.

Climate change is a global crisis that demands collective action, but its effects and responsibilities are deeply unequal. This paper explores the multifaceted dimensions of climate justice, particularly focusing on the ethical, legal, historical, and economic frameworks that underpin climate finance. It addresses the pivotal question of who should pay for climate change by evaluating the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), examining the role of developed and developing countries, scrutinizing international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, and proposing strategies for equitable and sustainable climate financing. The paper concludes that climate justice cannot be achieved without a rethinking of global responsibilities and a robust mechanism for climate finance that centers fairness and historical accountability.

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) was meant to balance fairness and action by recognizing historical emissions and differing capabilities. However, it has become a two-sided weapon that seeks equality but hampers it simultaneously. The developed world advocates for equitable responsibility as emission levels increase globally, while the developing world seeks justice for previous transgressions. As such, CBDR has become both a mechanism for equitable distribution and a hindrance to much-needed action. The article's results show that the CBDR principle has evolved into a political and legal conflict source, undermining effective climate change responses. The shift from binding emission reductions to voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the Paris Agreement is highlighted as a key concern, as it raises doubts about CBDR's ability to address historical emissions disparities. The article also addresses how multinational corporations, as major contributors to emissions, are becoming an urgent focus in applying CBDR to non-state actors. It reveals how CBDR has led to political divisions, particularly between developed and developing nations, with the Global South calling for climate justice. Through cases like Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands, the article highlights CBDR's limitations in forcing non-compliant governments to take action on their climate responsibilities. Lastly, the article critiques the Paris Agreement's reliance on voluntary NDCs, arguing that it weakens CBDR by allowing developed countries to set minimal emission reduction targets. As the climate crisis accelerates, the world must ask: Is CBDR still the magic bullet for fostering international cooperation, or is it the elephant in the room stalling the necessary solidarity needed to confront the threat of extinction?

ABSTRACTOver the past decade, The People's Republic of China has increased its influence in global climate governance. Despite the strong interest in policy frames related to climate change at the global level, few studies have explored policy frames within China. This paper therefore adopts a frame analysis to study the evolution in framing of domestic climate policies in China over the period 2009–24. Our research finds that diagnostic frames (the “problem”) identify development pressure, energy sector, and the impacts of natural disasters, pollution and ecosystem damage/change as key issues to be addressed. Prognostic frames (the “solutions”) encompass energy system decarbonization, industry reform, nature‐based solutions, market‐oriented solutions, and international cooperation. The motivational framings (the “ideational motivations”), include green development, ecological civilization, the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and multilateralism. The study reveals shifts in diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames of the national government across three periods.

The commitments outlined in Nigeria's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) are crucial for fulfilling the country's obligations under the Paris Agreement. The updated NDC reaffirms the Nigerian government's pledge to achieve a 20 per cent unconditional reduction and a 47 per cent conditional reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. To implement these commitments nationally, the Nigerian government enacted the Climate Change Act of Nigeria in 2021. However, the Climate Change Act does not explicitly incorporate the 20 per cent unconditional and 47 per cent conditional reduction targets from Nigeria's NDC. This article examines the implications of the Climate Change Act not directly recognizing these NDC targets and explores the legal status of NDCs at the national level. The assessment reveals that, despite the absence of explicit recognition in the Climate Change Act, the Nigerian government is legally obligated to achieve 20 per cent unconditional emission reduction by 2030. This is because the 20 per cent unconditional obligation is grounded in the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). Conversely, the Nigerian government does not have a legally binding obligation to the 47 per cent conditional emission reduction targets, as achieving this reduction depends on international support.

Climate change has intensified debates over responsibility for loss and damage suffered by states and communities most vulnerable to its impacts. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, ecosystem degradation, and economic disruption have generated irreversible harms that cannot be addressed solely through mitigation and adaptation. This article examines the central question of who should bear responsibility for climate-related loss and damage under international law, with a particular focus on the obligations of states. It analyzes the legal foundations of state responsibility, including principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), equity, due diligence, and the prevention of transboundary harm. The study situates loss and damage within the framework of key international instruments such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including the establishment of mechanisms addressing loss and damage. It explores how customary international law and emerging climate jurisprudence contribute to clarifying states’ duties, particularly in relation to historical emissions, capacity to respond, and the protection of vulnerable populations. The article also considers the role of compensation, financial assistance, and international cooperation as potential expressions of legal and moral accountability. While international law does not yet provide a comprehensive or enforceable regime for climate loss and damage, the analysis demonstrates that evolving legal norms increasingly recognize differentiated state obligations. The article argues that developed states, due to their greater historical contributions to climate change and superior resources, bear heightened responsibilities to support affected states through finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building. Ultimately, the paper concludes that addressing climate loss and damage requires strengthening legal accountability while fostering equitable cooperation to ensure climate justice and sustainable development for present and future generations.

The pursuit of climate action to meet net-zero targets has triggered the call for a global energy transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources. However, this global energy transition does not entirely recognise all countries’ social, economic and technological capacities as well as emission contributions as envisaged under the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle, which underlies international climate policy. It is concerned more with the outcome of transitioning to clean energy than with justice in the transition process. Recognition justice, an element of energy justice, enables us to identify the inequalities that global energy paradigms (such as the energy transition) can create and how a justice framework can help us understand the implications of energy injustice and address the inequities across energy systems. Recognition justice acknowledges the divergent perspectives rooted in social, economic and racial differences and the varied strengths of developed and developing countries. The energy transition process ought to recognise these differences so that they are reasonably expected to benefit everyone. Implementing the energy transition in the Global South (GS) in the same way as it is being advanced in the Global North will have security, justice, economic, resource-stranding, and sustainable development implications. This issue (of injustice in the energy transition) is aggravated by two dichotomous realities: many countries in the South will be most impacted by climatic changes, yet there remains political and social opposition to climate action through the energy transition. As a solution, this paper relies on the notion of recognition justice with support from the Rawlsian justice concept to argue that a delayed transition represents justice and recognises the peculiar nature and different circumstances of the GS. It identifies that learnings from the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the notion of CBDR under international climate treaties can be mainstreamed into energy transition research and policies to achieve justice for countries of the GS. The paper further finds that a delayed transition for the GS will (i) enable the region to address sustainability-related issues of hunger and multidimensional poverty, essential to realising other Sustainable Development Goals, whilst gradually implementing energy transition policies; (ii) present an attractive case against political and social opposition to energy transition in the GS; (iii) advance the goal of CBDR already recognised under international climate treaties and the bifurcated approaches established in such treaties; and, finally, (iv) ensure that developed countries contributing the most to greenhouse gas emissions take the lead now and act while the GS effectuates national contributions sustainably.