Advertisement

The Drafting of the Future International Climate Regime: From the Copenhagen Accord to the Cancún Agreements

  • Sandrine Maljean-Dubois
  • Vanessa Richard
Chapter
Part of the Integrated Science & Technology Program book series (ISTP, volume 2)

Abstract

Discussed at the international level since the 1980s, climate change is from now on at the top of the international political and diplomatic agenda. The urgency to act has been shown over the last years in many aspects. Climate change policies fit into the scheme of what political scientists call “multilevel governance,” which emphasizes the role of international negotiations but also the multiplicity of public and private stakeholders—NGOs, businesses, unions—either with a global, regional, domestic, or local basis, and the diversity of on-going processes at different levels from global to local and from local to global. Because stakes are global, the international climate change regime nevertheless plays a pivotal and decisive role. The international climate change regime is, however, shaped slowly and step by step. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) has 193 parties but the United States, the primary GHG emitter in 1997 and second nowadays, did not ratify it. Major developing emitters are not bound by any GHG emissions reduction commitment under the Protocol. The first commitment period will expire at the end of 2012. For effectiveness reasons, the “post-2012” system must include the United States and major developing emitters, and drastically reinforce the reduction targets. One cannot help but notice that the post-2012 regime is still in the process of, and far from, being drafted. The adoption of the Copenhagen Accord (2009) did not stop the negotiation process, which is still going on. The Cancún conference (2010), although much less the focus of media attention, led to the adoption of a “Copenhagen Accord-Plus,” revived a process that had almost come to a standstill, and made the content of the Copenhagen Accord integrate the heart of the UNFCCC. These evolutions give rise to many issues concerning the level of ambition, the nature and content of differentiation between parties, and the legal architecture of the whole regime.

Keywords

Climate change International law Kyoto Protocol NAMAs Implementation Differentiation International regime UNFCCC Common but differentiated responsibilities IPCC 

List of Acronyms

AWG-LCA

Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention

BICS

Brazil, India, China, South Africa

CBDR

Common but differentiated responsibilities

CDM

Clean development mechanism

COP

Conference of the Parties

COP/MOP

Conference of the Parties to the Convention serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol

EU

European Union

GHG

Greenhouse gases

GNP

Gross National Product

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ILC

International Law Commission

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KP

Kyoto Protocol

MOP

Meeting of the Parties

MRV

Measurement, reporting, and verification

NAMAs

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions

NGO

Nongovernmental organization

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

REDD

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

SBI

Subsidiary Body on Implementation

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USD

United States dollar

WMO

World Meteorological Organization

References

  1. Casella H, Delbosc A, de Perthuis C (2010) Cancun: year one of the post-Copenhagen era, CDC climate research, climate report no. 24. Last visited 14 Feb 2011. http://www.cdcclimat.com/Climate-Report-no24-Cancun-Year,512.html?lang=en
  2. Compagnon D (2010) Les défis politiques du changement climatique: de l’approche des régimes internationaux à la gouvernance transcalaire globale. In: Cournil C, Colard-Fabregoule C (eds) Changements climatiques et défis du droit. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  3. Daillier P, Pellet A, Forteau M (2009) Droit international public. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Delbosc A, Jeulin M (2011) What should we take away from cancun? CDC climate research, climate brief no. 3. Last visited 15, 2011. http://www.cdcclimat.com/What-should-we-take-away-from.html
  5. Godard O (1993) Stratégies industrielles et conventions d’environnement: de l’univers stabilisé aux univers controversés. INSEE-Méthodes Environnement, Économie 39–40:145–174, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Guérin E, Wemaëre M (2009) Négociations climat: compte-rendu de la conférence de Barcelone (2–6 Nov 2009). IDDRI, Idées pour le débat no. 06Google Scholar
  7. ICJ (1974) Nuclear tests, Australia & New Zealand v. France, 20 December 1974, para. 43 (Australia v. France) and para 46 (New Zealand v. France)Google Scholar
  8. ICJ (1986) Frontier dispute, Burkina Faso v. Mali, 22 December 1986, para. 39Google Scholar
  9. ILC (2006) Unilateral acts of states, guiding principles applicable to unilateral declarations of states capable of creating legal obligations, ILC 58th session, 2006, Principle 1Google Scholar
  10. IPCC (1995) Second assessment report. http://www.ipcc.ch/
  11. IPCC (2001) Third assessment report. Climate change 2001: synthesis report – summary for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/
  12. IPCC (2007a) Fourth assessment report. Climate change 2007: synthesis report – summary for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/
  13. IPCC (2007b) Fourth assessment report. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – technical summary. http://www.ipcc.ch/
  14. Lanfranchi M-P (2010) Le statut des pays en développement dans le régime climat: le principe de la dualité des normes revisité ?. In: Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux, Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the French Society for International Law. Pedone, Aix-en-Provence/ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Maljean-Dubois S, Wemaëre M (2010) La diplomatie climatique. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. NAMAs (2011) Wikipedia article. Last visited 11 Dec 2011. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Appropriate_Mitigation_Action
  17. Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadza CHD, Oppenheimer M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Smith JB, Suarez A, Yamin F (2007) Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson C (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Shelton D (2007) Equity. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Openheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J, Magadza CHD, Füssel HM, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A, van Ypersele JP (2008) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. PNAS Early Edition. Last visited 15 Dec 2011. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812355106
  20. Stern N (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. Treasury, London. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
  21. UNDP (2008) Human development report 2007/8, fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world. UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. UNEP (2010) The emissions gap report. Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A preliminary assessment. http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport
  23. World Bank (2010) World development report 2010: development and climate change. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

UNFCCC Documents and Decisions

  1. “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001, Addendum”, Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4.Google Scholar
  2. Decision 10/CMP.2, “Proposal from Belarus to amend Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol”, 17 November 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Decision 1/CP.13, “Bali Action Plan”, 15 December 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Decision 5/CP.15, “Work of the Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not Included in Annex I to the Convention”, 19 December 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Decision 2/CP.15, “Copenhagen Accord”, 19 December 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Decision 1/CP.16, “Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention”, 10 December 2010.Google Scholar
  7. UNFCCC Secretariat, “Notification to Parties, Clarification relating to the 18 January 2010”, 25 January 2010, Doc. DBO/Drl.Google Scholar
  8. “Compilation of information on nationally appropriate mitigation actions to be implemented by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention”, Note by the secretariat, FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, 18 March 2011.Google Scholar
  9. “Compilation of economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Revised note by the secretariat”, FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1, 7 June 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix-Marseille University/CNRS, CERIC (UMR 7318), Espace René CassinAix-en-Provence, Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations