The Paris Climate Change Agreement and Exclusion of Country-Specific Binding Emissions Target System from the International Climate Regime

Abstract

In the previous few decades, climate change has emerged as the most severe issue the world has ever faced. Excessive use of fossil fuels to fulfill the energy demands of the growing population and emerging industrial and transport sector over the previous several decades has raised the concentration of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), especially CO2, in the environment, causing global warming. Steadily rising temperatures are changing the Earths climate. Over time, the frequent and intense extreme weather events like floods, droughts, forest fires, rapid glacier melting, depletion of ozone layers, and heat waves are irrefutable evidence. Initially, the world was not convinced, but in the early 1990s, they realized the seriousness of the issue and started taking steps to fight climate change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was the earliest step followed by the first legally binding climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol. Realizing the severity of the issue and on the recommendations of the different organizations, especially the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Control (IPCC), the international community introduced the Country-Based Binding Emissions Target (CBET) system in the Kyoto Protocol under which binding GHG emission targets were assigned to the developed and industrialized states to control the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. The reason for this different treatment was that these countries were historically responsible for the current level of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the economies of developing countries at that time could not sustain these restrictions. Few developed countries led by the US raised serious concerns over this system. In their eyes, the CBET system was not based on equality, as it only assigned binding targets to developed countries. Secondly, they were also mindful that the restrictions imposed by the CBET system through the Protocol would be detrimental to their economies. The European Union (EU) played a leadership role during the negotiations, and the Protocol got enforced in 2005. The developing countries were happy with this development, but a few developed countries, especially the United States (US), refused to ratify the protocol and accept binding targets. Meanwhile, developing countries, especially China, emerged as the second biggest emitter of GHGs, and the US raised the issue of binding targets for developing countries again. Developing countries insisted on the strict implementation of the CBET system but refused to accept binding targets for themselves on the pretext of economic issues. The developing countries strongly favored the Kyoto Styled Mandatory Approach, and the US and some other developed countries were supporters of the Voluntary Collective Action Approach. When Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, the international community dumped the mandatory approach (the CBET system). It adopted the voluntary one (the NDCs system) despite it being clear that the existing process was more suitable for fighting climate change. Studying the reasons for this shift of approach or policy is the topic of this thesis. The thesis confirms that the change of approach was influenced by the economic and political interests of the key players in the International Climate Regime (ICR). Using the international regime theory, it is established that countries at the international level behave or take positions as per their vested interests. Realists and Neolibrals also explain the behavior of states in international regimes. Realists believe that the major powers use international regimes to achieve their agendas, and they do not follow the code of conduct, but they set it. Neoliberals are convinced that the convergence of interests forces international players to form international regimes, and they take positions as per their vested interests. In the case of the ICR, the countries behaved as per the principles of the international regime theory. The developed countries led by the US refused to continue with the CBET system because it was discriminatory and detrimental to their economic growth. Moreover, despite their massive emissions, developing countries, especially China and India, were not ready to accept binding targets under the CBET system. They felt it unfair to impose restrictions on them when their time had come to develop. Before the Paris Agreement's finalization, three approaches were available to fight climate change. First, the Kyoto Protocol Styled Mandatory Approach was comparatively suitable to address the issues. Still, the developed countries rejected it because it was not taking care of their economic and political interests. Secondly, the Mandatory Collective Action Approach suggested assigning binding targets to all countries, including developing countries, considering the level of their economic development. However, this approach got rejected by both developed and developing countries on the same pretext despite its suitability to fight the issue. The international community, especially the major players, agreed to adopt the Voluntary Collective Action Approach because it did not assign any binding targets to any country. Even though the voluntary approach was the least suitable to fight climate change, it was still adopted because it conformed with the critical players economic and political interests, especially the US, China, and India. Hence, the thesis confirms that the ICRs policy shift was influenced by the economic and political interests of the superpower(s).

지난 수십 년 동안, 기후 변화는 세계가 직면한 가장 심각한 문제로 떠올랐다. 지난 수십 년간 증가하는 인구와 신흥 산업 및 운송 부문의 에너지 수요를 충족시키기 위해 화석 연료를 과도하게 사용하는 것은 온실 가스(GHGs), 특히 이산화탄소의 환경 내 농도를 증가시켜 지구 온난화를 야기시켰다. 지속적으로 상승하는 온도는 지구의 기후를 변화시키고 있다. 시간이 지남에 따라 홍수, 가뭄, 산불, 급속한 빙하 용해, 오존층 고갈, 폭염과 같은 빈번하고 격렬한 극단적인 기후 변화는 반박할 수 없는 증거이다. 처음에는 세계가 납득하지 못했지만, 1990년대 초에 그들은 이 문제의 심각성을 깨닫고 기후 변화에 맞서기 위한 조치를 취하기 시작했다. 유엔기후변화협약(UNFCCC)은 최초의 법적 구속력이 있는 기후 협약인 교토의정서에 이은 최초의 조치였다. 국제사회는 문제의 심각성을 깨닫고 기후 통제에 관한 정부간 패널(IPCC)을 비롯한 여러 기관의 권고에 따라 교토의정서에 GHG 배출목표를 설정하는 국가기반결합배출목표(CBET) 제도를 도입했다. 그리고 대기 중의 온실가스 수준을 통제하기 위해 산업화된 국가들이 이렇게 다른 대우를 받는 이유는 이들 국가가 역사적으로 대기 중 온실가스의 현재 수준에 책임이 있었고, 당시 개발도상국의 경제는 이러한 제약을 지속할 수 없었기 때문이다. 미국이 주도하는 선진국 중 이 제도에 대해 심각한 우려를 제기한 나라는 거의 없었다. 그들의 눈에는 CBET 시스템은 구속력 있는 대상을 선진국에만 할당했기 때문에 평등에 기반을 두지 않았다. 둘째로, 그들은 또한 CBET에 의해 부과된 제한들은 그들의 경제에 해로울 것이라는 우려를 했다. 유럽 연합은 협상 중에 지도적인 역할을 했고, 의정서는 2005년에 시행되었다. 개발도상국들은 이러한 발전에 만족했지만, 몇몇 선진국들, 특히 미국은 의정서를 비준하고 구속력 있는 목표를 받아들이기를 거부했다.