Turkey Paris Climate Agreement

15 Lukas Hermwille, Wolfgang Obergassel, Hermann E. Ott and Christiane Beuermann. „The UNFCCC before and after Paris, what is needed for an effective climate regime?“ Climate Policy (2015): 1-21. The Paris Agreement itself renders ineffective the existing classification – i.e. industrialised and developing countries – on the basis of the annexes to the UNFCCC. The agreement defines a new architecture for the climate regime, combining both top-down and bottom-up elements. Footnote 1 This hybrid structure focuses on the deposit and verification system that allows parties to the UNFCCCFootnote 2 to adopt and enhance their own mitigation contributions, hold them accountable, and ensure system integrity through a robust review process. The new system lies at the heart of national contributions (INDCs), through which the parties have committed to achieving their own voluntary targets, which will be implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In addition, the Paris Agreement is considered universal in terms of participation, as all parties, both developed and developing countries, agree to take action to combat climate change based on „common but differentiated responsibilities“ and taking into account their respective national specificities.

Footnote 3 This indicates a radical abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, which covers only the industrialized countries listed in Annex B of the Protocol, binding and quantified emission reduction commitments (i.e., mitigation commitments). The Paris Agreement thus put an end to the division of differentiation between countries on the basis of the annexes of the UNFCCC. It should also be noted that the Paris Agreement deals with „special circumstances“ concerning countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, such as deep island states. B; landlocked countries with low middle incomes; the least developed countries; And so on. In short, the agreement has made fundamental changes to the climate change regime, in particular as regards the flexibility introduced in the differentiation of the parties` competences. The effects of these changes go beyond the climate regime itself and will have repercussions on other existing and future environmental agreements. A recent example of this is how the Kigali AmendmentFootnote 4 to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Posts notes 5 countries more finely than the long-established classification of developed and developing countries. It is fair to say that in the near future, self-differentiation or modalities that give countries flexibility in taking responsibility „in the light of national realities“ are likely to become more prescriptive in the near future. Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement did not completely remove the UNFCCC classification, although it does not explicitly refer to its annexes.

. . .