Foreword to the TEL Fifth Anniversary Issue Re-evaluating the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities in Transnational Climate Change Law

Peel, Jacqueline

doi:10.1017/s2047102516000327

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We acknowledge that many countries and commentators use the phrase "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to refer to differential treatment 24 and CBDR has indeed been extended to refer (among other things) to the distribution of financial commitments for REDD+ 25 . However, CBDR is not explicitly included in the CBD and remains controversial 26 , as it was for climate talks until it was finally incorporated into the UNFCCC process in 2012 27 . It is beyond the scope of this article to describe the CBDR debate.…”

Section: Implications For Cost Sharing and Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Waldron

Besançon²,

Watson

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for global environmental agreements is how higher-income and lower-income countries share the costs of implementing them. This problem has become particularly acute as biodiversity and climate ambitions have increased across recent COPs (Conferences of Parties). Here, we estimate the likely distribution of costs for one of the most ambitious proposals: draft Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which would increase coverage of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) to 30% of global land and sea area - more than triple the current value. Since the GBF does not specify where new PCAs would be placed, we use three scenarios of how Target 3 might be implemented, cost those scenarios, and then compare the mean distribution of costs across World Bank income groups. We find that in relative terms, lower-income countries could face considerably larger financial burdens than high-income countries, even though the benefits of conservation are disproportionately enjoyed by high-income countries. Lower-income countries would also face larger increases in the amount of land or sea under conservation, implying higher opportunity and establishment costs. Resolving this potential cost-sharing inequity may be a key requirement to achieve consensus on draft Target 3, and indeed on ambitious environmental proposals more generally.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Cost Sharing and Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Waldron

Besançon²,

Watson

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…She has been a frequent reviewer and she judged and introduced the article competition for TEL's fifth anniversary issue. 57 We very much look forward to this new phase in our partnership, and to many more years of fruitful collaboration.…”

Section: Tel Editorial Board Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting the Tangible and Intangible Values of Transnational Environmental Spaces

Etty¹,

Heyvaert²,

Carlarne

et al. 2019

TEL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental policy and law walk a tightrope between preserving present and future environmental resources while allowing for their exploitation in the interest of socioeconomic development. This raises fundamental and complex questions regarding the weight to be given to current and future economic gain, environmental protection, and the interests of different peoples affected by this interplay. At the transnational level, these challenges are compounded by the absence of clear and targeted political accountability for any trade-offs struck by an increasingly diversified range of decision makers operating at different scales of government. Depending on one's views regarding the balance between environmental exploitation and protection, this may be considered a very positive development; the rise of new actors within transnational environmental law means greater possibility for inclusion, representation and legitimacy. Moreover, it provides alternatives to processes that may have stalled as a result of political inertia or stand-offs at the national or international level. However, accommodating these processes within the existing legal and political framework presents its own difficulties. As transnational environmental law matures, our thoughts on these issues, and the processes that accompany them, continue to evolve accordingly. In this issue of TEL, two different ways of thinking about, and addressing, this changing reality and its challenges for the protection of the environment are presented. The first three articles by

show abstract

“…Значајан део пажње је усмерен у правцу неколико општијих питања као што су: безбедносни аспекти климатских промена (Matthew, 2014;Wuebbles, Chitkara, and Matheny 2014), процене промена које ће изазвати климатске промене (Knight i Staneva, 2002), питање (не)правде у вези са климатским променама (McKinnon, 2015;Grasso, 2011;Grasso, 2007), постизање сагласности у вези са тзв. историјском одговорношћу за климатске промене (Friman, 2016), питање финансирања трошкова мера које би требало предузети у области спречавања климатских промена и адаптације на климатске промене, однос између развијених држава и држава у развоју, односно питање расподеле терета примене одговарајућих мера (Peel, 2016;Wang, Xiang, 2018), управљање ризицима услед догађаја са катастрофалним последицама и примена мера адаптације (Etkin, Medalye, Higuchi 2012), миграције становништва и климатске промене, одговорност за штете које настају услед (не) предузимања одговарајућих мера спречавања климатских промена (Mayer, 2018: 120), трансфер технологија (Dechezleprêtre, Glachant, Ménière, 2013), етички аспекти климатских промена (Grasso, Markowitz, 2015), итд.…”

Section: основни и други извори међународног права климатских променаunclassified

What are the boundaries of the law on climate change?

Todić¹

2019

Zb Pravnog fak Niš

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Редовни професор, Институт за међународну политику и привреду, Београд ГДЕ СУ ГРАНИЦЕ ПРАВА КЛИМАТСКИХ ПРОМЕНА? ** Апстракт: У раду се разматра став да право климатских промена обухвата изузетно широк круг питања и да границе ове области права није могуће прецизно одредити. У првом делу рада се испитују ширина и сложеност предмета регулисања међународног права климатских промена и, истовремено, указује на неке методолошке дилеме. За основу анализе се узимају одредбе међународних уговора у области климатских промена (Оквирна конвенција УН о промени климе, Кјото протокол и Париски споразум). Као критеријуми за утврђивање граница међународног права климатских промена узимају се значења кључних појмова. Разматра се и питање да ли се може говорити о праву на (одговарајућу) климу у контексту расправе о месту људских права у праву животне средине. Наглашава се и потреба сагледавања садржаја права и обавеза прописаних другим међународним уговорима који на различите начине могу бити релевантни за област климатских промена.

show abstract

Foreword to the TEL Fifth Anniversary Issue Re-evaluating the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities in Transnational Climate Change Law

Abstract: The principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities must remain the bedrock of our collective enterprise across all areas: mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation. Anything else would be morally wrong.

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Protecting the Tangible and Intangible Values of Transnational Environmental Spaces

What are the boundaries of the law on climate change?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About