The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities

Brunnée, Jutta; Streck, Charlotte

doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.822661

Cited by 116 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the course of negotiations, the parties on each side of the 'firewall' have come to interpret the CBDR-RC principle differently. Generally, 'developing' countries have understood CBDR-RC to define responsibilities for having contributed to the climate problem, while 'developed' countries have instead emphasised capabilities to mitigate (Brunnée & Streck, 2013).…”

Section: Fairness Provisions and Their Operationalisation In The Climmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the previously discussed argumentation of Brunnée & Streck (2013), who proposed that 'developing' countries tend to emphasise responsibilities and 'developed' countries to support capabilities in questions of burdens-sharing, it is expected that Annex I parties will prefer the Capability principle, while non-Annex I parties will prefer the Responsibility principle. In general, Capability is a more dynamic concept than Responsibility, providing a stronger rationale for dismissing the Annex division.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fairness in the climate negotiations: what explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?

Tørstad

Sælen

2017

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Fairness Provisions and Their Operationalisation In The Climmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness in the climate negotiations: what explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?

Tørstad

Sælen

2017

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this section I argue that, despite these disagreements, there has been a sustained consensus that developed countries will take the lead by shouldering a heavier burden (acting early and more significantly) in reducing emissions. 87 This consensus was present in the otherwise disputed top-down model of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which established exclusive mitigation obligations for developed countries, and persists in the bottom-up and more nuanced differentiation model of the 2015 Paris Agreement.…”

Section: Cbdrs and The 'Political Question' Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Until the 2009 UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen (Denmark), a new compromise seemed elusive, as parties could not agree on an allocation formula that reflected their preferences. 100 Emerging economies rejected the idea of moving towards a more equal allocation of burdens if it did not reflect their development needs and developed countries' greater historic responsibilities and capabilities to act on climate change. 101 Developed countries strongly rejected the idea of continuing to exempt developing countries, especially emerging economies with high emissions, from assuming their share of the burdens and costs of climate action.…”

Section: Contestation and Discontinuities In The Climate Cbdrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ in the National Courts: Lessons fromUrgendav.The Netherlands

Ferreira¹

2016

TEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The landmark 2015 decision by the Hague District Court inUrgendav.The Netherlandsrepresents the first time a national court has expressly used the international environmental law (IEL) principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities (CBDRs) of the climate regime as a complementary tool to interpret the scope of a state’s climate obligations under domestic law. This article highlights that despite the marked engagement of national courts with IEL in recent decades (including engaging with principles such as sustainable development, polluter pays, intergenerational equity, and precaution), until this decision CBDRs had remained outside the purview of environmental law jurisprudence at the national level. The article examines how the Hague Court used CBDRs to help address two common barriers to climate liability: causation and the ‘political question’ doctrine. The article argues that the Court was able to find normative content in a core element of the climate-related CBDRs: the ‘leadership’ role of developed countries in climate action. This core element has remained remarkably consensual throughout the contested history of CBDRs in the climate regime – a history that has gained a new chapter with the signature of the Paris Agreement in December 2015. The article concludes thatUrgendav.The Netherlandsmay serve as a starting point for a more productive and extensive use of CBDRs in climate litigation, provided litigants make more explicit use of the persuasive authority of the principle.

show abstract

“…It is widely accepted, and enshrined in international agreements, that the burden of mitigating global climate change needs to vary between rich and poor countries in order to ensure that developing countries can continue to experience economic growth and poverty reduction [10,11]. At the same time, the projected economic and population growth in the developing world indicates that these poorer countries will be substantial contributors to climate change [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Growth and Carbon Emissions

Casey¹,

Galor²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E S Population Growth and Carbon Emissions ABSTRACT Population Growth and Carbon Emissions *We provide evidence that lower fertility can simultaneously increase income per capita and lower carbon emissions, eliminating a trade-off central to most policies aimed at slowing global climate change. We estimate the effect of lower fertility on carbon emissions accounting for the fact that changes in fertility patterns affect carbon emissions through three channels: total population, the age structure of the population, and economic output. Our analysis proceeds in two steps. First, we estimate a version of the STIRPAT equation on an unbalanced yearly panel of cross-country data from 1950-2010. We demonstrate that the coefficient on population is nearly seven times larger than the coefficient on income per capita and that this difference is statistically significant. Thus, regression results imply that 1% slower population growth could be accompanied by an increase in income per capita of nearly 7% while still lowering carbon emissions. In the second part of our analysis, we use a recently constructed economic-demographic model of Nigeria to estimate the effect of lower fertility on carbon emissions accounting for the impacts of fertility on population growth, population age structure, and income per capita. The model was constructed to estimate the effect of lower fertility on economic growth, making it well-suited for this application. We find that by 2100 C.E., moving from the medium to the low variant of the UN fertility projection leads to 35% lower yearly emissions and 15% higher income per capita. These results strongly suggest that population policies should be a part of the approach to combating global climate change.JEL Classification: J11, O40, Q50

show abstract

The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities

Cited by 116 publications

References 18 publications

Fairness in the climate negotiations: what explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?

Fairness in the climate negotiations: what explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions?

‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ in the National Courts: Lessons fromUrgendav.The Netherlands

Population Growth and Carbon Emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About