国际气候变化协定中缺失的争端解决机制

Clara Reichenbach
{"title":"国际气候变化协定中缺失的争端解决机制","authors":"Clara Reichenbach","doi":"10.3366/gels.2022.0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An often-overlooked feature of international climate change agreements is their dispute resolution provisions. An effective dispute resolution framework is essential for holding States to account and ensuring compliance with treaty obligations. However, many of the dispute resolution mechanisms in international climate change agreements were never brought into existence. These include arbitration, conciliation and non-compliance procedures. This article analyses the dispute resolution mechanisms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) (‘UNFCCC’), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the Paris Agreement (2015) with a view to establishing which are missing, which have been successful in keeping States in check, and which should inform future amendments or treaties. Notably, a non-compliance procedure was never introduced under the UNFCCC, a successful one came into existence under the Kyoto Protocol, and a watered-down version is being discussed under the Paris Agreement. Further, although the treaties refer to an arbitration annex and a conciliation annex, none of these ever materialized. The article compares and contrasts the various procedures and their different successes, including through the use of case-studies, and makes a number of recommendations for future amendments or treaties.","PeriodicalId":229000,"journal":{"name":"Global Energy Law and Sustainability","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Missing Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in International Climate Change Agreements\",\"authors\":\"Clara Reichenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/gels.2022.0077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An often-overlooked feature of international climate change agreements is their dispute resolution provisions. An effective dispute resolution framework is essential for holding States to account and ensuring compliance with treaty obligations. However, many of the dispute resolution mechanisms in international climate change agreements were never brought into existence. These include arbitration, conciliation and non-compliance procedures. This article analyses the dispute resolution mechanisms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) (‘UNFCCC’), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the Paris Agreement (2015) with a view to establishing which are missing, which have been successful in keeping States in check, and which should inform future amendments or treaties. Notably, a non-compliance procedure was never introduced under the UNFCCC, a successful one came into existence under the Kyoto Protocol, and a watered-down version is being discussed under the Paris Agreement. Further, although the treaties refer to an arbitration annex and a conciliation annex, none of these ever materialized. The article compares and contrasts the various procedures and their different successes, including through the use of case-studies, and makes a number of recommendations for future amendments or treaties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":229000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Energy Law and Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Energy Law and Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/gels.2022.0077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Energy Law and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/gels.2022.0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际气候变化协议的一个经常被忽视的特点是它们的争端解决条款。有效的争端解决框架对于追究各国的责任和确保遵守条约义务至关重要。然而,国际气候变化协定中的许多争端解决机制从未建立。其中包括仲裁、调解和不遵守程序。本文分析了《联合国气候变化框架公约》(1992年)、《京都议定书》(1997年)和《巴黎协定》(2015年)的争端解决机制,旨在确定哪些机制缺失,哪些机制成功地制约了各国,哪些机制应为未来的修正案或条约提供参考。值得注意的是,《联合国气候变化框架公约》从未引入不履约程序,《京都议定书》却成功地建立了不履约程序,《巴黎协定》也在讨论淡化版。此外,虽然条约提到仲裁附件和调解附件,但这些附件都没有实现。本文比较和对比了各种程序及其不同的成功,包括通过使用案例研究,并对今后的修正案或条约提出了一些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Missing Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in International Climate Change Agreements
An often-overlooked feature of international climate change agreements is their dispute resolution provisions. An effective dispute resolution framework is essential for holding States to account and ensuring compliance with treaty obligations. However, many of the dispute resolution mechanisms in international climate change agreements were never brought into existence. These include arbitration, conciliation and non-compliance procedures. This article analyses the dispute resolution mechanisms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) (‘UNFCCC’), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the Paris Agreement (2015) with a view to establishing which are missing, which have been successful in keeping States in check, and which should inform future amendments or treaties. Notably, a non-compliance procedure was never introduced under the UNFCCC, a successful one came into existence under the Kyoto Protocol, and a watered-down version is being discussed under the Paris Agreement. Further, although the treaties refer to an arbitration annex and a conciliation annex, none of these ever materialized. The article compares and contrasts the various procedures and their different successes, including through the use of case-studies, and makes a number of recommendations for future amendments or treaties.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信