Skip to main content

What makes a UNFCCC resolution “legally binding?”

 A common question when considering a UNFCCC resolution is: how can this resolution be enforced and made legally binding? This was a difficult question to answer even in the early days of the UNFCCC, most notably the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 which failed to be legally binding. Formally, the UNFCCC itself is not a legally binding treaty, but protocols produced by the UNFCCC can be legally binding. Since the Earth Summit, landmark climate deals produced from the UNFCCC such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the more recent Paris Agreement of 2015 have developed mechanisms of enforcement. We’ll take a look at these two agreements to outline potential ways to incorporate legal and non-legal binding terms into a UNFCCC resolution.

Kyoto Protocol:
The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding protocol of the UNFCCC and was ratified by 192 countries (ratification is the formal and legal process by which a country agrees to abide by the protocol). For enforcement, the protocol established a Compliance Committee with 2 branches: a facilitative branch and an enforcement branch. The presence of the two branches reflects the goal of the Kyoto Protocol to both make sure countries meet their target emission goals but also to assist those who need the advice to meet their commitments. Upon determining that a country has not been compliant, the enforcement branch takes a specific course of action, such as suspending the eligibility of the country to participate in emissions trading or mandate the country make up for its emissions in a separate commitment period. 

While an important step forward for its time, the Kyoto Protocol was not entirely successful. For example, it failed to bring in the United States, the largest greenhouse gas emitter at the time. There is also concern that the penalty of making up for excess emissions in the next commitment period would become “debt” that simply cycles through time without being repaid. The biggest takeaway for delegates here is being able to strike a balance between stringentness and feasibility. The ideal resolution would need to be effective but also provide some incentive to abide by it. 

Paris Agreement:
The Paris Agreement takes a different approach from Kyoto in that it isn’t focused on penalizing countries for non-compliance nor is it strict about targets. The Paris Agreement allows countries to set their own nationally determined contributions (NDCs). However, it does have a robust system of monitoring, reporting, and reassessing country targets. In some ways, the Paris Agreement is not a fully legally binding agreement and does not require legal ratification. Instead, the Paris Agreement more strongly follows a path of flexibility and relies on transparency between countries as to whether they are meeting their targets to incentivize compliance.

Like Kyoto, the Paris Agreement still has downsides. While the agreement has mostly remained intact, it did witness the US leave the agreement, although the US is soon expected to rejoin. Some critics also claim that the Paris Agreement does not go far enough in combating climate change and that its goals need to be more ambitious. Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement still presents an important contrast in enforcement mechanisms from the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto and Paris are 2 major climate agreements produced by the UNFCCC. We highly encourage you to further research what they did right and how they can improve in order to make your resolutions during conference both effective and agreeable!



Links for Further Reading

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Preparing for Resolution Writing: Important Tips

 Hi all! I hope you all are well-rested and ready to jump into committee this weekend! Our dais has a few tips to share regarding resolution writing, and what we hope to see in the solutions you all bring to the table. IF you have ever participated in BMUN before, this framework may sound familiar: be sure to brush up on these five tools to consider when drafting up language for committee! Great resolutions can contain many different details and writing styles, but it is important to always have specifics to make sure your solutions are conveyed as best as possible. Below is BMUN's S.M.A.R.T. framework for resolutions, geared towards creating working papers that highlight solutions to the best of their ability. Consider using each of these five elements when in committee! S- Specific: make sure your solutions include as many details as possible - there is no such thing as an irrelevant point in debate! Consider every perspective on the topics, and try to make sure there are no ling...
Post a Comment
Read more

Don't Mess With Texas but Think of Its Infrastructure

 As more information about Texas' fatal and disastrous week with its energy system, the evidence points more and more towards the importance of infrastructure when it comes to thinking about energy distribution.  Texas is the #1 producer of wind energy in the United States and alone is #5 in the world (for reference, California generates less energy than states like Iowa and Oaklahoma) . As the news stories came out, some pundits pointed to this large wind energy generation as the reason for the entire grid's failures. However, a closer look at Texas' infrastructure may tell a different story. Texas is mostly energy independent from the rest of North America meaning that it cannot easily draw energy generated in surrounding states.  Louisiana borders Texas and faced similar extreme weather conditions but did not face the same extreme energy shortages.  Similarly, for committee, it is important for delegates to consider the larger infrastructural impacts of your prop...
Post a Comment
Read more

A note on Carbon Pricing

 A number of delegates have proposed some sort of carbon price as a means to raise funding for different climate policies. This is definitely an interesting proposal but there are several things delegates should either clarify or consider before going down this pathway. Carbon Pricing policies are generally administrated by country or sub-national jurisdiction. Carbon prices are administered at this level because these are the levels that have the ability and some infrastructure set up already to administer, collect, and enforce taxes. The UNFCCC does not currently have the infrastructure to administer carbon pricing policies.  Furthermore, subsidies for clean energy in the past have been met with free trade concerns. The argument is that clean energy subsidies make a country's clean energy industry more competitive and could unfairly outperform the international market for the technology. Here is a link to the case China has leveled against EU environmental subsidies. Delegat...
Post a Comment
Read more