The Status of the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility of States in the Legal Regime of Climate Change
Subject Areas : Environmental Law
Mona Davanlou
1
,
Tahmineh Edalatjoo
2
1 - Department Law, Faculty of Law, North- Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Department of Law, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Common responsibility, different responsibility, climate change, greenhouse gases, differentiation mechanism, adaptation.,
Abstract :
The issue of climate change is focused on identifying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility of states, which is used as a guiding principle in the climate change legal system. This principle, which is called (CBDR) from now on, is one of the most effective principles in the international environmental legal regime. The tripartite climate documents, which were formed based on the differentiation regime, have directed the major commitments of emission reduction to the developed countries. In this research, an attempt has been made to examine the position of the principle of common but different responsibility in the legal regime of climate change, considering the strategies of international law and the international climate treaties, and considering the basis of the differentiation mechanism and its axes. The strengths and weaknesses in the process of operationalizing this principle in the climate system should be analyzed. Also, this research tries to provide the necessary solutions by explaining the obstacles and challenges ahead regarding the implementation of this mechanism. The result of this research, which was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method, shows that through redefining this principle and dividing responsibilities and changing and moving in the existing categories, homogeneous groups of governments will be presented, so that this differentiation mechanism regarding the countries in The current development should also be applied with different capabilities. It is also recommended that this principle be interpreted as an international customary principle.
Abdollahi, M. (2010). Climate change: A reflection on legal strategies and measures. Law Quarterly, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences. 40 (1), 193-213. (in Persian).
Abdollahi, M. & Moarefi, S. (2010). Common but Different Principles in International Environmental Law. Journal of Law Research. 12 (29). 200. (in Persian).
Anjail, D. N. (2011). India's environmental trump card: How reducing Black Carbon through common but differentiated responsibilities can curb climate change. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy. 39 (3), 523-552:534.
Christopher, D. S. (2004). Common but differentiated responsibilities in International Law. American Journal of International Law. 98 (2), 276. DOI:10.2307/3176729
Amini, A.; Mianabadi, H. & Nadaf, N. (2018). The role of diplomacy in the Paris climate agreement. Geopolitics Quarterly. 14 (1), 148-175. (in Persian).
Bodansky, D. (2015). Legal Option for U.S. Aacceptance of a New Climate Change Agreement. U.S.: Center for Climate and Energy Solution CC2Es.
Bodansky, D. (2016). The History of Climate Change Regime. http://graudatentitue. ch. file/live/sitrs/iheid/files/adminst/shared/doc-professor/laterbacher.
Bodansky, D. (2106). The legal character of the Paris agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. 25 (2), 142-150. DOI:10. 111/real. 12154.
Chinwa Ole, N. (2021). Understanding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and its manifestations in multilateral environmental agreements, (MEAS) 11 Nnamdi Azikiwe. Journal of Public and Private Law. 11, 262-284.
Dimitrov, R. S. (2016). The Paris agreement on climate change, Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics. 16 (1), 123-141.
Falkner, R. F. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs. 92, 1107. p87.
Harris, P.G. (2019). Common but differentiated responsibility: the Kyoto protocol and united state policy. New York University Environmental Law Journal. 7 (1). 17-28.
Jiahua, P. (2017). Common but differentiated commitment, A practical approach to engaging large developing emitters under L20. Post-Kyoto Architecture: Toward an L20. New York City.
Jabbour, J. et al (2012). Internationally agreed environmental goals: A critical evaluation of progress. Environmental Development. 3 (5), 45.
Jiménez, E. (2013). The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), The compliance branch of the Paris Agreement. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 14 (1), 152-171.
Jutta, B. (2004). The United States and International Environmental Law: Living with an Elephant. EJIL. 15 (4), 617-649.
Kiessling, Ch.K. (2002). Common but differentiated responsibilities regarding climate change, Different Interpretations within the Brazilian National Context, JANUS.NET. Journal of International Relations. 13 (1), 152-170.
kiss, A.; Sand, P. & H. Long, W. (2007). Environmental Law. Vol. 3. Hassan Habibi (Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University Press. (in Persian).
Pauw, P et al (2014). Different Perspectives on Differentiated Responsibilities: A State-of-the-Art Review of the Notion of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in International Negotiations. German: Development Institute.
Pourhashmi, S. A. & A, B. (2013). International Environmental Law. Tehran: Dadgostar Publishing House. (in Persian).
Liu, X.D. (2015). Assessment of achievement of the lima climate change conference and perspective on the future. Advances in Climate Change Research. 5 (4), 219-223.
Magali A., D. & Terlaak, A. K. (2001). A framework for analyzing environmental voluntary agreements. California Management Review. 43 (3), 44.
Matsui, Y. (2002). Some aspect of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. International Environmental Agreement. 5, 719-721.
Obergassel, W. et al (2016). Phoenix from the Ashes, an Analysis of the Paris Agreement to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. Wuppertal: wuppertal institute wupperinst.
Uchenna, O. et al (2013). Intergenerational Equity. London: The London Scholl of economics and political science publications.
Pananya, L. (2014). The Interaction between WTO law and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the case of climate-related border tax adjustments. Goettingen Journal of International Law. 6 (1), 145-170.
Pauw, P. et al (2014). Different Perspective on Differentiated Responsibilities in International Negotiation– A State of the Art Review of the Notion of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities. Germany: German Development of Institut.
Rajmani, L. (2012). The Durban platform for enhanced action and the future of the climate regime. International and Comparative Law Artery. 61 (2), 501-518.
Rajmani, L. (2015). The principle of common but differentiated responsibility and the balance of commitment under the climate regime. Review of European Community and International Environment Law. 9 (2), 12-24.
Rebecca, D. & Jane, M. (2017). International cooperation and responsibility sharing to combat climate change, Lessons for International Refugee Law. Melbourne Journal of International. 18 (2), 11-12.
Rishika, K. (2021). The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and the challenges posed by it in the context of international climate governance. International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies. 3 (20), 98-113.
Santos, M. (2017). Global justice and environmental governance: An analysis of the Paris Agreement. Revista Brasileira de Political International. 12 (8), 77.
Shafipour, M. (2016). Zero to One Hundred of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. An Interview with ISNA. Iranian Students News Agency. May 3. (in Persian).
Shirazian, Sh.; Anisi, S. & Karimidouzaji, A. (2021). State responsibility on covid-19 damages under common but differentiated principle. (CIFILE) Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise Journal of International Law. 20 (3), 32-46. (in Persian).
Stone, Ch.D. (2009). Common but differentiated responsibilities in international law. American Journal of International Law. 98 (2), 301-76.
Suleimanpour, H. & Bani Asad Azad, F. (2017). The Paris Agreement: A New Axis of Cooperation in the Persian Gulf Region. Foreign Policy Quarterly. 31 (3), 37-60. (in Persian).
Van, H.; Sealon, H. & paw, P. (2015). Assessment and review under a 2015 climate change agreement. Nordic Council of Ministers. 17 (3), 67.
Taqavi, L. & Tayyibi, S. (2013). Global challenges of international environmental law, Climate change as a threat to international peace and security. Quarterly Journal of Environment and Energy. 2 (23), 234-242. (in Persian).
Van, H. (2017). Assault lecture on adaption and equity. Strathclyde. 32 (6), 12-24.
Wang, H. (2016). Phoenix from the ashes,an analysis of the Paris agreement to united nations framework convention on climate, wuppertal. Wuppertal Institute. 12 (3), 17-25.
Wewerinke, s. (2016). Margaretha and Daoebbler, Curtis, the Paris agreement: Some critical reflections on process and substance. University of New South Wales Law Journal. 39 (4), 26-43.
Zaccai, E. & Lugen, M. (2016). Common but differentiated responsibilities against the realities of climate change. Archive for Recht-Und Sozil Philosophies. 98 (15), 277.
