The cancun climate agreements: Reading the text, subtext and tea leaves

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 499-519

  Rajamani, Lavanya ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959285443     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589311000078     Document Type: Article

References (128)

1. See On Demand Webcast, COP-16, resumed 9th meeting (10 December 2010), available at, http://webcast.cc2010.mx/grid-en.html.
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 31 ILM 849 (hereinafter FCCC).
3. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 10 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 37 ILM 22 (hereinafter Kyoto Protocol).
4. Art 3(9), Kyoto Protocol.
5. See for an overview of the climate regime P Birnie, A Boyle and C Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (CUP, Cambridge, 2009) 356-378.
6. Decision 1/CMP.1, Consideration of Commitments for Subsequent Periods f or Parties Included in Annex I to the Convention under Article 3, Para 9 of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1 (2006).
7. Decision 1/CP.13, Bali Action Plan, in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1 (14 March 2008) (hereinafter Bali Action Plan).
8. Para 1, Bali Action Plan.
9. Decision 2/CP.15, Copenhagen Accord, in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (30 March 2010) (hereinafter 'Copenhagen Accord').
10. See generally D Bodansky, 'The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference': A Postmortem' (2010) 104 AJIL 2 230.
11. and L Rajamani, 'The Making and Unmaking of the Copenhagen Accord' (2010) 59 ICLQ 3 824.
12. The Bolivarian Alliance consists of Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
13. FCCC Secretariat, Notification to Parties, Clarification relating to the Notification of 18 January 2010, 25 January 2010.
14. For a list of countries that have associated with the Copenhagen Accord, and inscribed in its appendices see, http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php.
15. See eg R Stavins, 'What Happened (And Why): An Assessment of the Cancun Agreements' (13 December 2010) available at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/ analysis/stavins/?p=876.
16. Para 4, LCA Outcome Decision.
17. See G8 Leaders Declaration: Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future, L'Aquila, Italy, 9 July 2009, para 65.
18. See eg Jairam Ramesh, Indian Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Letter to the Members of Parliament, Cancun Agreements, (20 December 2010) on file with the author, for a reflection of this view.
19. Para 6, LCA Outcome Decision.
20. See Joint Statement Issued at the Conclusion of the Fifth BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change, Tianjin, China, (11 October 2010) and (n 18).
21. See eg Submission by India, Mechanisms Pursuant to art 6, 12, and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, Additional Submissions by Parties, FCCC/SB/2000/MISC.4/Add. 2/Rev.1 (14 September 2000) 42-43.
22. Paras 4 and 138-140, LCA Outcome Decision.
23. UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 xC or 1.5 xC? (November 2010) 43.
24. See eg Preparations for COP 16 and CMP-6, Council of the European Union, Conclusions, 14957/10, 14 October 2010;
25. and COP-16 Plenary Statement of US Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, High Level Segment of COP-16 and CMP-6, 9 December 2010.
26. Paras 36 and 49, LCA Outcome Decision.
27. Footnote 4 and 5 to paras 36 and 49 respectively, LCA Outcome Decision.
28. Para 3, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
29. See eg G.A. Res 56/83, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 28 January 2002. It is unusual, however, to take note of non-existent documents.
30. See Submission by the United States of America, Additional views on which the Chair may draw in preparing text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, Submissions from Parties, FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/MISC.2 (30 April 2010) 79.
31. Para 4, Copenhagen Accord.
32. Para 5, Copenhagen Accord.
33. Paras 36 and 49, LCA Outcome Decision and Para 3, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
34. Art 3, Kyoto Protocol.
35. See J Vidal, 'Cancun Climate Change Summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto Protocol' The Guardian (1 December 2010)
36. and S Goldenberg, 'Cancun Climate Change Conference: Russia will not renew Kyoto Protocol' The Guardian (10 December 2010).
37. Para 3, Kyoto Outcome Decision and Para 36, LCA Outcome Decision.
38. Art 15, Kyoto Protocol and arts 9 and 10, FCCC.
39. Art 15(2), Kyoto Protocol.
40. Decisions 'taking note' of such an information document would not disturb rights, interests and obligations of non-Parties, and so may be permissible, but decisions that seek to create rights and obligations, to the extent that these can be in a COP decision, for non-Parties will, unless there is explicit agreement from the non-Party state, be impermissible. By extension from art 35, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 8 ILM 679.
41. Para 5, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
42. Para 37, LCA Outcome Decision.
43. Footnote to para 3, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
44. Art 21(7), Kyoto Protocol.
45. Art 4(1), FCCC.
46. Decision 1/CP.1, The Berlin Mandate, in Report of the Conference of Parties on its first session, FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1 (6 June 1995).
47. Para 1(b)(ii), Bali Action Plan.
48. Para 5, Copenhagen Accord.
49. Para 48, LCA Outcome Decision.
50. Paras 4 and 5, Copenhagen Accord.
51. Para 52, LCA Outcome Decision.
52. Para 49, LCA Outcome Decision.
53. Para 50, LCA Outcome Decision.
54. Para 53, LCA Outcome Decision.
55. Para 59, LCA Outcome Decision.
56. Para 63, LCA Outcome Decision.
57. Para 143, LCA Outcome Decision.
58. See Letter from South Africa, 29 January 2010, all letters from states in relation to the Copenhagen Accord, 2009, are available at, http://unfccc.int/ home/items/5265.php.
59. See eg List of Participants, Part 1-3, FCCC/CP/2010/INF.1 (Part 1-3)(10 December 2010).
60. See Rajamani (n 8).
61. See eg Letters by Brazil, 29 January 2010, China, 28 January 2010, India, 30 January 2010, and South Africa, 29 January 2010.
62. See eg Letter by South Africa, 29 January 2010.
63. See eg Letters by the EU, 28 January 2010, New Zealand, 31 January 2010, and Norway, 29 January 2010.
64. See Letter by Russia, 29 January 2010.
65. See Letter by the US, 28 January 2010.
66. See Letter by Canada, tying their target to enacted legislation in the US, 29 January 2010.
67. Para 37, LCA Outcome Decision.
68. Para 4, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
69. Introductory para 6, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
70. Para 40, LCA Outcome Decision.
71. Paras 41, 42 and 46, LCA Outcome Decision.
72. Arts 5, 7 and 8, Kyoto Protocol.
73. Para 43, LCA Outcome Decision.
74. Compare para 43, LCA Outcome Decision and art 5(1), Kyoto Protocol.
75. Para 44, LCA Outcome Decision.
76. Para 1(b)(i), Bali Action Plan.
77. Para 44, LCA Outcome Decision.
78. Para 46(d), LCA Outcome Decision.
79. Para 60, LCA Outcome Decision.
80. At last count, of the 153 non-Annex I Parties, 140 had submitted their initial national communications, 40 their second national communications, and a handful, their third and fourth national communications. Information, and full text of national communications available at, http://unfccc.int/national- reports/non-annex-i-natcom/submitted-natcom/items/653.php.
81. Paras 61 and 62, LCA Outcome Decision.
82. Para 63, LCA Outcome Decision.
83. Para 5, Copenhagen Accord.
84. Para 63, LCA Outcome Decision.
85. Paras 63 and 64, LCA Outcome Decision.
86. Para 63, LCA Outcome Decision.
87. The reference to 'SB' in the document number in para 36 of the LCA Outcome Decision and para 3 of the Kyoto Outcome Decision suggests that these documents will be considered in the Subsidiary Bodies. At least some part of this task falls within the mandate of the SBI. See arts 9 and 10, FCCC.
88. Paras 44 and 63, LCA Outcome Decision.
89. Art 10(2)(a), FCCC.
90. Art 10(2)(b), read with art 4(2)(d), FCCC.
91. Discussed in detail in Rajamani (n 8).
92. See also L Rajamani, 'From Berlin to Bali and Beyond: Killing Kyoto Softly' (2008) 57 ICLQ 3 909-939.
93. Para 83, LCA Outcome Decision.
94. Para 1, Kyoto Outcome Decision.
95. Art 20, Kyoto Protocol.
96. Art 21 (2), Kyoto Protocol.
97. See eg Proposal from Grenada for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/3 (2 June 2010).
98. Para 6(b), Kyoto Outcome Decision.
99. Para 83, LCA Outcome Decision.
100. Para 1, LCA Outcome Decision.
101. Introductory para 2 to s III.A, LCA Outcome Decision.
102. Paras 49 and 59, LCA Outcome Decision.
103. For a discussion of issues relating to legal form see L Rajamani, 'Addressing the Post-Kyoto Stress Disorder: Reflections on the Emerging Legal Architecture of the Climate Regime' (2009) 58 ICLQ 3 803-834;
104. and, J Werksman, 'Legal Symmetry and Legal Differentiation under a Future Deal on Climate' (2010) 10 Climate Policy 6 672-677.
105. Draft implementing agreement under the Convention prepared by the Government of the United States of America for adoption at the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties, FCCC/CP/2009/7 (6 June 2009).
106. Introductory para 2, LCA Outcome Decision.
107. Para 145, LCA Outcome Decision.
108. Andreas Carlgren, Swedish Minister for Environment, facilitating the 'global goal' nego tiations.
109. See On Demand Webcast, AWG-LCA 13, second meeting, (10 December 2010), webcasts of all official meetings held at Cancun are available at, http://webcast.cc2010.mx/grid-en.html.
110. See also Submissions from Bolivia, 21 February 2011, available at, http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad-hoc-working-groups/lca/items/4578.php
111. Art 7(2)(k), FCCC.
112. See generally for the evolution of consensus-based decision-making Barry Buzan, 'Negotiating By Consensus' (1981) 75 AJIL 324;
113. MJ Peterson, The General Assembly in World Politics (Allen & Unwin, London, 1986) 81-90;
114. and, A Boyle and C Chinkin, The Making of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2007) 157-160.
115. Art 11, Rules of Procedure of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, 22 October 2007.
116. See also definition offered in Daniel Vignes, 'Will the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea Work According to Consensus Rules?' 69 AJIL 119, 119-222 (1975).
117. See Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Second Session, held at Geneva, from 8 to 19 July 1996, FCCC/CP/1996/15 (29 October 1996).
118. The rule of 'consensus minus one', thus far applied, is designed to exclude a party that is in violation of its obligations. See eg Prague Document on Further Development of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Institutions and Structures, 2nd CSCE Council, Prague, 30-31 January 1992 (deciding that in cases of a State's 'clear, gross and uncorrected violation' of CSCE commitments, decisions could be taken without the consent of the State con cerned).
119. A similar rule was applied in the Montreal Protocol process in relation to Russia's non-compliance. See Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 5-7 December 1995, UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/12, paras 130-132.
120. See J Werksman, 'Compliance and Transition: Russia's Non-Compliance Tests the Ozone Regime' (1996) 56 Zeitschrift fur auslandisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht 750.
121. In conversation, JM Mauskar, Indian delegation, 21 January 2011.
122. LB Sohn, 'United National Decision-Making: Confrontation or Consensus?' (1974) 1 Harv Int'l LJ 438.
123. See On Demand Webcast, CMP-6, resumed 10th meeting (10 December 2010), available at, http://webcast.cc2010.mx/grid-en.html.
124. On Demand Webcast, AWG-KP-15, second meeting (10 December 2010), available at, http://webcast.cc2010.mx/grid-en.html.
125. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, Part I: Proceedings, FCCC/CP/2010/7 (15 March 2011) at 14.
126. The enabling clause in the relevant treaty may authorize a COP decision to be binding, but in its absence formally COP decisions are not legally binding, see J Brunnée 'COPing with Consent: Law-Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements,' (2002) 15 LJIL 1.
127. Art 14(2), FCCC, 1992, permits states to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ in relation to disputes. Few states have done so.
128. See N Woods, 'Good Governance in International Organizations' (1999) 5 Global Governance 1, for examples in other regimes.