The invidious comparisons of the Copenhagen and Paris conferences were a staple of the comments. Copenhagen was a disaster and Paris was a triumph. That`s the usual line. This paper examines how international law has responded to climate change, focusing on the challenges of implementing existing climate agreements and the ability of the Paris Agreement to address these issues. In particular, it reflects international legislation and the Approach of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change Management and draws conclusions from the past to predict what the future might hold for international climate change legislation. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if such “disclosure obligations” are often set by exclusive executive agreements; And if there was a long history of this practice, perhaps Congress and the courts would recognize it. But whether that is the kind of commitment that can be made without the participation of the Senate or Congress does not depend on whether such communications are part of the president`s constitutional authority. The Paris conference gave new hope to the UN climate change process. But much remains to be done. Countries were only able to agree on the fundamental structure of the new climate regime – the NdSC cycle, reports, verification, inventory and update. They must now develop more detailed rules on how the Paris Agreement works in practice – reporting and verification rules, the international emissions trading system and many other issues. Differentiation – First, it creates a more common system for all countries than the Copenhagen agreement. Copenhagen has maintained elements of the binary approach to differentiation of the Kyoto Protocol, distinguishing, in various provisions, the schedule I parts from the non-annex parts I.
On the other hand, the Paris Agreement completely abandons the diversion of Schedule I/non-annex I. Most of the obligations under the Paris Agreement apply to all parties, including the obligations of states parties to the NdS to formulate, communicate and provide the information necessary to monitor progress in the implementation of the NDCs. The Paris Agreement provides for a common reporting and review system with integrated flexibility to take into account different national capabilities and circumstances rather than a binary LRM system in Copenhagen, with international assessment and verification (AIC) for Schedule I parties and international consultation and analysis (ICA) for non-annex parties I. While the financial commitments of developed countries are reaffirmed, the Paris Agreement broadens the donor base by encouraging other countries to provide financial support.