What core principles and frameworks impede effective global climate agreements?

The core principles and frameworks governing international climate negotiations have been identified as the main reasons for inadequate outcomes and the continuing rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, impeding the development of effective global climate agreements.

The impediments can be categorized into the negotiating framework and the underlying principles:

I. Impeding Frameworks: State-Centric Decision-Making

The central structural problem identified is the state-centric negotiating framework used within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

• Reliance on National Sovereignty: The UN decision-making process is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. This state-centric, top-down approach has been the default for tackling global issues. However, ecological, environmental, and climate change issues are borderless and do not respect state-centric sovereignty.
• The "Guise of Sovereignty": The primary cause of negotiating failures, such as the Copenhagen debacle of 2009, was the state-centric national interest in the guise of sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty is reaffirmed in foundational agreements like the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Copenhagen Accord. Groups like the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) have remained firm on their sovereign right to development and their economic interests.
• Consensus and Veto Politics: The 1992 Convention adopted procedural rules for a consensual approach in reaching decisions and agreements, which often grants a veto to a country. This "consensus veto politics" needs to be discarded to achieve real and sustained progress. Consensus-based decision-making has been obfuscated by the large number of parties (over 190 countries) and their state-centric framework.
• Complexity of Universal Process: The complexities of a universal process involving so many states threaten endless delay and impasse. The continuous failure of UNFCCC negotiations over the years testifies to the inadequacy of a state-centric approach.

II. Impeding Principles: Division and Inaction

The failure of agreements is also attributed to the inability of negotiations to redefine or modify the central principles of climate change negotiations. These principles are Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR), historical responsibility, and equity.

• CBDR and Historical Responsibility: These principles were established to ensure that developed countries, recognizing their historic responsibility, should take the lead in combating climate change, with developing countries following suit as they address issues of economy and development. The Convention aims for fairness by placing the bulk of liability on those who have historically contributed most to the build-up of carbon.
• Dysfunctional North-South Politics: While central to negotiations, these principles have led to a clear division of developed (Annex I) and developing (Non-Annex I) countries, which constitutes the "regime’s greatest weakness" due to the "persistence of dysfunctional North-South Politics".
• The "You First" Gridlock: The limitation of the state-centric framework and principles leads to the perennial problem of a “you first attitude”. Developing countries decline to make commitments until industrialized countries start to cut emissions, and vice-versa. For example, Canada, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand renounced the second Kyoto Protocol or refused new targets, arguing it was meaningless to take on new targets when major emerging economies from developing countries had none. Conversely, India and China underscore that progress necessitates an increase in Annex I ambition and adherence to CBDR.
• CBDR Redefinition Requirement: The principles of CBDR and historical responsibility, as they currently stand, do not contribute much to the pragmatic measures necessary to mitigate emissions by breaking the gridlock. It is argued that CBDR needs to be reframed and redefined because even if all industrialized countries commit to 100% emission reductions, global emissions will still keep rising unless the major developing country emitters commit to mitigating GHGs.

In essence, the reliance on national sovereignty (the framework) and the rigid interpretation of historical responsibility/CBDR (the principles) create an institutional environment that favors national self-interest and enables political gridlock, preventing the global cooperation necessary to address a borderless environmental threat.