When the agreement received enough signatures on October 5, 2016 to cross the threshold, US President Barack Obama said: ”Even if we achieve all the goals. we will only reach part of where we need to go. He also said that ”this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. It will help other countries reduce their emissions over time and set bolder targets as technology advances, all within a robust transparency system that allows each country to assess the progress of all other nations. [27] [28] Further examination reveals several disturbing concerns. It is common knowledge that international law is often ineffective because it does not have adequate means of enforcement when it prescribes conduct that binds the parties. In other words, international law is inherently weak because it is not able to impose what has been agreed, but Paris has continued to carry that weakness by asking serious questions about whether something has been agreed. The Paris Agreement has made great efforts to avoid commitment by the parties and has made meeting promised carbon emission reductions an undeniable voluntary commitment. This is the main reason to doubt what has been agreed and raises the insistent question of what came out of Paris is worth even the paper on which it is written. Only time will tell. To contribute to the objectives of the agreement, countries presented broad national climate change plans (national contributions, NDCs). These are not yet sufficient to meet the temperature targets, but the agreement sets out the way forward. The amount of NDCs set by each country[8] sets the objectives of that country.

However, the ”contributions” themselves are not binding under international law, for lack of specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms. [20] In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NPP by a set date, and no implementation if a target set out in a NSP is not met. [8] [21] There will be only one ”Name and Shame” system[22] or, as János Pásztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, cbs News (USA) stated, a ”Name and Encourage” plan. [23] Given that the agreement has no consequences if countries do not comply with their obligations, such a consensus is fragile. . . .

Tyvärr, det är nu stängt för kommentarer här.

© 2020 Skriva.net Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha