问责制还是会计?第23次缔约方会议上《巴黎协定》执行与合规委员会的详细阐述

Pub Date : 2018-04-19 DOI:10.1163/18786561-00801001
Christopher Campbell-Duruflé
{"title":"问责制还是会计?第23次缔约方会议上《巴黎协定》执行与合规委员会的详细阐述","authors":"Christopher Campbell-Duruflé","doi":"10.1163/18786561-00801001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an analysis of progress regarding the modalities and procedures for the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee up to COP 23. I use the perspective of legal accountability to address three points of long-lasting divergence between parties: whether the Committee will be tasked to require parties to justify their performance by making specific reference to applicable legal standards; the contentious question of mandating the Committee to assess the progress of parties on the achievement of their NDC targets; and the involved party’s degree of control over the measures adopted. I conclude that a richer approach to accountability calls for granting a substantive role to practices of legal justification, assessment, and consequences within the modalities for the Committee in all three cases. Subject to political acceptance, such a mandate has the potential to foster parties’ sense of trust, reciprocity, and legal obligation toward one another. 1","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18786561-00801001","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accountability or Accounting? Elaboration of the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee at cop 23\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Campbell-Duruflé\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18786561-00801001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article provides an analysis of progress regarding the modalities and procedures for the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee up to COP 23. I use the perspective of legal accountability to address three points of long-lasting divergence between parties: whether the Committee will be tasked to require parties to justify their performance by making specific reference to applicable legal standards; the contentious question of mandating the Committee to assess the progress of parties on the achievement of their NDC targets; and the involved party’s degree of control over the measures adopted. I conclude that a richer approach to accountability calls for granting a substantive role to practices of legal justification, assessment, and consequences within the modalities for the Committee in all three cases. Subject to political acceptance, such a mandate has the potential to foster parties’ sense of trust, reciprocity, and legal obligation toward one another. 1\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18786561-00801001\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00801001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00801001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文分析了《巴黎协定》执行和遵约委员会至缔约方会议第二十三届会议的模式和程序方面的进展情况。我从法律问责的角度来处理各方之间长期存在的分歧的三点:委员会是否有任务要求各方通过具体提及适用的法律标准来证明其表现的合理性;授权委员会评估缔约方在实现国家数据中心目标方面的进展情况这一有争议的问题;以及相关方对所采取措施的控制程度。我的结论是,更丰富的问责方法要求在所有三种情况下,在委员会的模式范围内,赋予法律辩护、评估和后果的做法实质性作用。在政治接受的情况下,这样的授权有可能培养各方对彼此的信任感、互惠感和法律义务。1.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Accountability or Accounting? Elaboration of the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee at cop 23
This article provides an analysis of progress regarding the modalities and procedures for the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee up to COP 23. I use the perspective of legal accountability to address three points of long-lasting divergence between parties: whether the Committee will be tasked to require parties to justify their performance by making specific reference to applicable legal standards; the contentious question of mandating the Committee to assess the progress of parties on the achievement of their NDC targets; and the involved party’s degree of control over the measures adopted. I conclude that a richer approach to accountability calls for granting a substantive role to practices of legal justification, assessment, and consequences within the modalities for the Committee in all three cases. Subject to political acceptance, such a mandate has the potential to foster parties’ sense of trust, reciprocity, and legal obligation toward one another. 1
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1