CLIMATE CHANGE: NON-BINDING AGREEMENT WITH WORLD POWER STATES

Since the Kyoto Protocal, is an important to address that since the international agreement was implemented, it has not been able to succeed because of the different goals and objectives of governemnts.

Cooperation as in trade offs is a principal limitation in the commitment of an opposing party. Most of the governments involved in the transformation of climate change today have different objectives and goals on what is most important. For example, while the U.S. is one of the biggest contributors to emissions in CO2, China and India have had little ambition for effective cooperation, meanwhile Russia and emerging countries are more focused on the development of countries rather than emissions. These states have different goals of what is actually going to be effective for the international community. The EU meanwhile is the second largest contributor but has made effective effectiveness in its contribution, resulting in the fact the impediments are more international. Most of these countries obtain the failure to cooperate because countries end up failing to come up with their own interests or assemble each other towards a common goal. In Victor’s scholarly article, Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change he mentioned to cooperate under transaction costs, it is vital to comprehend the capacity that these treaties, organizations and norms can do to assist cooperation facility between countries and their goals towards climate change. There is only so much that an organization can do when the level of interests of these countries vary in multiple ways. Treaties have the ability to manage these climate change projects, however, if governments are not finding creative ways to be a part of process of these projects then treaties are almost ineffective.

Instead of going through a binding agreement, the best process for a government to do is to establish a non-binding agreement in order for there to be an open environment for governments to commit to more ambitious goals without it being held against them. It is vital to comprehend that these governments have their own self-interests and most of them have different opinions on what the international community is suppose to do about climate change initiatives. It is important that there is a universal agreement because what this will do first is give states the ability of having an agreement manage the process of global change in order for every government to be on the same page of the process. However, it is important that instead of it being a binding project that it would be a non-binding linkage so that governments can challenge themselves more and work together towards global governance. It is important that the agreement is embedded in the institution. In order to understand who is advancing towards this goal, it is important to address the governments national performance.

Since the League of Nations, there has always been a contested fear of these governments to fully commit to its principals. Although treaties can provide a managing universal agreement, as stated before, we live in a realist world and ultimately people are bound to be drawn towards their own goals and self interests. However that being said, instead of having a fully broad group of governments involved in this change, it is ideal that a number of strong governments are able to take the lead in the future of changing our climate if they have the capacity and ability.

Advertisements

One thought on “CLIMATE CHANGE: NON-BINDING AGREEMENT WITH WORLD POWER STATES”

  1. Good afternoon,

    I agree that the governments involved in the transformation of climate change have different goals and objectives. I think that that is one of the main reasons that prevent states from cooperating. I believe that it is hard for them to see the big picture rather than to be focused on what is good for their people individually. After all, it is a collective effort and that is the only way to solve this global problem. This leads to the following: the obstacles are international, not domestic. This comes as a result of international mistrust, as a realist would say, which makes it hard, if not impossible, for states to cooperate. I also agree that treaties have the ability to enhance state participation and cooperation. However, I believe that it should be framed more as a universal agreement, more like a social contract amongst states, in order for them to comply. It should be seen as the idea of everyone sacrificing something in order to achieve a common goal. In other words, the concept of having different interests, but by minimizing the costs, everyone will be able to see the benefits. I concur with the idea that states should establish a non-binding agreement; this way states can modify it as they see fit and if they see that it doesn’t work, propose changes accordingly. However, I do not believe that the non-binding agreement/universal agreement should be dealt with by strong government. I think that it should be a group of expert individuals, without taking citizenship into account, that should deal with it. This way it would be an unbiased, or less biased, process than having strong government deal with it. Also, it would allow developing countries to be taken into consideration rather than expecting them to comply with orders/actions that might solely benefit the strong states.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s