MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W210339887

Participation of Developing Countries in the International Climate Change Regime: Lessons for the Future

2006· article· en· W210339887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin A. Baumert

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Environmental Law and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolTreatyGreenhouse gasDeveloping countryUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeClimate changePopulationPolitical scienceConventionConference of the partiesMontreal ProtocolInternational lawInternational tradeLawDevelopment economicsEconomic growthBusinessGeographyEconomicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION After more than a decade of hard fought international negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) entered into force on February 16, 2005.1 The treaty binds the major industrialized countries-with the exception of the United States, which has not ratified the agreement2-to a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control system covering the period from 2008 to 2012.3 The Kyoto Protocol builds on the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Climate Convention),4 which has nearly universal membership.5 Together, these agreements constitute a set of principles, rules, and procedures that attempt to address one of the most complex and challenging problems of the twenty-first century. A persistent criticism of the Kyoto Protocol is its alleged failure to include so-called developing countries under its emission control system.6 Most glaringly, the agreement's emission control system does not cover fast-growing countries like China, India, and Brazil.7 From an environmental standpoint, it is simply not possible to protect the climate system over the long term if developing countries do not participate in emission reductions. Nearly 80 percent of the world's population lives in developing countries, which already account for almost 50 percent of the world's GHG emissions.8 Furthermore, both the Clinton9 and Bush10 administrations, as well as the U.S. Senate,11 have objected to the lack of legal obligations for developing countries, and the Bush administration has used this as a primary reason for not joining the Kyoto Protocol.12 Accordingly, in order for the United States to support a successor agreement to Kyoto,13 the regime will likely need to include some kind of developing country commitments.14 This Note considers what is perhaps the foremost challenge for the future development of the climate change regime: determining what form of developing country legal obligation might be acceptable and appropriate. Part II of this Note briefly describes the problem of climate change and the international response, focusing on the main provisions of the Climate Convention and Kyoto Protocol. Part III analyzes the three present options for developing country participation in the climate regime. These three options essentially represent the status quo. As will be shown, they are not mutually exclusive options, and none is legally required. In analyzing the three options, this Note explains the relevant textual provisions of the Climate Convention and Kyoto Protocol and describes state practice to date. The purpose is not to analyze each option comprehensively, but rather to glean principles and lessons for how future legal frameworks can better incorporate developing countries. Accordingly, Part IV suggests an alternative form of mitigation commitment applicable to developing countries that captures some of the benefits of all three existing options and, it is hoped, avoids some of their pitfalls. II. THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief heat-trapping GHG,15 have risen more than 30 percent.16 This increase is mainly attributable to human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation.17 Changes in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere have increased the average global surface temperature by about 0.6°C (1°F) over the past hundred years.18 If the trends in GHG emissions growth are not altered, global temperatures are expected to rise between 1.4 and 5.8°C (2.5 to 10.4°F) by 2100.19 The effects of such temperature changes on agricultural production, water supply, forests, and human settlements are unknown but will likely be detrimental to a large portion of the world's population.20 Preventing such dangerous climate change requires global emissions to decrease dramatically during this century, perhaps on the order of 15 to 25 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law reviewSame topicInternational Environmental Law and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207