On The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities(CBDR) is an important issue of international environmental law, so it is discussed in the thesis. As is known to all, now economic development is pursued and good life environment is valued at the same time. Many issues, such as air pollution, climate change are increasingly paid attention to by the international society and domestic society. In such a trend, the discuss of the principle of CBDR is also more and more important. Especially in the field of climate change, according to the related convention the Paris climate conference in 2015 is the deadline to reach a agreement to replace The Kyoto Protocol and from the past conferences whether the final legal agreement can be reached depends on the understanding and positioning of the principle by different countries groups. In the key time, it is necessary to seriously understand the principle again.This thesis is divided into four chapters except introduction and they are “the overview of the principle of CBDR ” “how the principle of CBDR reflects in the conventions” “the new opinion of the principle of CBDR and the forecast of future” and “the current situation and improving direction in China”. Among them we pay attention to elaborating in the first two chapters and the main innovation is in Chapter Three and Chapter Four. On the basis of Chapter One’s detailed elaboratingand analysis and the application of the principle to the conventions in Chapter Two, we obtain the historical legitimacy, theoretical legitimacy and necessity of the principle. Thus they lead to Chapter Three’s new opinion and Chapter Four’s improving in China.In Chapter One we elaborate the principle’s historical development, implication and status. In a word this principle’s definition is that all the countries in the world have the obligations to protect and perfect the earth environment, but when they bear the concrete responsibilities there are differences among them. In order to know a principle or a concept the first thing is to know its historical development, namely the historical origin, so this thesis introduces the part at first. It includes the United Nations Declaration on the human environment as the germination, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as the prototype, and Rio Declaration as the establishment. Then on the basis of the implication of the principle we elaborate the theoretical legitimacy(the legitimacy of common responsibility and the legitimacy of differentiated responsibilities) to support the rationality of the principle. While discussing the status of the principle we start from its two current forms, namely as the guidance and suggestion principle in the soft law and as the basic principle and concrete code of practice in the law of treaties. The former is the focus of Chapter One while the latter is the main of Chapter Two. In Chapter Two we divide it into two parts, the field of climate change and the others. In the others’ field we discuss Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in the ozone layer field, Convention on Biological Diversity in the biological diversity field and Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal in the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes field. But the focus is certainly on the field of climate change in which the principle is reflected most clearly and widely and in this field the best synthesizer is The Kyoto Protocol. The protocol progressed a lot under the guidance of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. About the protocol we discuss it from the aspect ofits articles, some important conferences and EU’s, American, Russian, Japanese attitudes towards the protocol. In general there are some changes of these countries’ attitudes from the time when the protocol wasn’t efficient to the time after it comes into force. Among them only EU is always supporting and promote the protocol while America is always floating up and away from the protocol. Russia and Japan both have a change in the general orientation from supporting to not supporting.On the basis of the first two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four are more convincing. They can be considered as the conclusion of this thesis and also they are my own opinion according to the elaborating of the first two chapters. Chapter Three is on the current important divergence of the positioning of CBDR. Most developed countries and their scholars consider CBDR as a concept of international environmental law or only as a article in the treaty, so it is not the basic principle. Meanwhile most developing countries and their scholars hold the opinion that the principle of CBDR is the basic principle of international environmental law. But in my opinion confirming if it is the basic principle or not, if it is the basic principle of international environmental law or the basic principle of the climate change field is not the most important issue and it can’t be completed in a short term. I think that it is more convenient to identify the principle as a soft law’s basic principle when it is in the soft law, as the treaty’s basic principle when it is in the treaty. The other discussion is non-essential. And in such a clear field as climate change there are still many developed countries who aren’t willing to admit it as the basic principle, let alone as the basic principle of international environmental law. Now that, we’d better put this issue if it is the basic principle(in my opinion it is certainly the basic principle of international environmental law) aside, not focus on the theoretical discussion but pay attention to how to apply the concept of CBDR to practice better and more feasibly. We can begin with the easiest field, namely the field of climate change. Which should be insisted on is that the true spirit of CBDR should be embodied in the concrete rights and obligations and the application in the international society in a long term although the principle isn’t written by words. For example, how todistribute the related countries’ concrete responsibilities of emission reduction, how to decide the detailed amount of aid funds and how to decide the method of technology transfer. At the same time in order to appear the difference between developed countries and the difference between developing countries we can divide the countries groups into smaller parts. Different developed countries can offer aid through different conditions, methods and content. Developed countries can offer different kinds and degrees of aid to different developing countries, etc. This is the most important, realistic and viable issue. We should concentrate on climate change which is the most pressing issue other than other erratic issues. As far as I’m concerned the future of the principle of CBDR is very bright and won’t be sifted out. But meanwhile The Kyoto Protocol has come to the end and a new agreement is imperative. It may be delayed but can’t be stopped. The current architecture for climate change have become stable and mature and the change of most countries’ attitude is not so difficult. At last when we introduce the current situation and improving direction in China, we conclude the inevitability and legitimacy of unswervingly adhering to the principle of CBDR in China according to the foregoing discussion and Chinese national conditions. And China should maintain the current international architecture for climate change through the act at home and abroad. In the process, China should pay attention to international opinion to change the strategy properly and slickly. At the same time in the domestic China should insistently promote measures’ implement which are fitting Chinese national conditions to prepare for the future.