Stringent Compliance Procedures of the Kyoto Protocol

Achieving a carbon-neutral society is a challenge that requires global cooperation. “International environmental laws have been formulated as a set of rules among sovereign states to address such universal challenges,” explains Nishimura. As a researcher in international law and a member of an environmental NGO, he has participated in the conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements, witnessing the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and studying the formation processes of international climate change treaties and their challenges. His focus lies on the "compliance procedures" established by these agreements, examining their evolution and comparing and analyzing the compliance mechanisms of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

"In simple terms, 'compliance procedures' refer to the steps taken to ensure that the parties involved are fulfilling their obligations outlined in a treaty," explains Nishimura. He notes that nearly all multilateral environmental agreements incorporate some form of compliance procedure. Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol stands out as a notable exception in this regard.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted just before the Rio Conference held under the United Nations on May 9, 1992. Based on this framework convention, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, and the Paris Agreement in 2015. “The Kyoto Protocol is considered exceptional because it imposed legally binding numerical targets for greenhouse gas reductions on developed contracting parties and set strict measures for non-compliance,” says Nishimura.

Historically, the first environmental agreement to include compliance provisions was the Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987. This protocol, which aims to protect the ozone layer, is a specific agreement under the Vienna Convention framework. Since then, no other environmental treaties had imposed sanctions for non-compliance to avoid the risk of countries opting out. An increase in non-participating countries would compromise the universality of the environmental treaties. “Still, I believe that the strict compliance procedures of the Kyoto Protocol were somewhat inevitable, although, as a result, the United States did not participate to begin with, Canada withdrew partway, and Japan and Russia refused to accept reduction obligations halfway,” Nishimura adds.

Nishimura points out that compliance enforcement measures were aimed only at developed contracting parties under the Kyoto Protocol. “At the time the UNFCCC was adopted, developing countries were not emitting greenhouse gases on the scale they are today, and it was rational, based on the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities,’ for only developed countries to bear reduction obligations. However, after the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, the greenhouse gas emissions of emerging economies like China and India significantly increased. The Kyoto Protocol could not sufficiently respond to these global societal changes.”

Comparison of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement

Challenge of the Paris Agreement: Ensuring Practicability While Focusing on Increasing Participation

The Paris Agreement, a defacto successor to the Kyoto Protocol, was formulated with these reflections in mind. “Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement requires all contracting countries to set their reduction targets and to submit their ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ (NDCs). Even if the targets are not met, only facilitative measures are taken after discussions, and no legal liability is imposed. The aim was to address a major shortcoming of the Kyoto Protocol: the lack of participation by major greenhouse gas-emitting countries. As intended, as of current, 195 countries have become contracting parties, and almost all have submitted their NDCs.”

The Paris Agreement was ratified in November 2016, just 11 months after its adoption. A significant achievement was the inclusion of major emitters such as the USA, China, and India within the framework. However, the absence of legally binding obligations regarding emission reduction actions presents a challenge to its practical effectiveness. Nishimura notes, “Transparency and civic engagement are necessary. The status and challenges of the agreement should be disclosed to civil society, while international organizations and civil society must also maintain a high level of interest and vigilance.”

Paris Agreement Emphasizes Mitigation Measures and Respects Human Rights

“Climate change countermeasures need to be tackled from two aspects: ‘mitigation,’ like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ‘adaptation,’ addressing problems already occurring,” Nishimura continues. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which focuses on mitigation measures, the Paris Agreement actively incorporates adaptation measures as well. He also highlights the importance of human rights law in this context, emphasizing the necessity for adaptation measures as climate change poses severe risks to the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations. “Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement includes a lengthy preamble. It confirms that climate change is a ‘common concern of humankind’ and specifies that when taking actions to address climate change, the rights of people in vulnerable situations must be respected and considered.” Reflecting this, the number of climate change litigation cases is said to have risen globally since the Paris Agreement’s enactment. “It’s essential to recognize the significant impact of climate change on fundamental human rights and to reconfirm the importance of approaching from a perspective of human rights law,” Nishimura concludes. As the international community faces issues like global environmental protection and human rights, the challenge is to bridge the gap between ideal and reality, a pursuit he continues to explore.