An often-overlooked feature of international climate change agreements is their dispute resolution provisions. An effective dispute resolution framework is essential for holding States to account and ensuring compliance with treaty obligations. However, many of the dispute resolution mechanisms in international climate change agreements were never brought into existence. These include arbitration, conciliation and non-compliance procedures. This article analyses the dispute resolution mechanisms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) ('UNFCCC'), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the Paris Agreement (2015) with a view to establishing which are missing, which have been successful in keeping States in check, and which should inform future amendments or treaties. Notably, a non-compliance procedure was never introduced under the UNFCCC, a successful one came into existence under the Kyoto Protocol, and a watered-down version is being discussed under the Paris Agreement. Further, although the treaties refer to an arbitration annex and a conciliation annex, none of these ever materialized. The article compares and contrasts the various procedures and their different successes, including through the use of case-studies, and makes a number of recommendations for future amendments or treaties.
This article is published by Edinburgh University Press (EUP) in the Global Energy Law and Sustainability Journal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
