Brics Countries' Political and Legal Participation in the Global Climate Change Agenda

AuthorE. Gladun - D. Ahsan
PositionTyumen State University (Tyumen, Russia) - University of Southern Denmark (Esbjerg, Denmark)
Pages8-42
BRICS LAW JOURNAL Volume III (2016) Issue 3
ARTICLES
BRICS CounTRIES’ PoLITICaL anD LEGaL PaRTICIPaTIon
In THE GLoBaL CLIMaTE CHanGE aGEnDa
ELENA GLADUN,
Tyumen State University (Tyumen, Russia)
DEWAN AHSAN,
University of Southern Denmark (Esbjerg, Denmark)
DOI: 10.21684/2412-2343-2016-3-3-8-42
The article presents an overview and analysis of international legal regulations on climate
change. The authors examine how the international regime related to climate change
has evolved in multilateral agreements. A special focus is put on the principle of common
but dierentiated responsibilities which became the basis of discord among states in
discussing targets and responsibilities in climate cha nge mitigation. The authors note
that in 2015 the international climate change regime entered a new stage where the
most important role is determined for developing countries, both in the legal and in the
nancial infrastructure, and in the formation of an international climate change policy.
The importance of the participation of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and S outh Africa
(BRICS) in an international climate change regime has been recognized for some time.
The article describes the policy and regulations on climate-related issues in BRICS. The
authors compare the key actions and measures BRICS have taken for complying with
international climate change documents. They highlight that global climate change
action cannot be successful without BRICS countries’ involvement. BRICS must therefore
make adequate eorts in emissions reduction measures and signicant commitments
in respect of the international climate change regime. The authors propose three major
steps for BRICS to take the lead in dealing with climate change. First, BRICS need to foster
further discussion and cooperation on climate issues and work out an obligatory legal
framework to ght climate change collectively as well as unied legislation at their
ELENA GLADUN, DEWAN AHSAN 9
domestic levels. Second, Russia and other BRICS countries have the potential to cooperate
in the eld of renewable energy through the exchange of technology, investment in
the sector, and the participation of their energy companies in each other ’s domestic
market. Assuming Russia will support the development and enhancement of renewable
technologies in BRICS countries, it can take a leadership position in the group. Third, in
the international process of tackling climate-related issues BRICS should act as a bloc.
Russia’s distancing itself from its partners is considered a deciency in strengthening the
BRICS countries’ role in global governance. BRICS are capable of serving as a vigorous
platform in driving climate change negotiations leading to eective binding regulations
in 2020–2030 and, provided that the countries cooperate successfully, BRICS will carry
the combined weight of the entire group in the global arena.
Keywords: BRICS countries; climate change; emissions reduction; international
agreements; common but dierentiated responsibilities.
Recommended citation: Elena Gladun & Dewan Ahsan, BRICS Countries’ Political
and Legal Participation in the Global Climate Change Agenda, 3(3) BRICS Law Journal
8–42 (2016).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Evolution of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
on Climate Change
3. BRICS Countries’ Domestic Policies and Regulations Related
to Climate Change
3.1. Brazil
3.2. Russia
3.3. India
3.4. China
3.5. South Africa
4. Conclusion – The Increasing Role of BRICS Countries
in the Implementation of Global Climate Change Goals
1. Introduction
One of the global objectives of sustainable development set forth by the
international community is to improve the quality of life within the constraints
of the natural environment. The primary way to achieve this is to mitigate global
BRICS LAW JOURNAL Volume III (2016) Issue 3 10
climate change. The global problem of climate change is addressed in the plethora
of international documents which have formed the legal framework governing
the activities of states to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to create and
implement the best technologies, and to cooperate in the area of protecting the
ozone layer. By the mid-1980s, the accumulating observed evidence of actual ozone
layer depletion was a key factor leading countries into the era of climate change.
The politics of global climate change are as complex as the science underpinning
the debate. State, regional and multilateral eorts to address climate change dier
in scope, focus and style.1 There is also great diversity in the social and legal systems
in the states that have undertaken to regulate climate issues. Dierent countries
have widely divergent histories, levels of wealth, economic conditions, cultures, and
systems of government and laws, hence, they regulate environmental protection
according to their own conceptions, legal instruments, and national norms. Some
countries are more experienced in regulating eciently matters related to the natural
environment, while others have little experience in using regulatory instruments in
respect of this question.
The problem of climate change, however, cannot be solved by the eorts of any
one country acting alone. Successful climate change mitigation, rstly, will require
global consensus and ecient global environmental agreement on the appropriate
response to climate change. The eectiveness of such an agreement depends on the
participation of both developed and developing nations. All countries acknowledge
the need to reduce ozone-depleting emissions though some developed countries are
reluctant to ratify climate change agreements, for instance the Kyoto Protocol,2 and
developing countries lack adequate commitment to reduce their emissions. It is crucial
that all governments comply with international agreements and not set emissions
reduction targets with ambiguous sustainability goals, which only undermines
long-term eorts at the domestic level, i.e. replacement of state policy, extensive
amendments in legislation, and special judicial or administrative measures.3
This paper analyzes the eorts of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa
(BRICS) in complying with the existing international climate change regime as well
as the transformation in their domestic policy and regulations addressing climate
change in the last decade. The objective of the research is to determine the role of the
1 Cinnamon Carlarne, Risky Business: The Ups and Downs of Mixing Economics, Security and Climate Change,
10 Melb. J. Int’l L. 439 (2009).
2 The rationale for the previous United States Administration’s not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol was partly
based on the lack of commitment to GHG emissions reduction by developing nations. See Philippe
Tulkens & Henry Tulkens, The White House and the Kyoto Protocol: Double Standards on Uncertainties
and Their Consequences, FEEM Working Paper 89.2006 (2006) (Jun. 12, 2016), available at http://
ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12063/1/wp060089.pdf.
3 Michael Burger et al., Rethinking Sustainability to Meet the Climate Change Challenge, 43 Envtl. L. Rep.
News & Analysis 10342, 10345 (2013).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT