The Durban Agreement Of 2011 Establishes Which Of The Following
In a prescriptive model, the role of international law is not to ensure compliance with privately negotiated rules, which are perceived by all parties as the promotion of their interests, but rather to demand the „right“ outcome, for example in terms of climate efficiency or climate justice. If we believe that one of them is fair and the other bad – for example for reasons of justice – the law has the right to proclaim winners and losers instead of seeking a compromise that betters cross all parties. One of the priorities of the conference was to ensure a global climate agreement, with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) about to end.  It was also expected to focus on „finalizing at least some of the Cancun closing agreements“ reached at the 2010 conference. such as „clean technology cooperation,“ as well as „forest protection, adaptation to climate impact and finance – the promised transfer of funds from rich countries to poor countries to help them protect forests, adapt to climate impacts and „green“ their economies.  Under the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, China, India), China stated that it would only accept legal commitments for the post-2020 period, while India opposed EU demands for a new legally binding instrument. In accordance with this view, the outcome of the Durban platform „will come into force and will be implemented from 2020″9 and could take the form of a „consensual result with the force of law“ – a formulation, their meaning is unclear, but it is probably different from a „treaty“ or „other legal instrument“ since it is the third alternative10. In exchange for their approval of a new negotiating mandate, BASIC countries obtained their main request, namely the adoption by the EU of a second commitment period. At the last plenary session of the AWG-KP, the parties failed to agree on the duration of the commitment period, with the EU calling for the period up to 2020 to be to maintain consistency with the Convention`s path, and the President decided to submit the text to the CMP for adoption, with parentheses spanring the duration of the commitment period. On Sunday, December 11, the CMP approved the decision, including the parentheses that are expected to be resolved at COP 18. Delegates also discussed an EU proposal on the Presidency`s negotiating text (FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/CRP.2/Rev.1), and many countries expressed concerns about the possibility of increasing the level of ambition. Brazil and AOSIS, Brazil and the African Group submitted via QELROs and the African Group on the transmission of excess AAUs. Although the guarantee of a Kyoto extension was considered a significant success of Durban, the effectiveness of the extension was questioned, as Canada, Russia and Japan did not sign new targets during the second Kyoto commitment period.
With the United States, which has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, countries responsible for 85% of emissions are not legally required to reduce their emissions within the next decade. CMP decision: the decision on the guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/L.7) invites, among other things, the ICC to continue the accreditation process for independent bodies, including efforts to bring the joint accreditation process into line with the CDM accreditation process and to further improve the implementation of the review process within the committee; decides to consider, in the case of CMP 8, the issuance of emission reduction units (ERUs) for projects envisaged by the CCS; and calls on the SCC to develop a revised set of key attributes and transitional measures on possible changes to common implementation guidelines to develop revised common implementation guidelines to be adopted at PPC 9.