国际气候法律新秩序的困境与出路:基于“德班-巴黎”进程的分析

Dilemmas of New International Climate Legal Order and the Way out of It:an Analysis base on the “Durban-Paris” Process

从德班到巴黎的国际气候谈判进程,尤其是《巴黎协定》的达成,表明了国际气候法律秩序构建的新方向,即在缔约主体的广泛性、谈判轨道的统一性、减排义务分担的动态性方面进一步强化。但上述阶段性进步并不能掩盖新秩序构建在主体立场分化、谈判程序中的"民主失灵"以及减排目标和减排行动之间的背离等困境。为构建一个减排雄心与减排实效相匹配的新秩序,应从制度应对和路径转变两方面加以推进:一方面,在微观层面作出及时的制度应对,包括通过碳交易市场的完善等措施形成对相关主体的选择性激励;引入"最大多数同意"原则改善谈判程序低效的现象;通过明确的"过渡期"设置为发展中国家未来承担有约束力的减排义务提供缓冲;采取动态复合标准使减排义务分担方案更易为各国接受。另一方面,从宏观层面推动路径转变,包括推动共同但有区别责任原则的重心从"共同责任"向"区别责任"转移;推动减排模式向"自下而上"与"自上而下"相结合转变;推动国际气候法律秩序向"一体化"与"多元化"相结合转变。

The progress of international climate negotiation from Durban to Paris, espe- cially the adoption of the Paris Agreement, demonstrates the new developments in the construc- tion of international climate legal order, such as wider participation by contracting parties, uni- fied track of negotiation and enhanced dynamism of the distribution of the burden of emission re- duction. However, the aforementioned progresses can not cover up such dilemmas as the failure to reach consensus in the construction of the new order, the ＂democratic failure＂ in the negotia- tion process, and the contradiction between the target and the action of emission reduction. In order to build a new order under which the ambition to reduce emission matches tangible effects, efforts must be made both to improve the response system and to change the approach. On the one hand, China needs to give timely systematic responses at the micro-level, including improving carbon trading market to provide selective incentives to specific participants; introdu- cing the ＂majority-to-the-utmost principle＂ to enhance the procedural efficiency of negotiation; setting up a explicit ＂transitional period＂ to give developing countries more time to fulfill their binding commitments of emission reduction ; and adopting a dynamic and vigorous standard so as to make the allocation of the burden of emission reduction more acceptable to all countries. On the other hand, China should push for the change of approach at the macro-level： firstly, the fo- cus of ＂common but differentiated responsibilities＂ should be shifted from ＂common responsi- bilities＂ to ＂differentiated responsibilities＂ ; secondly, mode of emission reduction needs to be transform into one that combines the top-down mode with the bottom-up mode; and thirdly, the legal order of climate change needs to be transformed into one that combines integration with diversification.