The Paris Agreement has an “upward” structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are “top down”, characterized by internationally defined standards and objectives that states must implement. [32] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legal commitment targets, the Paris Agreement, which focuses on consensual training, allows for voluntary and national objectives. [33] Specific climate targets are therefore politically promoted and not legally binding. Only the processes governing reporting and revision of these objectives are imposed by international law. This structure is particularly noteworthy for the United States – in the absence of legal mitigation or funding objectives, the agreement is seen as an “executive agreement, not a treaty.” Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty was approved by the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to enter into force. [33] The level of NCC[8] defined by each country will determine the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because of the lack of specificity, normative nature or language necessary to establish binding standards. [20] In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country[7] to set a target in its NDC on a specified date and not for an application if a defined target is not achieved in an NDC. [8] [21] There will be only a “Name and Shame” system [22] or as UN Deputy Secretary General for Climate Change, J. Pésztor, CBS News (US), a “Name and Encouragement” plan. [23] Since the agreement has no consequences if countries do not live up to their commitments, such a consensus is fragile. A cattle of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to the total collapse of the agreement.

[24] Adaptation issues were at the forefront of the paris agreement. Collective long-term adaptation objectives are included in the agreement and countries must be accountable for their adaptation measures, making adaptation a parallel element of the mitigation agreement. [46] Adaptation objectives focus on improving adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability limitation. [47] Although mitigation and adjustment require increased climate funding, adjustment has generally received less support and has mobilized less private sector action. [46] A 2014 OECD report showed that in 2014, only 16% of the world`s financial resources were devoted to adaptation to climate change. [50] The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, highlighting in particular the need to strengthen support for adaptation from the parties most affected by climate change, including least developed countries and small island developing states. The agreement also reminds the parties of the importance of public subsidies, as adjustment measures receive less public sector investment. [46] John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that the United States would double its grant-based adjustment funding by 2020. [33] Although the NDC of each contracting party is not legally binding, the contracting parties have a legal obligation to monitor their progress through expert technical reviews in order to assess the performance towards the NDC and to find ways to strengthen ambitions. [57] Article 13 of the Paris Agreement establishes an “enhanced transparency framework for measures and support” that sets harmonised monitoring, reporting and verification (LVR) requirements. As a result, industrialized and developing countries must report every two years on their efforts to combat climate change, and all parties will be subject to technical and peer review. [57] The Paris Agreement was launched at the signing on April 22, 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York.

[59] After the ratification of the agreement by several