To reach the Paris Agreement targets, the remaining carbon budget is about 2.3 tons of CO2e per person per year. However, current per capita emissions exceed the target, with a global average carbon footprint of 4.81 tons. PCAs provide a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of private individuals. The thesis explores the compatibility of PCAs with existing legal regulations, the legal challenges of implementing and governing PCAs, and the potential human rights and equity implications of such schemes from a de lege lata and a de lege ferenda perspective. The findings highlight various regulatory and design deficiencies in current PCA proposals and emphasize the need to address data protection, privacy concerns, and the protection of individual rights. Additionally, the governance dimension of PCAs, including participation rights, transparency, and enforcement mechanisms, needs further development. The thesis concludes that while PCAs can be effective in achieving climate goals, careful consideration of legal requirements and individual rights is essential for their successful implementation. It emphasizes the necessity of comprehensive designs that go beyond technical and economic aspects and take into account legal requirements, individual rights, and equitable distribution.

O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento surge a partir da década de 70 como expressão de resistência dos países do então Terceiro Mundo a uma ordem mundial pós-guerra entendida essencialmente como injusta e cuja doutrina do desenvolvimento tal como prescrita não conseguia equalizar. A partir de movimentações políticas, os países em desenvolvimento emplacaram tal tratamento no âmbito de importantes documentos internacionais e acordos multilaterais. O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento se expressa no direito internacional ambiental por meio do princípio das responsabilidades comuns mas diferenciadas e respectivas capacidades, consagrado da Declaração do Rio sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, de 1992, e cuja expressão máxima é a Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas (CQMC). Tendo como objeto o tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento, delimitado às obrigações centrais no âmbito da CQMC, a presente pesquisa encara o problema de sua operacionalização desde a mencionada Convenção até o seu Acordo de Paris. Para tanto, a pesquisa vale-se do método dedutivo, uma abordagem estruturalista e materialista-histórica para a análise de conteúdo dos textos jurídicos, observando a operacionalização do tratamento diferenciado em nas obrigações em termos de vinculatividade, precisão e delegação. O resultado foi que as mudanças climáticas são necessariamente um debate sobre desigualdades em termos de responsabilidade, mitigação e vulnerabilidade. Sob a alegação de um mundo mais complexo, onde a expressão ‘Terceiro Mundo’ é substituída pela noção de ‘Sul Global’, afirma-se que tal enquadramento de uma dívida Norte-Sul não seria mais pertinente, esvaziando o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Porém, a persistência da dívida Norte-Sul em termos dinâmicos aponta que tal tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento também continua atual. No intuito de instrumentalizar as obrigações da Convenção, o Protocolo de Quioto – endossado principalmente pelos países europeus – estabelece uma arquitetura descendente, apoiado em normas diferenciais por meio de compromissos de redução precisos, vinculantes e firmados internacionalmente, tendo como destinatários, em um primeiro momento, os países desenvolvidos. O Acordo de Paris – que reflete a estratégia dos Estados Unidos desde antes da própria Convenção – estabelece uma arquitetura ascendente, recorrendo a normas contextuais, onde os compromissos são nacionalmente determinados e isentos de um escrutínio internacional. O Acordo – cuidadosamente redigido – não estabelece nenhuma obrigação substancial precisa ou mesmo vinculante sobre tais contribuições, deixando ampla margem para todos os países e tornando a liderança dos países desenvolvidos no enfrentamento das mudanças climáticas apenas uma obrigação retórica. Deste modo, conclui-se que, sob o argumento de prover diferenciação para todos, o Acordo de Paris esvazia o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Entretanto, apenas no âmbito da delegação, ou seja, dos mecanismos de cumprimento estabelecidos pelo Acordo, notadamente o balanço geral de implementação por meio de ‘naming and shaming’ que os países em desenvolvimento poderão exigir a necessária liderança dos países desenvolvidos. / In the 1970s, countries recognised as ‘developing’ began to be treated differently with regard to international agreements and doctrines that affected those countries development, following a widespread consensus among developing countries that the post-war order was unjust. As a result of political moves, developing countries have introduced such treatment in the framework of important international documents and multilateral agreements. The differentiated treatment of developing countries is expressed in international environmental law through the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and culminated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Having as its object the differentiated treatment of developing countries, limited to the central obligations under the UNFCCC, this research faces how international climate agreements operated within the differentiated treatment for developing countries. The research is based on the deductive method, a structuralist and historical materialist approach to the analysis of the content of legal texts, observing the differential treatment in obligations in terms of obligation, precision and delegation. The result was that climate change is necessarily a debate on inequalities in terms of responsibility, mitigation and vulnerability. Under the claim of a more complex world, where the expression 'Third World' is replaced by the notion of 'Global South', it is stated that such framing of a North-South divide would not be more relevant, depriving the meaning of differential treatment of developing countries. However, the persistence of the North-South divide in dynamic terms points out that such differentiated treatment of the developing countries is still relevant. In order to implement the obligations of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol - endorsed mainly by European countries - establishes a downward architecture, supported by differential norms through precise, binding and internationally agreed reduction commitments, directed primarily to developed countries. The Paris Agreement - which reflects the US strategy prior to the Convention itself - establishes an upward architecture, using contextual norms where commitments are nationally determined and thus exempt from international scrutiny. The Agreement - carefully worded - does not establish any substantive or precise binding obligation on such contributions, leaving wide scope for all countries and does not require substantive efforts from developed countries in tackling climate change. In this way, it is concluded that, under the argument of providing differentiation for all, the Paris Agreement emptied the meaning of the differential treatment of developing countries. However, only within the scope of the delegation, through compliance mechanisms established by the Agreement, notably the global stocktake through naming and shaming that developing countries may require the necessary leadership of the developed countries.

Climate change is the most obvious and pressing impairment of the biological, physical, and chemical systems. To help mitigate this unprecedented problem, I present heads of state, policymakers, and members of civil society with a set of new provisions that they can include in their trade agreements to drive emissions reduction from countries inside and outside of their trade agreements, maintain their ability to compete in an increasingly globalized world, and comply with international trading rules. Ultimately, I seek to demonstrate the untapped potential for leveraging trade agreements to reduce emissions in the midst of an international system that lacks concerted climate action. In light of humanity’s inadequate efforts to address the immense threats posed by a changing climate, decentralized efforts, such as these, are increasingly essential to reduce emissions.

O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento surge a partir da década de 70 como expressão de resistência dos países do então Terceiro Mundo a uma ordem mundial pós-guerra entendida essencialmente como injusta e cuja doutrina do desenvolvimento tal como prescrita não conseguia equalizar. A partir de movimentações políticas, os países em desenvolvimento emplacaram tal tratamento no âmbito de importantes documentos internacionais e acordos multilaterais. O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento se expressa no direito internacional ambiental por meio do princípio das responsabilidades comuns mas diferenciadas e respectivas capacidades, consagrado da Declaração do Rio sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, de 1992, e cuja expressão máxima é a Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas (CQMC). Tendo como objeto o tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento, delimitado às obrigações centrais no âmbito da CQMC, a presente pesquisa encara o problema de sua operacionalização desde a mencionada Convenção até o seu Acordo de Paris. Para tanto, a pesquisa vale-se do método dedutivo, uma abordagem estruturalista e materialista-histórica para a análise de conteúdo dos textos jurídicos, observando a operacionalização do tratamento diferenciado em nas obrigações em termos de vinculatividade, precisão e delegação. O resultado foi que as mudanças climáticas são necessariamente um debate sobre desigualdades em termos de responsabilidade, mitigação e vulnerabilidade. Sob a alegação de um mundo mais complexo, onde a expressão ‘Terceiro Mundo’ é substituída pela noção de ‘Sul Global’, afirma-se que tal enquadramento de uma dívida Norte-Sul não seria mais pertinente, esvaziando o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Porém, a persistência da dívida Norte-Sul em termos dinâmicos aponta que tal tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento também continua atual. No intuito de instrumentalizar as obrigações da Convenção, o Protocolo de Quioto – endossado principalmente pelos países europeus – estabelece uma arquitetura descendente, apoiado em normas diferenciais por meio de compromissos de redução precisos, vinculantes e firmados internacionalmente, tendo como destinatários, em um primeiro momento, os países desenvolvidos. O Acordo de Paris – que reflete a estratégia dos Estados Unidos desde antes da própria Convenção – estabelece uma arquitetura ascendente, recorrendo a normas contextuais, onde os compromissos são nacionalmente determinados e isentos de um escrutínio internacional. O Acordo – cuidadosamente redigido – não estabelece nenhuma obrigação substancial precisa ou mesmo vinculante sobre tais contribuições, deixando ampla margem para todos os países e tornando a liderança dos países desenvolvidos no enfrentamento das mudanças climáticas apenas uma obrigação retórica. Deste modo, conclui-se que, sob o argumento de prover diferenciação para todos, o Acordo de Paris esvazia o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Entretanto, apenas no âmbito da delegação, ou seja, dos mecanismos de cumprimento estabelecidos pelo Acordo, notadamente o balanço geral de implementação por meio de ‘naming and shaming’ que os países em desenvolvimento poderão exigir a necessária liderança dos países desenvolvidos. / In the 1970s, countries recognised as ‘developing’ began to be treated differently with regard to international agreements and doctrines that affected those countries development, following a widespread consensus among developing countries that the post-war order was unjust. As a result of political moves, developing countries have introduced such treatment in the framework of important international documents and multilateral agreements. The differentiated treatment of developing countries is expressed in international environmental law through the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and culminated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Having as its object the differentiated treatment of developing countries, limited to the central obligations under the UNFCCC, this research faces how international climate agreements operated within the differentiated treatment for developing countries. The research is based on the deductive method, a structuralist and historical materialist approach to the analysis of the content of legal texts, observing the differential treatment in obligations in terms of obligation, precision and delegation. The result was that climate change is necessarily a debate on inequalities in terms of responsibility, mitigation and vulnerability. Under the claim of a more complex world, where the expression 'Third World' is replaced by the notion of 'Global South', it is stated that such framing of a North-South divide would not be more relevant, depriving the meaning of differential treatment of developing countries. However, the persistence of the North-South divide in dynamic terms points out that such differentiated treatment of the developing countries is still relevant. In order to implement the obligations of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol - endorsed mainly by European countries - establishes a downward architecture, supported by differential norms through precise, binding and internationally agreed reduction commitments, directed primarily to developed countries. The Paris Agreement - which reflects the US strategy prior to the Convention itself - establishes an upward architecture, using contextual norms where commitments are nationally determined and thus exempt from international scrutiny. The Agreement - carefully worded - does not establish any substantive or precise binding obligation on such contributions, leaving wide scope for all countries and does not require substantive efforts from developed countries in tackling climate change. In this way, it is concluded that, under the argument of providing differentiation for all, the Paris Agreement emptied the meaning of the differential treatment of developing countries. However, only within the scope of the delegation, through compliance mechanisms established by the Agreement, notably the global stocktake through naming and shaming that developing countries may require the necessary leadership of the developed countries.

O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento surge a partir da década de 70 como expressão de resistência dos países do então Terceiro Mundo a uma ordem mundial pós-guerra entendida essencialmente como injusta e cuja doutrina do desenvolvimento tal como prescrita não conseguia equalizar. A partir de movimentações políticas, os países em desenvolvimento emplacaram tal tratamento no âmbito de importantes documentos internacionais e acordos multilaterais. O tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento se expressa no direito internacional ambiental por meio do princípio das responsabilidades comuns mas diferenciadas e respectivas capacidades, consagrado da Declaração do Rio sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, de 1992, e cuja expressão máxima é a Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas (CQMC). Tendo como objeto o tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento, delimitado às obrigações centrais no âmbito da CQMC, a presente pesquisa encara o problema de sua operacionalização desde a mencionada Convenção até o seu Acordo de Paris. Para tanto, a pesquisa vale-se do método dedutivo, uma abordagem estruturalista e materialista-histórica para a análise de conteúdo dos textos jurídicos, observando a operacionalização do tratamento diferenciado em nas obrigações em termos de vinculatividade, precisão e delegação. O resultado foi que as mudanças climáticas são necessariamente um debate sobre desigualdades em termos de responsabilidade, mitigação e vulnerabilidade. Sob a alegação de um mundo mais complexo, onde a expressão ‘Terceiro Mundo’ é substituída pela noção de ‘Sul Global’, afirma-se que tal enquadramento de uma dívida Norte-Sul não seria mais pertinente, esvaziando o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Porém, a persistência da dívida Norte-Sul em termos dinâmicos aponta que tal tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento também continua atual. No intuito de instrumentalizar as obrigações da Convenção, o Protocolo de Quioto – endossado principalmente pelos países europeus – estabelece uma arquitetura descendente, apoiado em normas diferenciais por meio de compromissos de redução precisos, vinculantes e firmados internacionalmente, tendo como destinatários, em um primeiro momento, os países desenvolvidos. O Acordo de Paris – que reflete a estratégia dos Estados Unidos desde antes da própria Convenção – estabelece uma arquitetura ascendente, recorrendo a normas contextuais, onde os compromissos são nacionalmente determinados e isentos de um escrutínio internacional. O Acordo – cuidadosamente redigido – não estabelece nenhuma obrigação substancial precisa ou mesmo vinculante sobre tais contribuições, deixando ampla margem para todos os países e tornando a liderança dos países desenvolvidos no enfrentamento das mudanças climáticas apenas uma obrigação retórica. Deste modo, conclui-se que, sob o argumento de prover diferenciação para todos, o Acordo de Paris esvazia o significado do tratamento diferenciado dos países em desenvolvimento. Entretanto, apenas no âmbito da delegação, ou seja, dos mecanismos de cumprimento estabelecidos pelo Acordo, notadamente o balanço geral de implementação por meio de ‘naming and shaming’ que os países em desenvolvimento poderão exigir a necessária liderança dos países desenvolvidos. / In the 1970s, countries recognised as ‘developing’ began to be treated differently with regard to international agreements and doctrines that affected those countries development, following a widespread consensus among developing countries that the post-war order was unjust. As a result of political moves, developing countries have introduced such treatment in the framework of important international documents and multilateral agreements. The differentiated treatment of developing countries is expressed in international environmental law through the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and culminated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Having as its object the differentiated treatment of developing countries, limited to the central obligations under the UNFCCC, this research faces how international climate agreements operated within the differentiated treatment for developing countries. The research is based on the deductive method, a structuralist and historical materialist approach to the analysis of the content of legal texts, observing the differential treatment in obligations in terms of obligation, precision and delegation. The result was that climate change is necessarily a debate on inequalities in terms of responsibility, mitigation and vulnerability. Under the claim of a more complex world, where the expression 'Third World' is replaced by the notion of 'Global South', it is stated that such framing of a North-South divide would not be more relevant, depriving the meaning of differential treatment of developing countries. However, the persistence of the North-South divide in dynamic terms points out that such differentiated treatment of the developing countries is still relevant. In order to implement the obligations of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol - endorsed mainly by European countries - establishes a downward architecture, supported by differential norms through precise, binding and internationally agreed reduction commitments, directed primarily to developed countries. The Paris Agreement - which reflects the US strategy prior to the Convention itself - establishes an upward architecture, using contextual norms where commitments are nationally determined and thus exempt from international scrutiny. The Agreement - carefully worded - does not establish any substantive or precise binding obligation on such contributions, leaving wide scope for all countries and does not require substantive efforts from developed countries in tackling climate change. In this way, it is concluded that, under the argument of providing differentiation for all, the Paris Agreement emptied the meaning of the differential treatment of developing countries. However, only within the scope of the delegation, through compliance mechanisms established by the Agreement, notably the global stocktake through naming and shaming that developing countries may require the necessary leadership of the developed countries.

The long-term global mean temperature depends on the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted. This direct link between temperature and cumulative CO2 emissions has implications for policymakers, as the cumulative emissions framework identifies the total amount of carbon that can be emitted, referred to as a cumulative carbon budget, that is consistent with reaching stabilization of the global mean temperature at desired levels, such as 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C warming above the pre-industrial level. This dissertation is a compilation of three studies that explore the relationship between warming and cumulative carbon emissions at high amounts of total carbon emitted (Project I; Chapter 2), its sensitivity to non-CO2 forcing (Project II; Chapter 3), and constraining the climate model responses with observations, in order to provide more accurate estimates of the carbon budget consistent with 1.5 °C warming above the pre-industrial level (Project III; Chapter 4). A joint summary of the key findings from each project, and their significance, is presented in Chapter 5. / Graduate / 2018-05-29

In 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed by nations all over the world. The new climate agreementwill replace previous Kyoto Protocol post-2020 and will likely change the conditions for using carbonoffsetting. It is probable that even more stringent controls will be required to ensure a credible carbon marketwhich avoids double counting and secures environmental integrity. Voluntary use of offsetting has to becompatible with the new rules set under the Paris Agreement to manage these risks. More countries will countemission reductions to their new nationally determined contributions, and therefore increases the risk ofdouble counting. Hence, the purpose of this master thesis was to reveal how the Swedish companies’ currentuse of voluntary carbon offsetting is compatible with the likely carbon market post-2020. The companiesreasons as why they use voluntary carbon offsetting, together with their underlying ethical view, based ontheir practices around carbon offsetting, were investigated. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews withSwedish companies using voluntary carbon offsetting were conducted during February - March in 2020. Theresult was analysed through the ethical theories consequentialist and duty-based theory to understand theirunderlying ethical view in relation to their carbon offsetting. The result showed that there are two primaryreasons as why companies use voluntary carbon offsetting. The first reason is that voluntary carbon offsettingis a part of their strategy to reduce their climate impact, and the second reason is to gain the trust of customersand marketing themselves through voluntary carbon offsetting. The thesis concludes that for the companies’to best guarantee the expected outcome of their offsetting, and be compatible with the post-2020 carbonoffsetting, they should have a combination of consequentialist and duty-based underlying ethical view withstrong follow up. Furthermore, regardless of reason for using voluntary carbon offsetting, or their ethicalview towards the action, the companies may choose to move to the alternative of financially supportingthe host countries in their work to reduce their GHG emissions instead of offsetting post-2020.

Climate change is a critical threat to all the countries of the world today, not least because of the severe human rights infringements it may well lead to. However, although climate change is a collective, global challenge, there are considerable inequalities regarding contribution to cause and burden of the effects. Those suffering the most from the effects of climate change tend to be least responsible for the emissions causing it. The theoretical concept of climate justice aims to address these injustices, between different countries as well as societal groups and generations. To contribute to the understanding of how this concept is present in the global climate debate today, this thesis examines a selection of the Paris Agreement parties’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from a perspective of climate justice. The analysis is based on a theoretical framework developed by Andrea Schapper, focusing on three dimensions of climate justice – international, intra-societal and intergenerational. Through this framework, a total of 36 NDCs are studied, the top and bottom three countries for each world region based on levels of cumulative CO2-emissions. The aim of the case selection has been to obtain a variation regarding development status, vulnerability to the effects of climate change, levels of greenhouse gas emissions and geographical location of the studied countries. The results of the study show that all the dimensions are present in at least some of the studied NDCs, but to a very different extent. Primarily, the parties discuss the issue of international justice. Intra-societal justice is touched upon quite frequently but very few bring up the matter of intergenerational justice. Moreover, all three dimensions are predominantly handled by countries classified as ”developing” (according to the UN statistics division).  This implies that climate justice is a higher priority for the most vulnerable to and least responsible for climate change, which is problematic for many reasons. Above all, it indicates that rich, industrialized countries are reluctant to take responsibility for their current and historical emissions, as well as the effect those emissions have on others.

1 Název práce: Mezinárodní režim ochrany klimatu ve světle závazků vybraných smluvních stran Rámcové úmluvy OSN o změně klimatu Autor práce: PhDr. Ing. Přemysl Štěpánek Školitel: Doc. PhDr. Jan Karlas, M.A., Ph.D. Pracoviště: Univerzita Karlova, Fakulta sociálních věd, Institut politologických studií, Katedra mezinárodních vztahů. Rok obhajoby: 2018 Abstract To complement the current research on countries' action in relation to global public goods, this dissertation examines the strength of UNFCCC Parties' emission commitments and the influence of selected factors derived from rationalism and constructivism on the strength of these commitments in two different contexts, under the Copenhagen Accord (2009) and the Paris Agreement (2015). Using a multiple linear regression analysis on the sample of 27 and 54 cases in the first and the second period, respectively, and as well as through case studies on three important UNFCCC Parties with a strong commitment and variance in values of the independent variables (the European Union, the Russian Federation, South Africa), the conclusions are as follows. The regression analysis in both contexts showed, in line with the assumptions, the positive influence of two factors on the strength of commitments, namely the share of alternative and nuclear energy and economic...

Climate change is the worst long-term security issue humans has ever faced. The discourse around the problems and solutions connected to it are predominantly coming from the Global North. On the other hand, it is the Global South who are experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, in the form of floods, droughts, heatwaves, and lack of food, water, and energy. This asymmetrical relationship has rendered the Global South the vulnerable subjects in the current governmentality regime of climate change. Through a governmental lens, this paper analyses the similarities and differences in how climate change as a security and IR issue is problematized, and especially what solutions are seen as viable, across and between the North-South divide. This understudied relationship and its implications, is in this paper exposed and tackled. It shows that the Global North are slowly shifting the responsibility of coping with climate change away from the large GHG emitters, and on to the individuals in the Global South that are worst affected by the consequences of a changing climate. The recently updated NDCs within the Paris agreement supports this view and make up a key part of this paper.