The burning of biomass for cooking purposes without proper ventilation and filters poses a massive health and climate risk. Health implications from exposure to household air pollution from this type of fuel impacts women and children in many developing countries, who spend many hours a day cooking and gathering fuel. Climate implications from burning solid biomass results in increased carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions, which contribute to global climate change. This thesis aims to explore the issues associated with biomass cookstoves in terms of both health and climate, and seeks to understand how a new national clean cookstove program could be funded in India. This includes potential partnerships with United States agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other international funding sources. The topic of clean cookstoves has gained traction as a strategy to mitigate emissions and adapt to a changing climate, and with the recent passing of the United Nations Paris Agreement, funding is increasing to support programs that address climate impacts.

Bakgrund: Flygindustrin står för en stor del av världens totala koldioxidutsläpp som påverkar vårt klimat negativt. Forskning visar att antalet flygresor kommer att öka och bidra till 22% ökat koldioxidutsläpp till år 2050. När 194 länder signerade Parisavtalet åtog de sig att minska utsläppen av växthusgaser samt arbeta med att stötta de utsatta av klimatförändringarna. Parisavtalet trädde i kraft hösten 2016 och är en global överenskommelse som handlar om att minska och förhindra klimatförändringarna. Den viktigaste punkten är att hålla den globala uppvärmningen under två grader och Parisavtalet ligger till grund för klimatstrategier som ska bidra till långsiktig hållbarhet. Flygindustrin och hållbarhet kan ses som en oxymoron, men i och med Parisavtalet blir hållbarhet ett viktigt och centralt begrepp inom flygindustrin. För att minska mängden koldioxidutsläpp och förhindra klimatförändringarna krävsbeteende förändring och ansträngning från involverade parter. Syfte: Syftet med studien är att få en förståelse för hur SAS arbetar med hållbarhet, dess arbete mot ett mer hållbart flygande samt belysa SAS hållbarhetsarbete ur en konsuments perspektiv. Genomförande: Den teoretiska referensramen bygger på en litteraturstudie där begrepp och teorier förklaras för att sedan användas i en analys av det empiriska materialet. Undersökningen bygger på en fallstudie där en kombination av kvalitativ och kvantitativ metod tillämpas. I empirin sammanställs utvalda hållbarhetsrapporter från SAS samt en kompletterande intervju i syfte att få fördjupad kunskap om hållbart flygande. En enkätundersökning genomförs för att få kunskap om konsumenters syn på SAS hållbarhetsarbete. Slutsats: Den hållbara utvecklingen för flygindustrin går långsamt framåt där begränsade resurser gör utbudet av biobränsle litet och dyrt. För att påskynda utvecklingen krävs förändring i teknologi, konsumenters beteende men också i samhällsstrukturen som idag möjliggör för flygbolag att ta ett mindre miljömässigt ansvar än vad som krävs för att nå uppsatta klimatmål. SAS hållbarhetsrapportering beskriver vad flygbolaget gör för att arbeta hållbart. Att agera individuellt är inte tillräckligt, det krävs globalt samarbete där flygindustrin kan behöva komma regleras. / Background: The aviation industry cause a large part of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions and affect our climate negative. Research shows that the amount of flights will increase and contribute to 22% more carbon dioxide emissions by the year of 2050. When 194 countries signed the Paris Agreement they undertook to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and support those who got affected by the climate changes. The Paris Agreement came into force in the fall of 2016 and it’s a global agreement aiming to reduce and prevent climate changes. The most important goal is to keep the global warming below two degrees Celsius, and the Paris Agreement is the foundation for climate strategies that will contribute to longterm sustainability. The aviation industry and sustainability can be seen as a oxymoron, but with the Paris Agreement, sustainability becomes an important and a central concept in the industry. To reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and prevent the climate changes, all involved parties must change habits and put in a lot of effort. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to understand how SAS works with sustainability, their work towards more sustainable flying. The study also highlights SAS sustainability work from a consumer perspective. Implementation: The theoretical framework draws on a literature study where concepts and theories are explained to be used in an analysis of the empirical material. The study is based ona case study where a combination of qualitative and quantitative study is applied. In the empirical study the selected sustainability reports from SAS are compiled and an additional interview was made to get more knowledge about sustainable flying. A survey was also made to gain an understanding of the customer's view of SAS's sustainability work. Conclusion: The sustainable development in the aviation industry is progressing slowly with limited resources making the supply of biofuels small and expensive. In order to accelerate the development it requires changes in technology, consumers flight behavior but also of the structure that today enables airlines to take less environmental responsibility than is required to reach the climate goals. SAS sustainability reports describe what the airline does to workwith sustainability. However, acting individually is not enough, it requires cooperation globally where the aviation industry may need to be regulated.

The increase of global average temperature depends linearly on the amount of carbon dioxide that is accumulating in the atmosphere. Consequently, the determination of a temperature target that should not be exceeded, corresponds to an amount of carbon dioxide that can still be emitted. This is referred to as a carbon budget. With the Paris Agreement, a global commitment to such a target exists. The signatories have pledged to hold “the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C […] and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. Although the wording leaves room for interpretation, the Paris Agreement can hence be translated into a remaining global carbon budget. The distribution of this budget amongst countries can be a way to close the gap between the committed target and Nationally Determined Contributions, which are submitted by each country but currently expected to lead to a warming of more than 2°C. Taking the concept of national carbon budgets further and sharing them out on a smaller scale can support municipalities in framing their mitigation targets and planning measures accordingly. In this regard, the aim of this thesis was to calculate a Paris-compliant carbon budget for the city of Rostock, Germany. This was done by sharing out the remaining global carbon budget amongst countries based on the notion of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, which is part of the Paris Agreement. To reflect on this notion two different country classifications were applied which resulted in carbon budgets for Germany of 4 450 and 6 200 MtCO2 respectively up from 1st January 2021. For a share between German municipalities, the grandfathering principle was applied. It allocates a budget to a municipality depending on the proportion in national emissions. An inventory, which was prepared for this purpose, revealed that Rostock’s territorial emissions accounted for 0.12% of all-German emissions in 2017. Based on this share, Rostock would receive a budget of 5 500 to 7 600 ktCO2 up from 2021, depending on the country classification. The thesis found further that current mitigation targets were falling short of complying with the Paris Agreement. Currently, both Germany and Rostock are basing their efforts on budgets two to three times larger than what can be considered a fair contribution.

In June 2015, the Vatican released Laudato Si’, Pope Francis encyclical focused on environmental issues. Pope Francis acted as an advocate for a binding agreement on climate change at the United Nation (UN) Convention conferences of the parties 2015 (COP21) citing the scientific consensus on the existence and human causes of climate change. This call for action by the Pope raised the question on the role of religion in the political sphere considering whether a religious authority could influence political matters. By building on the analytical framework drawn from the work of Corell and Betsill (2008), on assessing the influence of NGO in international environmental negotiations, this thesis developed an analytical framework for accessing the influence of Religious non-governmental organizations (RNGO) to examine the influence of RNGO on COP21. The findings also shed light on the secularization debate in International Relations.

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.

As per the Paris agreement in 2015, 190 nations have joined the cause to cut the Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To limit global warming, the aim is to reduce the global emissions to half by 2030 compared to 2012 and reach net zero by 2050. The transportation industry can play a big role to achieve this target. The freight transportation sector need to reduce the emissions by 20% (5.7 Gt) by 2030 compared to 2020 (7.2Gt) in order to reach the Net Zero Emissions goal by 2050[1]. At Mycronic group, freight transportation operations generate the third largest GHG and CO2 emissions after customer use of products and Material use. Most of the in-bound and out-bound deliveries are carried out by air freight. Air freight creates the highest emissions out of all the freight transport systems. To reduce the use of air freight and meet the requirements of global agreement, Mycronic group aims to deliver products in more sustainable and effective ways. Hence, this study aims to find less carbon-intensive shipping solutions for outbound deliveries of Mycronic products. A comparative study of current freight logistics system and a more sustainable system has been carried for one of the Mycronic AB divisions’ products and specific to outbound deliveries from Sweden to USA. Study of future trends of freight transport system in terms of sustainability with respect to upcoming technology, policies and initiatives have been carried out. For the calculation of emissions, a third-party proprietary software was used to analyse and compare the sustainable solutions. Product forecasting and the making of a tCO2e calculation sheet for salespeople were also carried out as support for the company to implement the suggested solution.Shipping of products through waterways is much more sustainable compared to other transport modes and that it should therefore be adopted more often to deliver products. A multi-modal transport system, including shipping by sea freight and further combined by road or rail freight found to be the most efficient solution to reduce the emissions. To adopt this solution, the main challenges appeared are the client acceptance for longer lead times and organizational behaviour change within Mycronic group. The technical requirements of the product analysed in this study did not prove to be an issue for transporting the product by waterways. / I enlighet med Parisavtalet 2015 har 190 länder anslutit sig till målet att minska utsläppen av växthusgaser (GHG). För att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen är målet att halvera de globala utsläppen till 2030 jämfört med 2012 och att nå nettonoll till 2050. Transportbranschen kan spela en stor roll för att uppnå detta mål. Godstransportsektorn behöver minska utsläppen med 20 % (5,7 Gt) till 2030 jämfört med 2020 (7,2 Gt) för att nå målet om nettonollutsläpp till 2050[1].På Mycronic group genererar godstransportverksamheten de tredje största utsläppen av växthusgaser och koldioxid efter kundernas användning av produkter och materialanvändning. De flesta inkommande och utgående leveranser sker med flygfrakt. Flygfrakt skapar de högsta utsläppen av alla frakttransportsystem. För att minska användningen av flygfrakt och uppfylla kraven i det globala avtalet strävar Mycronic Group efter att leverera produkter på ett mer hållbart och effektivt sätt. Syftet med den här studien är därför att hitta mindre koldioxidintensiva fraktlösningar för utgående leveranser av Mycronics produkter. En jämförande studie av nuvarande fraktlogistiksystem och ett mer hållbart system har genomförts för en av Mycronic AB:s divisioners produkter och specifikt för utgående leveranser från Sverige till USA. En studie av framtida trender för godstransportsystem i fråga om hållbarhet med hänsyn till kommande teknik, politik och initiativ har genomförts. För beräkning av utsläpp har en tredjeparts programvara använts för att analysera och jämföra de hållbara lösningarna. Produktprognoser och utarbetande av ett kalkylblad för tCO2e-beräkningar för säljare genomfördes också som stöd för företaget att genomföra den föreslagna lösningen.Transport av produkter via vattenvägar är mycket mer hållbart jämfört med andra transportsätt och bör därför användas oftare för att leverera produkter. Ett multimodalt transportsystem, med sjötransport och kombinerad transport på väg eller järnväg, visade sig vara den mest effektiva lösningen för att minska utsläppen. De största utmaningarna för att införa denna lösning är kundernas acceptans för längre ledtider och en förändring av det organisatoriska beteendet inom Mycronic-koncernen. De tekniska kraven på den produkt som analyserades i denna studie visade sig inte vara något problem för transport av produkten på vattenvägar.

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.