Law, for
the first time since the Kyoto negotiations, seemed to be the best possible
mechanism to achieve change, and for the first time in decades, hope seemed to
replace stalemate as the dominate culture of international climate change effort.
However, this hope was short lived. On November 9, 2016, Republican nominee
Donald Trump, a candidate committed to renege on any U.S. participation in the
recently enacted Paris Agreement,
In the wake of his announcement,
we unavoidably find ourselves in a most critical moment for the future of
international and environmental law—and their role in American jurisprudence.
The world is now pulled between Paris’ new legal framework and the movement
that supports it, and the uncooperative leadership in one of the Agreement’s key
parties. Despite the Paris Agreement’s significant support, domestic politics in
one of the most influential countries in the world has the potential to uproot and
gut any meaningful impact of the pact. Recent evidence, namely the Kyoto
Protocol, warns of the United States’ power to subvert global environmental
efforts. Moreover, the United States’ diplomatic status and relationship to
international law hangs in the balance.
In such a determinative moment, this note seeks to answer two questions.
First, after reflecting on prior climate change treaties, what promise does the
Paris Agreement, as a tool of international law, offer for the future of
international climate change efforts? In the wake of the expired Kyoto Protocol
regime, the international community had the opportunity to learn many lessons;
of critical importance is whether the Paris Agreement’s goals and structure seem
to have contemplated prior treaty failures. In other words, this note first asks
whether the Paris Agreement as a treaty will be an effective expression of
international law. Second, despite the ambition and structure of the Paris
Agreement, and its potential to be an effective treaty regime, how does the
Trump administration’s announcement to withdrawal affect the treaty and the
legal obligations of involved countries? Specifically, is it possible for the Paris
Agreement to be successful without the support of, or potentially despite active
antagonism by, the United States? Additionally, now that the Paris Agreement
has entered into force, what are the legal consequences for the United States now
that President Trump has reneged the United States’ commitment to the treaty?
In analyzing the structure and enforcement mechanisms of the Paris Agreement,
Coral Davenport, U.N. Signals That Climate Deal Has Backing Needed to Enter Force, N.Y. TIMES
(Sept. 20, 2016), https://nyti.ms/2pnJ379 (explaining that in reaching the treaties requirements for both
number of ratifying parties and percentage of emissions accounted for, the climate deal will become
legally enforceable against all signing parties).