Ecrit le par et publié dans « Non classé ».

Access to technology is essential for many developing countries, as it is the gateway to development and climate resilience. In addition, access to the latest technologies is essential for greening the economies of developing countries. Technology to ensure carbon-neutral energy production and production is often inaccessible to developing countries due to a complex network of intellectual property rights. [139] Both the cost of technology[140] and IP systems [141] prevent developing countries from acquiring the technology they need to protect their citizens from the negative effects of climate change. While most "developed nations have not faced such a protectionist policy in the past and have been able to develop through reverse engineering and counterfeiting"[142], these funds are now denied to developing countries. Alternatives to circumvent these barriers are the increase in external debt to an unsustainable level, as happened in Nauru[143] or ignorance of intellectual property rights[144] and the risk that they will become the subject of litigation to enforce these rights. In the first case, the development of a country can be imprisoned by accumulating unsustainable debts, as the Nauru case suggests. [145] In the latter case, actors in developing countries may be exposed to litigation by private companies established in industrialized countries that protect their profits. [146] On 5 October 2015, the co-chairs published a non-document containing the seemingly negotiable texts of a draft agreement, a draft COP21 decision and a separate COP21 draft on Le Penserom 2. [52] However, the text was strongly criticized by most developing countries on the first day of AWG-ADP 2-11, held in Bonn, Germany, from 19 to 23 October 2015, because it was considered that the different responsibilities of the industrialized countries were not sufficiently expressed in the text, although developing countries insisted that the new agreement be based on the principle of CBDRRC. In particular, developing countries were concerned that the de minimis commitments expressed in the text would allow industrialized countries to "repel" their existing commitments on climate protection, financing, adaptation and technology transfer, in accordance with UNFCCC Article 4.

South African delegate Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko went so far as to suggest that the co-chairs treated the African Group`s proposals with contempt, similar to those experienced by the black majority during apartheid. [53] As a result, on the afternoon of 19 October, States Parties reintroduced provisions they deem essential, including references to the UNFCCC principles and obligations, to the text, which inflated the draft agreement by just under nine pages to twenty-four pages. [54] Finally, in the late morning of 20 October, less than two months before the treaty was adopted, negotiations on the text began. [55] [65] See American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, [2003] USSC 4595; 539 US 396 (2003), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an executive agreement that a president wishes to maintain is binding on each of the 50 states of the United States, thus anticipating the state`s contrary legislation: to 416. A couple of studies in Nature have stated that from 2017, none of the major industrialized countries implemented the strategies they had planned and did not meet their emission reduction targets,[92] and even if they had, the sum of all accession commitments (from 2016) would not maintain the increase in global temperature "well below 2oC". [93] [94] At COP18 in Doha, Qatar, the work of AWG-LCA and AWG-KP ended.

Les commentaires sont fermés.