Lecture notes before COP30

The change continues to be one of the most urgent global problems of the twenty-first century. For decades, world leaders are sitting on the table with the search of solutions; many international agreements were signed from Kyoto Protocol (1997) to Paris Agreement (2015). However, while global emissions continue to increase, biological diversity is rapidly reduced. Apart from exceptional achievements such as the Montreal Protocol, environmental agreements are forced to create the effect they accumulate. Earth in 2025. According to an analysis published in Org, most of the international environmental agreements are ineffective due to the indefiniteness, excessive coverage and the weakness of binding. While the COP30 approached the Climate Change Conference, the world now faces not only to determine new goals, but to take lessons from past failures.

The weak point of convergence
One of the most common problems of environmental agreements is that they do not be sufficiently clear. The phrases like ‘makul’, ‘oranti’ or ‘best techniques’ are interpreted in different countries. This uncertainty in the short term makes it difficult to apply in the long run, even if more states are involved in the agreement. The Water Frame Directive of the European Union is a good example. The concepts based on the agreement are easily exempted from environmental targets to member states. As a result, the expected water protection policies remain on the paper. [

Do not cover everyone but there is no results]
Another reason why environmental agreements fail is to be kept too wide. Texts prepared on the global scale sit on a large number of states, but also leads to watering of obligations. Paris Agreement, a typical example of this. Each country determines its own climate target (NDC), which allows governments to be included as long as extremely low commitments. Similarly, exemption from the binding obligations of large emitters (India, China) in the Kyoto Protocol, weakened the efforts of reducing global emissions. In contrast, regional agreements are often more effective. Countries with common interests and similar economic structures can take concrete steps.

Speaks remain on the surface
Most of the environmental agreements are poor in practice if they offer large targets on paper. This is because the agreements are not sufficiently deep. So how much they are binding and how to punish violations remain uncertain. For example, Kyoto Protocol predicted certain emission reduction targets for developed countries. However, the limited liability of sanctions did not create a serious deterrent for states that do not fulfill obligations. Paris Agreement was based on voluntary commitments of state in fact with its much more flexible structure, and what happens if you don’t ‘Do you’re not going to have a strong response to the question. Yet research shows that deals with sanction mechanisms are much more effective. So the main thing is not only to put goals; to ensure that these goals are truly implemented.

COP30 is a critical test for states
COP30 is a critical test for states in a period where climate crisis is increasingly deepened. Poor commitments and missing applications in the past prepared today's table. The future of international environmental law now depends on the agreement that is supported by the regional cooperation from uncertainty and strengthened with sanctions. The success of the Montreal Protocol hopes us: Net targets are able to progress when there are strong monitoring mechanisms and sanctions. However, as in the Paris Agreement example, superficial commitments lose time only. In order to make COP30 really a milestone, governments need not only take bold steps on the table, but also on the site. Success; costly, politically difficult, but as much as necessary, it passes through a ‘second diplomacy’.
[