A dichotomous interpretation of the CBDR-RC led to an international agreement on the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised countries (Annex I) committed to absolute emission reduction or limit targets, while all other countries (excluding Appendix I) did not have such commitments. However, this rigid distinction does not reflect the dynamic diversification between developing countries since 1992, as evidenced by the diversity of contributions to global emissions and economic growth models (Deleuil, 2012). Dubash, 2009). This led Depledge and Yamin (2009, 443) to refer to UnFCCC Schedule I/non-Annex I as the dichotomy and “greatest weakness of the regime.” The Paris Agreement is the first legally binding universal global agreement on climate change adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015. Similarly, results in climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building appear to be cascading (see Figures 3-6). While the encoding of requests for support is clearly visible, no cascade of pledges of support can be observed. As in the case of adaptation, this article cannot dictate what an “ideal” cascade would look like in terms of consistency with the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement. On the one hand, the Paris Agreement contains no information justifying such requirements. On the other hand, it is outside the scope of this article to give an expectation based on the extent to which requests for assistance and NDC contributions reflect either existing support flows or the needs of countries (cf.B. Betzold and Weiler (2017) and Kl-ck et al. (2018) for debates on the allocation of climate finance).
Below we describe encoding both for requests for assistance and later for providing support. Palgrave Communications Volume 5, Article Number: 86 (2019) Quote this article The Paris Agreement has a bottom-up structure, unlike most international environmental treaties that are “top down,” characterized by international standards and objectives that must be implemented by states.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legal commitment targets, the Paris Agreement, which focuses on consensual training, allows for voluntary and national objectives.  Specific climate targets are therefore politically promoted and not legally binding. Only the processes governing reporting and revision of these objectives are imposed by international law. This structure is particularly noteworthy for the United States – in the absence of legal mitigation or funding objectives, the agreement is seen as an “executive agreement, not a treaty.” Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty was approved by the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to enter into force.  The aim of the agreement is to reduce the global warming described in Article 2 and to improve the implementation of the UNFCCC by the following: The EU and its member states are individually responsible for the ratification of the Paris Agreement.