@misc{DirnitrovHoviSprinzetal.2019,
  author    = {Dirnitrov, Radoslav and Hovi, Jon and Sprinz, Detlef F. and Saelen, H{\aa}kon and Underdal, Arild},
  title     = {Institutional and environmental effectiveness},
  series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1757-7780},
  doi       = {10.1002/wcc.583},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement (PA) has been widely hailed as a diplomatic triumph and a breakthrough in global climate cooperation. However, it is commonly accepted that the PA's collective goal—keeping global warming "well below" 2°C above preindustrial levels—remains ambitious. Making matters even more challenging, in 2017, global CO2 emissions resumed growth after 3 years of near standstill. In 2018, this growth accelerated. It is therefore extremely important that the PA's institutional architecture meet expectations concerning its ability to induce member countries to promise and deliver emissions reductions. This study offers a review of the rapidly growing literature on the PA, to assess its strengths and weaknesses, its significance, and its prospects. We focus on evaluations of its institutional structure and its ability to induce member countries to implement policies. We frame the issues as a trilemma: the challenge of simultaneously satisfying all three main conditions for effectiveness—broad participation, deep commitments, and satisfactory compliance rates. Based on our review, we conclude that the key challenge for the PA will likely be to facilitate sufficiently fast ratcheting-up of nationally determined contributions, while keeping compliance rates high.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Streck2020,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {Filling in for Governments?},
  series = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Martinus Nijhoff Pub},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1613-7272},
  doi       = {10.1163/18760104-01701003},
  pages     = {5 -- 28},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change abandons the Kyoto Protocol's paradigm of binding emissions targets and relies instead on countries' voluntary contributions. However, the Paris Agreement encourages not only governments but also sub-national governments, corporations and civil society to contribute to reaching ambitious climate goals. In a transition from the regulated architecture of the Kyoto Protocol to the open system of the Paris Agreement, the Agreement seeks to integrate non-state actors into the treaty-based climate regime. In 2014 the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Peru and France created the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (and launched the Global Climate Action portal). In December 2019, this portal recorded more than twenty thousand climate-commitments of private and public non-state entities, making the non-state venues of international climate meetings decisively more exciting than the formal negotiation space. This level engagement and governments' response to it raises a flurry of questions in relation to the evolving nature of the climate regime and climate change governance, including the role of private actors as standard setters and the lack of accountability mechanisms for non-state actions. This paper takes these developments as occasion to discuss the changing role of private actors in the climate regime.},
  language  = {en}
}