David Belis, Simon Schunz, Tao Wang, Dhanasree Jayaram

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Jahrgang 12 (2018), Ausgabe 2, Seite 85 - 97

This article focuses on the diplomatic relations between China, India and the EU in the development of the international climate regime. It analyses whether and to what extent multiple bilateralism, that is, bilateral relations that are embedded into a broader multilateral negotiation setting in a way that any actor – in its bilateral relations with one actor – takes account of its bilateral relations with other (key) actors, has been a strategy employed by each of the three players.Comparing their positions and behavior during the periods leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen and 2015 Paris climate summits, it provides clear evidence of a shift to multiple bilateralism, particularly in the cases of China and the European Union. This strategic turn contributed positively to the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The choice for multiple bilateralism is explained with reference to internal and external driving forces. The article concludes by arguing that multiple bilateralism – involving China, India, the EU and other key emitters – holds the potential to develop into a networked form of co-leadership that can effectively advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement despite US disengagement from the global climate regime.

Dhanasree Jayaram

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Jahrgang 9 (2015), Ausgabe 3, Seite 219 - 230

2015 has marked a shift in stand for the world’s largest and third largest (in aggregate terms) greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters – China and India – on the future of the global climate change negotiations. While China agreed for the first time to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, India evaded such commitments but vowed to “set the agenda” for the upcoming Paris Summit (COP-21). The two countries have shared a common platform (that of the BASIC countries) at the climate change negotiations since the Copenhagen Summit (COP-15) in 2009 but have since then developed divergent positions on many issues in subsequent years. In this context, the article compares and contrasts the approaches and strategies of India and China towards the Paris Summit, especially using the outcomes of U.S. President Barack Obama’s meetings with the two countries’ top leadership. It analyses the significance of geopolitics in the climate change negotiations and how the two countries have manoeuvred their geopolitical ties with key players like the EU and G-77. The article argues that despite this shift in stand and diverging positions, they are likely to stand together when it comes to issues such as equity and finance. It also proposes that the two emerging Asian giants have the potential of strengthening bilateral ties to advance climate goals.