scholarly journals United States Gives Notice of Withdrawal from Paris Agreement on Climate Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-136
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Cap And Trade ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Trump Administration

On November 4, 2019, the Trump administration notified the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, prompting expressions of regret from a number of countries. Although President Trump had announced in June 2017 that the United States intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, its terms had prevented the United States from giving formal notice of withdrawal until November 4, 2019. The withdrawal will take effect on November 4, 2020. Domestically, the governors of many U.S. states responded to the withdrawal by reaffirming their commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement, consistent with recurring tensions between the Trump administration and progressive states with respect to climate. In another major manifestation of these tensions, on October 23, 2019, the United States sued California over the state's cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec, Canada, alleging that this agreement is an unconstitutional exercise of foreign affairs powers.

United States Announces Plans to Withdraw from Paris Agreement on Climate Change

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1036-1044 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The United Nations

On September 3, 2016, the United States deposited with the UN its instrument of acceptance for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. Following the change of U.S. presidential administrations, new President Donald Trump announced less than seven months later that the United States would withdraw from the Agreement. On August 4, 2017, the United States communicated this intention to the United Nations secretary-general, who serves as the depositary for the agreement.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-111
Author(s):  
Marian Nash
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
George Bush ◽  
Environment And Development ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On September 8, 1992, President George Bush transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted at New York on May 9, 1992, by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change and signed on behalf of the United States at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro on June 12, 1992.

Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Shue
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Co2

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June 1992 establishes no dates and no dollars. No dates are specified by which emissions are to be reduced by the wealthy states, and no dollars are specified with which the wealthy states will assist the poor states to avoid an environmentally dirty development like our own. The convention is toothless because throughout the negotiations in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee during 1991 to 1992, the United States played the role of dentist: whenever virtually all the other states in the world (with the notable exceptions of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) agreed to convention language with teeth, the United States insisted that the teeth be pulled out. The Clinton administration now faces a strategic question: should the next step aim at a comprehensive treaty covering all greenhouse gases (GHGs) or at a narrower protocol covering only one, or a few, gases, for example, only fossil-fuel carbon dioxide (CO2)? Richard Stewart and Jonathan Wiener (1992) have argued for moving directly to a comprehensive treaty, while Thomas Drennen (1993) has argued for a more focused beginning. I will suggest that Drennen is essentially correct that we should not try to go straight to a comprehensive treaty, at least not of the kind advocated by Stewart and Wiener. First I would like to develop a framework into which to set issues of equity or justice of the kind introduced by Drennen. It would be easier if we faced only one question about justice, but several questions are not only unavoidable individually but are entangled with one another. In addition, each question can be given not simply alternative answers but answers of different kinds. In spite of this multiplicity of possible answers to the multiplicity of inevitable and interconnected questions, I think we can lay out the issues fairly clearly and establish that commonsense principles converge to a remarkable extent upon what ought to be done, at least for the next decade or so.

The Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomaž Gerden
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
The United Nations

The measures at the level of the United Nations have been implemented in light of the scientific research on the increasing emissions of gases, predominantly created during fossil fuels combustion, which cause the warming of the atmosphere and result in harmful climate change effects. The adoption of this measures has also been demanded by non-governmental environmental organisations. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted by the leaders of the intergovernmental organisation members at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. After the ratification process, it came into force in March 1994. It also provided for the drawing-up of an appendix: a Protocol on the obligatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Parties to the Framework Convention started the negotiations at their first annual conference COP1 in Berlin in March and April 1995. Due to their modest greenhouse gas emissions per capita and their right to development, the developing states demanded that the obligatory reductions of these emissions only be implemented by the industrially-developed countries. In the latter camp, the European Union favoured a tougher implementation; the United States of America argued for a less demanding agreement due to the pressure of the oil and coal lobbies; while the OPEC member countries were against all measures. After lengthy negotiations, the Protocol was adopted at the end of the COP3 Conference in Kyoto on 11 December 1997. It only involved a group of industrially developed countries, which undertook to reduce their emissions by 5.2 %, on average, until the year 2012 in comparison with the base-year of 1990. In the EU as well as in Slovenia, an 8 % reduction was implemented. As the United States of America withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, its ratification was delayed. It came into force on 16 February 2005, after it had been ratified by more than 55 UN member states, together responsible for more than 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.

scholarly journals President Trump “Unsigns” Arms Trade Treaty After Requesting Its Return from the Senate

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-818
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
National Rifle Association ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Arms Trade ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Trump Administration

In a speech before the National Rifle Association (NRA) on April 26, 2019, President Trump announced that he was requesting the return of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) from the Senate and that the United States would unsign this treaty. Shortly thereafter, Trump issued a formal letter to the Senate requesting the ATT's return. As of late September, the Senate had not formally approved Trump's request. Nonetheless, on July 18, 2019, the Trump administration communicated to the secretary-general of the United Nations that the United States does not intend to become a party to the ATT and thus has no future legal obligations stemming from signature.

Grenada Revisited: An Interview with Caldwell Taylor

Worldview ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Richard Worthington
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Military Coup ◽  
Deputy Minister ◽  
The United Nations

Caldwell Taylor, a former teacher and journalist, was Grenada's Ambassador to the United Nations from September, 1980, to October, 1983, and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1982 to October, 1983. Grenada's president, Maurice Bishop, was deposed by a military coup on October 13 and murdered on October 19. The United States invaded Grenada on October 25. —Eds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document