بررسی میزان اثربخشی توافقنامۀ پاریس در دعاوی داخلی تغییرات آب‌وهوایی از منظر حقوق بین الملل
محورهای موضوعی : حقوق محیط زیستمیثم نوروزی 1 , مهدی اسکندری خوشگو 2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی، گروه مدیریت محیط زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
2 - دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین¬الملل، موسسه عمران و توسعه، همدان، ایران.
کلید واژه: حقوق بین الملل, تغییرات آب‌وهوایی, توافقنامۀ پاریس, دادگاه‌های ملی, دعاوی حقوقی داخلی.,
چکیده مقاله :
دعاوی داخلی تغییرات آب‌وهوایی در سرتاسر جهان رو به افزایش است تا جایی که تبدیل به یک پدیده فراملی با اهمیت روزافزون شده است. در سطح بین‌المللی، توافقنامه پاریس، اگرچه هنوز در مراحل اولیه است، اما به‌عنوان عنصر اصلی چارچوب حاکمیت تغییرات آب‌وهوا نقشی بسیار اساسی ایفا می‌کند. این پژوهش که به شیوه توصیفی – تحلیلی صورت گرفته، تلاش نموده است تا با بررسی رابطه مبهم بین شکایات داخلی در تغییر اقلیم و توافقنامه پاریس، به این پرسش اساسی پاسخ دهد که حقوق بین الملل، چه رویکردی را درخصوص میزان اثربخشی توافقنامۀ پاریس در دعاوی داخلی تغییرات آب‌وهوایی اتخاذ نموده است؟ نتیجه پژوهش حاضر نشان می دهد که تعامل پویا بین دعاوی قضایی داخلی و توافقنامۀ پاریس ممکن است کارایی کلی هر دو رژیم را بهبود بخشد. به عبارت دیگر از یک‌سو، بررسی ساختار و مفاد قرارداد پاریس مسیرهایی را نشان می‌دهد که در حال حاضر مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرند یا می‌توانند در دعاوی قضایی بیشتر مورد بررسی قرار گیرند و از سوی دیگر، دعاوی قضایی می‌توانند به توافقنامۀ پاریس با توجه به اجرا و پیشرفت به‌سوی اهداف کلی کمک کرده و مکمل آن باشند. بنابراین ممکن است بیش از یک دیدگاه در مورد قانون تغییرات آب‌وهوا ارائه شود. ازآنجایی‌که این قانون در سطوح مختلف عمل می‌کند، رویکرد «مشترک» پیشنهادی، به پیامدهای حمایت متقابل یا به مکمل بودن ابزارهای قانونی مربوط می شود.
DThe present study was conducted with the aim of modeling energy consumption in the main building of Tehran Municipality, District 5, and in order to determine the type and manner of energy consumption. Design Builder software was used for modeling. The four modeling scenarios were the current state, the use of a movable canopy, the use of a photovoltaic panel, and the combined state. The results showed that the penetration air load coefficient is equal to 3132.5 W/K. Most of the heat received from the sun's heat comes from incoming radiation from the windows of the building. Red and blue are also related to the perceived load of heating and cooling of the building. The highest heat dissipation in cold seasons is related to the roof and glass of the building. Brightness is 54% of the points in the standard range, 2% of the points have more brightness than the standard and 44% of the points have less than the standard brightness. As can be deduced from the available results, the lighting condition (based on the installed capacity per unit area) of this building is higher than the world standards, which can be reduced to some extent without affecting the indoor comfort conditions. According to studies, the shortcomings of the building are significant from an energy perspective. So that the average heat transfer coefficient of the walls is 2.5 times the standard value of topic 19 and the average heat transfer coefficient of the windows is 1.7 times the standard value of topic 19. Also, the average ceiling heat transfer coefficient is 2.2 times the standard value of topic 19. By using smart canopies, the cooling and heating energy has been reduced by 12% compared to the building in the ground state. On the other hand, based on the modeling, it is determined that the total electricity consumption of the building during a year is 1074146 kWh that the panels can produce 88437 kWh during the year. Accordingly, the panels are capable of generating 15/3% of the building's electricity needs.
1. Bodansky, D & Brunnée, J & Rajamani, L, 2017, International Climate Change Law, Oxford University Press, pp. 249–50.
2. Gupta, J, 2007, ‘Legal Steps Outside the Climate Convention: Litigation as a Tool to Address Climate Change’, European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 76–86, at 78.
3. Carnwath, L.R, 2016, ‘Climate Change Adjudication after Paris: A Reflection’, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 5–9, at 9.
4. Daly, E. & May, J.R. (eds), 2018, Implementing Environmental Constitutionalism: Current Global Challenges, Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–99, at 87 and 93–8.
5. Jordan, A, 2018, Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–46, at 31.
6. Rajamani, L, 2016, ‘Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative Possibilities and Underlying Politics’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 493–514, at 498.
7. Bodansky, D. & Brunnée, J, 1998, ‘The Role of National Courts in the Field of International Environmental Law’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 11–20.
8. Schwartz, J, 2010, ‘Courts as Battlefields in Climate Fights’, The New York Times.
9. Peel, J. & Osofsky, H. M, 2018, ‘A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?’, Transnational Environmental Law, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 37–67.
10. Setzer, J. & Byrnes, R, 2019, ‘Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2019 Snapshot’, Policy Report.
11. Ganguly, G. & Setzer, J. & Heyvaert, V, 2018, ‘If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 841–68, at 843.
12. Ekardt, F. & Wieding, J. & Zorn, A, 2018, ‘Paris Agreement, Precautionary Principle and Human Rights: Zero Emissions in Two Decades?’, Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 1–15, at 3.
13. Burns, W.C.G. & Osofsky, H.M, 2009, ‘Overview: The Exigencies that Drive Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change’, in H.M. Osofsky & W.C.G. Burns (eds), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–27, at 20.
14. Duyck, S, et al., 2018, ‘Human Rights and the Paris Agreement’s Implementation Guidelines: Opportunities to Develop a Rights-based Approach’, Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 191–202, at 191.
15. Mayer, B, 2018, ‘International Law Obligations Arising in relation to Nationally Determined Contributions’, Transnational Environmental Law, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 251–75, at 259–62.
16. Nollkaemper, A, 1998, ‘Judicial Application of International Environmental Law in the Netherlands’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol.7, No. 1, pp. 40–6.
17. Rajamani, L. & Brunnée, J, 2017, ‘The Legality of Downgrading Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement: Lessons from the US Disengagement’, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 537–51, at 547–8.
18. Sands, P, 2016, ‘Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law’, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 19–35.
19. van Asselt, H, 2016, ‘International Climate Change Law in a Bottom-Up World’, Questions of International Law online articles, Vol. 26, pp. 5–15, at 7.
20. Frowein, J.A, 1996, ‘The Implementation and Promotion of International Law through National Courts’, in International Law as a Language for International Relations, Proceedings of the UN Congress on Public International Law, New York, NY (US), Kluwer Law International.
21. Klein, D.R, 2017, The Paris Climate Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary, Oxford University Press, pp. 131–40, at 138.
22. Koh, H.H, 1997, ‘The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 389– 91, at 391.
23. Lin, J, 2012, ‘Climate Change and the Courts’, Legal Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 35–57, at 38.
24. Osofsky, M.H, 2010, ‘The Continuing Importance of Climate Change Litigation’, Climate Law, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 3–29, at 5.
25. Peel, J. & Lin, J, 2019, ‘Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 679–726, at 695-700.
26. van Asselt, H, 2016, ‘The Role of Non-State Actors in Reviewing Ambition, Implementation and Compliance under the Paris Agreement’, Climate Law, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 91–108.
27. Verschuuren, J, 2019, ‘The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: The Hague Court of Appeal Upholds Judgment Requiring the Netherlands to Further Reduce Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 94–8, at 98.
28. Voigt, C, 2016, ‘The Paris Agreement: What Is the Standard of Conduct for Parties?’, Questions of International Law online articles, Vol. 26, pp. 17–28, at 21–2.
29. Wolfrum, R, 1998, Means of Ensuring Compliance with and Enforcement of International Environment Law, Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, Vol. 272, p. 106.
30. Zahar, A, 2017, ‘A Bottom-Up Compliance Mechanism for the Paris Agreement’, Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 69–98.