FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4223992879> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4223992879 endingPage "727" @default.
• W4223992879 startingPage "711" @default.
• W4223992879 abstract "This article draws lessons for the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement’s pledge and review mechanisms from the performance of comparable review mechanisms established under other international treaties. The article employs systematic evidence synthesis methods to review the existing literature on international review mechanisms in the human rights, trade, labour, and monetary policy fields and identifies six common factors influencing their performance. Applying these findings to the Paris Agreement, the analysis finds that its review mechanisms incorporate many of these factors. In particular, they combine both expert and peer review, allow for repeated interaction and capacity building, and facilitate the regular and transparent provision of information. The comparative analysis also highlights two major deficiencies of the Paris Agreement: the absence of procedures to assess the adequacy of national pledges and actions taken to implement them, and resource constraints in carrying out a complex and arduous review process. Active engagement of non-state actors with review mechanisms is identified as a potential remedy to these shortcomings. However, the overall experience of other regimes suggests that, on their own, review mechanisms provide few incentives for states to undertake significant policy changes. Rather, the political context of each regime conditions the performance of review mechanisms. We therefore conclude that the Paris Agreement’s review mechanisms alone are unlikely to bring about the necessary ratcheting up of climate policy ambitions.Key policy insights Review mechanism performance relies on six factors that are common across international agreements: the ability of the mechanism to solicit accurate information, the involvement of experts and state peers in the review process, the ability to ensure repeated interaction, the institutional capacity to carry out the review, the transparency of the review process and its outputs, and the salience and practicality of the outcomes produced by the review.The Paris Agreement’s strengths lie in its rules designed to facilitate the transparent provision of information, the inclusion of both expert and peer review, its facilitation of repeated interaction and in providing support to build the reporting capacities of states.The Paris Agreement severely restricts the salience and practicality of its review outcomes by prohibiting an assessment of the adequacy of national pledges.It remains uncertain whether the UNFCCC secretariat’s capacity and resources will suffice to carry out the arduous review task." @default.
• W4223992879 created "2022-04-19" @default.
• W4223992879 creator A5045444773 @default.
• W4223992879 creator A5080079670 @default.
• W4223992879 creator A5089519622 @default.
• W4223992879 date "2022-04-17" @default.
• W4223992879 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4223992879 title "Understanding pledge and review: learning from analogies to the Paris Agreement review mechanisms" @default.
• W4223992879 cites W1097804128 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W1874938615 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2079548763 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2115437294 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2134051186 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2164433603 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2313966001 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2346432653 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2411795616 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2464875852 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2509016426 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2520409568 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2602024436 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2618691436 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2622634922 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2740979181 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2741153627 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2779182147 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2799661767 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2858648599 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2865405932 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2884794862 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2897989986 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2904723254 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2943838048 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2973861552 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2980168736 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2991186400 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W2995858844 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W3120427744 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W3145955786 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W4230189913 @default.
• W4223992879 cites W4299733398 @default.
• W4223992879 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2059436" @default.
• W4223992879 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4223992879 type Work @default.
• W4223992879 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W4223992879 countsByYear W42239928792022 @default.
• W4223992879 countsByYear W42239928792023 @default.
• W4223992879 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4223992879 hasAuthorship W4223992879A5045444773 @default.
• W4223992879 hasAuthorship W4223992879A5080079670 @default.
• W4223992879 hasAuthorship W4223992879A5089519622 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C118084267 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C2780643141 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C89611455 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C100001284 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C111472728 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C111919701 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C118084267 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C138885662 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C151730666 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C162324750 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C175444787 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C17744445 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C190253527 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C199539241 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C2779343474 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C2780643141 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C29122968 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C41008148 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C539667460 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C86803240 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C89611455 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C94625758 @default.
• W4223992879 hasConceptScore W4223992879C98045186 @default.
• W4223992879 hasFunder F4320311215 @default.
• W4223992879 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W4223992879 hasLocation W42239928791 @default.
• W4223992879 hasOpenAccess W4223992879 @default.
• W4223992879 hasPrimaryLocation W42239928791 @default.
• W4223992879 hasRelatedWork W2355932053 @default.
• W4223992879 hasRelatedWork W2366296021 @default.

• next