[NSP Report 61] International Politics of Environment and Climate Change and Korean Diplomacy

Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University. Professor Shin Beom-sik graduated from the Department of Diplomacy and Graduate School of Seoul National University, obtained a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), and served as the Secretary-General of the Korean Association of Slavic Studies. His main research areas are Russian foreign policy and Eurasian international relations. His major publications include "Challenges and International Relations in 21st Century Eurasia" (edited), "Russia's Choice: Post-Soviet Transition and Changes in State, Market, and Society" (co-authored), Russian Nonproliferation Policy and the Korean Peninsula (co-authored), and "Russia's Perspectives on International Politics."

I. Problem Statement

The competition among states with diverse positions surrounding climate change response in the 21st century represents the most critical point of contention in international environmental politics. Climate change has emerged as a major area of international environmental diplomacy since the mid-1980s. Warnings about current and future environmental disasters caused by climate change are being seriously raised by groups of scientists and experts, and discussions about the future of climate change are actively underway in various fields such as politics, economics, society, and culture. With the response activities of non-governmental organizations and the impacts of climate change, which have already begun, being widely reported by the media, public awareness of climate change is also increasing. Climate change is now recognized as a core challenge in all areas of international politics, extending beyond the realm of environmental diplomacy, and is intertwined with issues such as the liberal trade order and energy, resource, and food security.

The interaction between cooperation and competition among states surrounding the climate change response regime unfolding in the 2010s will undoubtedly be a crucial area that reshapes global governance in the environmental sphere, which has rapidly grown as a significant axis of global politics over at least the past half-century, and also determines how agendas in the environmental sphere are linked with other areas. While it is true that Korea has developed a deep interest in this issue relatively recently and has been making efforts to increase the visibility of its climate change diplomacy on the international stage, the challenges facing Korean climate change diplomacy are profound and fundamental, making it imperative to conduct fundamental and future-oriented considerations of Korea's position and to develop a well-designed diplomatic strategy based on them.

To this end, it is first necessary to examine the current status, issues, and prospects of international efforts to build a climate change response regime. Furthermore, it is necessary to gauge Korea's position and its room for maneuver within the international political process of climate change that will unfold over the next decade or so. And it appears that more open and broad discussions are needed on what strategic orientation Korea can adopt to harmoniously realize the multifaceted demands of international climate politics, including the realization of its national interests.

Therefore, this paper aims to identify the international political landscape unfolding around the formation of a climate change response regime, reveal the opportunities and challenges in Korea's response to international climate politics, and subsequently derive the tasks and desirable response strategies for Korea's environmental and climate change diplomacy.

II. Current Status and Issues in International Climate Politics

1. Between the Kyoto Protocol Regime and the Post-Kyoto Regime

Since scientists and policymakers first gathered in Toronto, Canada, in 1988 to discuss climate change, international climate politics achieved the outcome of establishing global governance between 1988 and 1991. Notably, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established to objectively and scientifically assess the effects of climate change, and it began publishing regular reports. Furthermore, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by 154 countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1994, has become the central process of global politics for establishing a climate change response regime, with 192 countries currently participating. However, this convention, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the global level, does not fundamentally present legally binding provisions. Nevertheless, it was positive that the 23 developed countries participating in the convention committed to striving to achieve their reduction targets (Elliott 1998; Paterson 1996). Since the adoption of the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit, the international community has made continuous efforts to address the issue of climate change caused by global warming. At the 3rd Conference of the Parties (COP-3) held in Japan in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulated reduction obligations for developed and Eastern European countries, was adopted and entered into force in 2005, marking the achievement of establishing the first legally binding global response regime for climate change. The UNFCCC thus became central to the global process of the multifaceted and complex international politics of climate change (Bodansky and Di ringer 2010).

The UNFCCC lacks specific procedural rules for major policy decisions, and consensus among all parties is required for decision-making, granting each country a near-veto or de facto veto power, making it difficult to reach agreements on binding rules. Consequently, coalition formation at the Conference of the Parties (COP), the decision-making body of the UNFCCC, and the coordinating and mediating functions of experts, including scientists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating behind the scenes play crucial roles (Barnett 2007, 1367; Conca 2006). The UNFCCC, involving diverse actors such as states, regional organizations, NGOs, and experts from various fields, is at the core of efforts to establish a global climate change response regime and has played a key role in the formation of the Kyoto regime.

However, 15 years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and 7 years after its entry into force, global negotiations centered around the UNFCCC have yet to conclude regarding the establishment of greenhouse gas reduction obligations for each country and their implementation plans. At the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP-13) held in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007, the Bali Action Plan was adopted, a negotiation process for establishing a global climate change regime beyond 2012, when the implementation period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. The Bali Action Plan affirmed principles for "common but differentiated responsibility" between developed and developing countries regarding the issue of climate change due to global warming, including "Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable" (MRV) mitigation actions by both developed and developing countries, adaptation by developing countries, and the transfer of relevant technologies and financial support for developing countries by developed countries. It was also decided to complete negotiations for the post-Kyoto regime beyond 2012 by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. However, these negotiations have not yet yielded concrete results. With the recent intensification of competition among major powers and between developed and developing countries within the UNFCCC-centered international political process, the Copenhagen COP ended without any conclusions, barely managing to extend the negotiation deadline. While it is undoubtedly fortunate that the global negotiation process continues, international climate politics appears to have entered a new phase after Copenhagen.

However, the "Copenhagen Accord," which was "taken note of" by member states rather than being a decision of the Conference of the Parties, was not entirely futile, as it managed to salvage the momentum of the global negotiation process, which could have otherwise faltered, and also preserved several important principles for future negotiations. Firstly, it reaffirmed the principle of responding based on "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities," and reiterated the goal of limiting global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. It also confirmed the principle for long-term emission reductions, which is to achieve peak global and national emissions as soon as possible... (continued)