The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol?
The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol?
复制标题
亚太清洁发展和气候伙伴关系：《京都议定书》的补充还是竞争对手？
DOI：
10.1080/14781150600960230
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Taplin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeffrey McGee;R. Taplin
亚太清洁发展与气候伙伴关系（AP6）一直被宣传为一种创新的国际气候变化政策新方法，是对现有京都制度的补充。仔细审视这些互补性的主张是很重要的，因为在AP6形成过程中发挥核心作用的两个国家——美国和澳大利亚——都明确否认了《京都议定书》进程。这项工作的困难之处在于，如何将关于互补性的政治言论与AP6可能对京都制度的有效性产生影响的现实区分开来。本文讨论了AP6以及在2005年7月形成和2006年1月首次会议期间提出的与《京都议定书》互补的各种主张。为了分析这些互补性主张，确定了AP6内容的五个关键特征，以便与《京都议定书》进行比较。Stokke的制度相互作用理论被用来评估AP6的五个关键特征如何可能影响京都议定书的有效性。这一分析表明，在制度相互作用的基本层面上，AP6具有阻碍当前框架下《京都议定书》有效性的巨大潜力。从这一分析中得出的结论是，AP6缔约方关于与《京都议定书》互补的主张只能在肤浅的概念层面上站得住脚，在更基本的制度互动层面上可能存在重大障碍。现实情况是，AP6在国际气候变化政策中提供了一个竞争机制，至少有很大的潜力影响《京都议定书》的未来形态。
The Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) has been marketed as an innovative new approach to international climate change policy that is complementary to the existing Kyoto regime. It is important to closely examine these claims of complementarity, given the two nations that were central to the formation of the AP6, the United States and Australia, have both expressly repudiated the Kyoto process. The difficulty involved in this exercise is in separating political rhetoric regarding complementarity from the reality of how the AP6 will likely impact upon the effectiveness of the Kyoto regime. This article discusses the AP6 and the various claims as to complementarity with Kyoto made during its formation in July 2005 and inaugural meeting in January 2006. For the purpose of analyzing these claims of complementarity five key features of the content of the AP6 are identified for comparison with Kyoto. Stokke's theory of regime interplay is used to assess how each of the five key features of the AP6 will likely impact upon the effectiveness of Kyoto. This analysis indicates that at fundamental levels of regime interaction the AP6 has significant potential to obstruct the effectiveness of Kyoto as currently framed. The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the claims by AP6 parties as to complementarity with Kyoto are only defensible at a shallow ideational level with significant obstruction likely at more fundamental levels of regime interaction. The reality is that the AP6 offers a competing regime in international climate change policy that at the very least has significant potential to affect the future shape of Kyoto.