打破僵局:对“共同但有区别的责任原则”的重释

发布时间：2018-06-06 02:21

本文选题：共同但有区别的责任原则 + 气候变化　；参考：《中国人民大学学报》2013年02期

【摘要】：共同但有区别的责任原则不是一个连贯、统一和清晰的原则,由于共同但有区别的责任在内涵上未能达到内部结构的均衡,在使用上无法获得统一的解释,在实践中受到了诸多因素的干扰,最终导致国际社会应对气候变化的谈判陷入僵局。在不同的语境和场合下,共同但有区别的责任原则事实上被赋予了不同的功能,它有时被作为法律原则,有时被作为伦理准则,有时还被作为谈判策略。针对国际社会对这一原则的不同理解和运用,我国在争取承担气候变化责任空间上需要特别强调作为法律原则的共同但有区别的责任原则,发展宽容与包容的伦理准则,并且在策略选择上随时根据我国的根本利益要求和国际关系格局的变化作出相应的调整。
[Abstract]:The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is not a coherent, uniform and clear principle, and because common but differentiated responsibilities fail to achieve a balanced internal structure in their content, they cannot be used in a uniform manner. Many factors interfered with the practice, which led to the deadlock of international negotiations on climate change. In different contexts and situations, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is given different functions, sometimes as a legal principle, sometimes as an ethical principle, sometimes as a negotiation strategy. In the light of the different understanding and application of this principle by the international community, our country needs to place special emphasis on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as a legal principle and on the development of ethical norms of tolerance and inclusiveness in its efforts to assume responsibility for climate change. And in the strategic choice at any time according to our country's fundamental interest request and the international relations pattern change to make the corresponding adjustment.
【作者单位】：中国人民大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金重点项目“《气候变化应对法》立法研究”(10AFX012)
【分类号】：D996.9

【参考文献】