多邊主義合作的空洞化：論全球暖化治理中「裂解模式」的興起

The Hollowing-out of Multilateral Cooperation: On the Rising of ＂Fragmentation Mode＂ for Governing Global Warming

譚偉恩(Husky W. Tan) ； 郭映庭(Ying-Ting Kuo)

《第十屆發展研究年會　台灣經驗2.0：在地與全球的發展研究與實踐》 2018 (2018/10) Pp. 282-301

https://doi.org/10.6392/ACDS.201810.0008

摘要

一直以來，全球暖化的治理都是建立在多邊主義的國際合作基礎上，儘管參與國之間的經濟發展和產業結構有別，但在《氣候變遷框架公約》與《京都議定書》所形成之「公約－議定書模式」下，北北國家或南北國家間仍可透過不同的溫室氣體減排機制形成合作。然而，一個長期存在的問題是，自2005年《京都議定書》生效以來，全球氣候治理的成效其實非常不理想。而這樣的情況即便在2016年11月《巴黎協定》生效後，也沒有好轉之趨勢。本文指出，目前多邊主義模式下的全球暖化治理已經浮現空洞化，不切實際的制度設計和對暖化治理的錯誤理解，導致溫室氣體排放量大的國家（以下簡稱碳排大國）一方面在每年年底的全球氣候談判峰會中取得較多的優勢，一方面卻得以免於承擔具體減排溫室氣體之責任。事實上，若干碳排大國已經在「公約－議定書模式」之外另尋「裂解模式」來因應全球暖化，必以此滿足自己的國家利益。經由檢視與分析這些碳排大國的「裂解模式」，本文建議全球暖化的治理應揚棄效能不彰的多邊主義；同時年底的第24屆締約方大會（COP24）應設法在《巴黎協定》工作計畫（Paris Agreement Work Programme）中鼓勵國家以「裂解模式」來因應全球暖化。

關鍵字

國際合作 ； 多邊主義 ； 裂解模式 ； 全球暖化 ； 碳排大國

並列摘要

For quite a while, the issue of governance regarding to global warming has been established on the basis of multilateral cooperation internationally. Despite the gap or difference existing in the level of economic development and domestic industrial structure from country to country, sovereign states, both north-north and north-south, could make a partnership through various reduction strategies under the ＂convention and protocol mode＂ within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP). Nevertheless, what was neglected is that the outcome of global warming governance has been far from effectiveness since the KP entered into force in 2005 and has not been changed after the enforcement of the Paris Agreement (PA). This paper argues that the governance of global warming based on the multilateralism is increasingly going to be hollowing-out. The flaws of its regime design as well as the misunderstanding of warming governance turn those larger emitting countries into the advantage on the one hand, and the exception of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide on the other. However, some of such larger emitting countries have cleverly organized the ＂fragmentation mode＂ beyond the ＂convention and protocol mode＂, which is more effective than multilateralism. In light of three bilateral agreements signed by larger emitting countries, this paper points out that it is necessary to discard current multilateral mode; by contrast, at the end of the year, it is better for the Paris Agreement Work Programme to offer a more flexible and feasible mechanism, in which those larger emitting countries are available and willing to deal with warming problems through the ＂fragmentation mode＂ rather than multilateral mode during the 24^(th) Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.

並列關鍵字

International Cooperation ； Multilateralism ； Fragmentation Mode ； Global Warming ； Larger Emitting Countries

參考文獻

Keohane, Robert O. & Michael Oppenheimer, “Paris: Beyond the Climate Dead End through Pledge and Review?” Politics and Governance, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2016), pp.142-151.

Keohane, Robert O., “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1988), pp. 379-396.

Keohane, Robert O., “Multilateralism: an Agenda for Research,” International Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1990), pp. 731-764.

Krasner, Stephen D., “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1982), pp.185-205.

Martin, Lisa L., “Interests, Power, and Multilateralism,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1992), pp. 765-792.