Abstract

Decision 1/cp.17 limits the choice of legal form of a new climate agreement to three options: a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Climate Convention. This commentary provides seven reasons for the conclusion that a protocol is the only viable legal option to serve the object and purpose of the convention. The reasons include, inter alia, the exclusion of non-binding, soft law under a ‘result based regime’, multilateralism, a 5 year timeline which indicates a ratification process and the agreements purpose of raising the level of ambition.