Abstract: The principle of common, but differentiated, responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC) is fundamental to the UNFCCC. Some options for a nuanced model of differentiation that addresses both responsibility and capability in a changingworld are explored, such as new categories of countries, and some of the political issues that such a model might face areconsidered. The strengths and limitations of options for graduation based on ‘objective’ criteria such that countries could movebetween categories or ‘graduate’ – an option provided by the UNFCCC – are discussed. Countries could also choose to joinanother club (e.g. the G20), self-elect into categories or differentiate among themselves implicitly by accepting different commitmentsand actions. CBDR&RC will form part of the overall legally binding agreement, and must apply symmetry in somerespects and differentiation in others to the commitments and actions contained therein. Some possible characteristics of CBDR&RC of relevance in a regime ‘applicable to all’ are outlined. These include promoting climate action and using mechanismsavailable in the UNFCCC to instil dynamism. Differentiation on mitigation must consider the distinctions between absoluteand relative reductions, as well as commitments to outcomes and implementation. CBDR&RC should be applied to mitigation,adaptation, and the means of implementation.
14(1) Climate Policy 102-121 (2014)
The Cauvery dispute has been adjudicated but remains unresolved. The reason is that there has been an all-round failure: confrontationist state governments, an ineffective central government, a somnolent Inter-State Council, a creaking adjudication machinery, a Supreme Court that has not been supportive of the Tribunal, the silence of the intellectuals, and alas, the failure of the “Cauvery Family”. The Award now notifi ed has to be operated, but that will not happen unless Karnataka’s strong sense of injustice is assuaged to some extent. This article proposes a voluntary transfer of some part of its allocation by Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. Such an action on Tamil Nadu’s part will transform the situation.
Abstract: On 14 March 2013, the National Green Tribunal of India passed an order in an ongoing statutory appeal against the environmental approval granted to a hydropower project. The order related to the preliminary issue of condoning a delay in the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal attributed a significant part of the delay to the nondisclosure of complete information regarding the approval. The delay in filing was condoned as concerned authorities had not complied with the relevant environmental regulations. Although the order did not address the merits of the case, it is of great significance for the Indian environmental justice system since it grapples with one of the key hurdles in the regime – poor access to information – and thus has the potential to transform the environmental regulatory space by making it more transparent. Environmental decision-making processes, particularly in the developing countries, are often opaque and inaccessible. India’s experience in striving to improve its processes may thus provide useful lessons for other jurisdictions.
2013 22 (2) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 202-206
A recent article by Robiou du Pont et al. suggests that wealthier countries (for example, the members of the EU) have made more ‘equitable’ contributions to the Paris goals than poorer countries (such as India and China), with most other developing countries somewhere in between. These results are counter-intuitive, given that developed countries have the majority of the responsibility for the atmospheric build-up of GHGs and the majority of the financial wherewithal to help solve the climate problem, yet their Paris pledges amount to fewer tons of mitigated emissions than developing countries. This correspondence presents a response to du Pont et. al and points out the biases towards wealthier nations in the approach and methodology adopted.
Global Environmental Politics examines the relationships between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change and environmental governance for world politics.
Each issue is divided into full-length research articles and shorter forum articles focusing on issues such as the role of states, multilateral institutions and agreements, trade, international finance, corporations, science and technology, and grassroots movements. Contributions to the journal come from across the disciplines, including political science, international relations, sociology, history, human geography, public policy, science and technology studies, environmental ethics, law, economics, and environmental science.
A book review of Environmental Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court: Litigation, Interpretation, Implementation by Geetanjoy Sahu (Orient Black Swan, TISS), 2014.
A book review of Subaltern Urbanisation in India: An Introduction to the Dynamics of Ordinary Towns in the SAGE Journals (December 20, 2018).
This article argues that the Gujarat government’s attempt to legislate compulsory voting in local body elections targets the wrong symptom and gives the wrong medicine. The dichotomy of not willing to constitute local governments on one hand, and then making voting compulsory to enhance participation on the other, is simply absurd and risks setting a dangerous precedence.
This paper reviews India’s aggregate economic performance under the Modi/BJP/NDA administration through the prism of political economy. It argues that the inheritance of the UPA period was a combination of an unfolding “oligarchic capitalism” and a half-baked social democratic project. While the 2014 election victory was formally on a platform of “Minimum government, maximum governance” it always had deep ambiguities between a pro-business, pro-rules regime and an essentially nationalist project which subordinates commercial considerations. Some policy changes under this government, that we call Modi 1.0 – notably the GST reform and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – constitute potentially substantive shifts to an efficiency-improving and rules-based approach. However, their effectiveness has been compromised by substantial delays, additional administrative burdens and increased uncertainty, not least over the actual implementation of the new rules. All this coincided with the legacy of a severe overhang in the financial system. This contributed to a chilling effect on private corporate investment. It has also gone alongside a continued major role of public sector banks and PSUs in the economy. The combination of an apparent increased concentration of mega-deals in some of the largest business houses, and continued, if anything rising, importance of state-managed subcontracting for infrastructure, has further contributed to the sense of an, at best, half-baked effort to reform India’s capitalism. A top-down economic nationalist stance, state-driven action, political resistance to reforms, and attacks on accountability institutions, will actually continue to threaten long-run development dynamics. The demonetization episode was only the most vivid example of a growth-dampening policy. At the beginning of the new government – Modi 2.0–these contradictions are intensifying. With the Covid-19 shock, the associated tensions will only become sharper.
