As noted law expert Michael Akehurst once opined, treaties are the “maids-of-all-work” for international law. Many countries conclude numerous treaties regularly, with Korea alone signing roughly 100 bilateral or multilateral treaties each year.

All treaties have a legally binding force and contracting states are obligated to abide by them. The nature of the binding force, however, varies from treaty to treaty. Some are enforced with rigorous force through a binding dispute settlement mechanism, while others are enforced merely through a reporting and finger-pointing mechanism.

The truth is, the finger-pointing version is not necessarily ineffective compared to the rigorous one. That is because states do care about how they are perceived by other countries and the price they would have to pay if they broke out of the pack. In this respect, the soft enforcement version still works, but with one caveat: It works only if the consensus is tight and strong. That is how national prestige comes into play.

With extended deadlines, the 21st U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP 21) held in Paris has finally produced a new treaty on carbon dioxide emission reduction. It now imposes a legally binding obligation on all states — both developed and developing — to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the first legal vehicle to tackle global warming, failed to deliver on its promises, with major emitters deciding not to participate. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord also failed to produce a legally binding document. So, the Paris pact last weekend is the first global agreement with some teeth — even though the teeth may not be hard enough.

One would hope to see a legal instrument that imposes specific emissions reduction levels for individual states. But that is not what is intended by the Paris Agreement. Rather, the deal is a mixture of voluntary emissions reduction standard setting and global monitoring. So, states are required to set their reduction commitments, and to reconvene every five years from 2023 to monitor how their individual promises are being implemented.

When a state fails to meet its commitments, “naming and shaming” comes into play. So, to say the agreement possesses a legally binding nature is true, but at the same time somewhat overblown. The legal obligation is only for the establishment of self-declared emissions reduction commitments and reporting on the status of implementation.

That said, the unprecedented strong consensus shown at the conference in Paris indicates that the name-and-shame part will be particularly effective with respect to this particular agreement. The key is how major countries will implement this agreement domestically.

If some of the key emitting states backtrack on their promises, then the watertight consensus will start to fizzle, at which point the “voluntary” feature of the agreement will be underscored. The Earth will get warmer and warmer and many coastal cities will be submerged by 2100, as scientists predict.

If, on the other hand, the strong global consensus remains firm, then this agreement with soft teeth will still be a turning point in the fight against global warming. The next generation might remember Dec. 12, 2015, as a historic day.

Judging from the magnitude of its disastrous impact, global warming is by far the most urgent issue for mankind. Nonetheless, the international community has so far failed to find its way around this critical issue. When effective, the Paris Agreement will be the first legally binding document regarding global warming. Now it depends on how individual states implement their obligations faithfully. 

This is a very good start, and a good start is half the battle. But the fate of the agreement will depend on how the name-and-shame formula actually works. For it to work, the tight and strong global consensus and a sense of urgency are absolutely critical.

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is an associate professor of law at Seoul National University. — Ed.