Just Transition as an Evolving Concept in International Climate Law

Abstract

‘Just transition’ has grown into an increasingly popular concept in climate policy. During the recent decade, it has been included in both international and national climate law frameworks. The concept, however, has not received much attention from legal scholars. Addressing this gap, this article analyses the meaning and legal implications of just transition, specifically within international climate law. Against this backdrop, it shows that, following the Paris Agreement, just transition has evolved into an increasingly important concept in how climate law principles and obligations are interpreted and developed. It further highlights a substantial evolution of just transition from a labour-centred to a more comprehensive concept that helps underline the importance of implementing climate measures in a way that engages and protects affected and vulnerable people and communities.

1. Introduction

Reaching the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement¹ requires fast and fundamental shifts in all sectors of society.² Notwithstanding efforts to mitigate climate change, the ongoing climate crisis is expected to increase social inequality.³ Climate action is thus essential for preserving healthy living conditions on Earth, not least for vulnerable communities.⁴ Measures that are aimed to bring about climate neutrality, however, do not affect everyone equally: different regions and social groups have varying capacities to adapt and enjoy the gains of the net zero transition.⁵ This has been shown to delegitimise climate efforts, and lower climate ambitions,⁶ posing a clear threat to the transition.

As a response to these challenges, the idea of a ‘just transition’ has gained traction. The concept has its roots in North American trade union and environmental justice movements that have focused on uniting labour and frontline community efforts to simultaneously address social and environmental concerns.⁷ Today, just transition is increasingly used in the context of climate change policy, where it generally refers to the idea of minimising the adverse and potentially unequal socioeconomic effects that climate policies may have on various vulnerable groups and communities. Beyond this general understanding, the increased use of the concept by new actors in different contexts has given rise to a range of different just transition conceptualisations.⁸ Some actors rely on it to develop a framework of support to specific decarbonising industries and communities, whereas others use it as part of transformative visions of change that would address structural injustices present in our socioeconomic systems.⁹ In the growing literature on just transition,¹⁰ the differing just transition approaches have been differentiated based on, inter alia, the kind of transition they argue for,¹¹ the inclusivity of their scope and scale,¹² their approach to participation¹³ and the justice perspectives they incorporate.¹⁴

In line with the increased support for a just transition, the concept has been introduced into both international and national climate law frameworks. Most notably, it was included in 2015 in the preamble of the Paris Agreement.¹⁵ The concept has further been introduced into the European Climate Law,¹⁶ which is complemented by the EU’s Just Transition Mechanism, including its Just Transition Fund.¹⁷ At the (sub)national level, just transition is found in at least eight different framework laws on climate change, featuring, inter alia, just transition principles and obligations relating to just transition plans.¹⁸

Despite the growing number of references to just transition in legal contexts, it remains ‘under-discussed and poorly defined in legal literature’.¹⁹ The existing legal scholarly contributions on the topic tend to discuss the concept from a disciplinary angle, focusing on the relationship between labour and climate/environmental law,²⁰ or analyse existing international or (sub)national legal frameworks and tools that could implement the policy goal of a just transition.²¹ Scholarships that provide detailed legal analyses of the concept itself and its legal implications, however, remain limited.²² This research gap has significant consequences, especially for climate law. As a start, it permits the concept to remain legally elusive, despite the growing expectations placed on it in terms of ensuring the justness of the net zero transition. Following from this, it risks disregarding the legal implications of the concept’s inclusion in climate law frameworks. Relevant questions, therefore, remain as to what the concept of a just transition brings to climate law, generally, and to the legal conceptualisation of just climate policy, specifically.

Against this background, this article sets out to analyse the meaning and legal implications of just transition, specifically within international climate law. As the international conceptualisation of just transition reflects the most widespread understanding of the concept in legal terms, the international focus is a useful starting point. Accordingly, the article lays the groundwork for further, potentially regionally or substantially focused assessments of the legal use of just transition.

The article proceeds as follows. In Section 2, the legal evolution of just transition is contextualised, by laying out the emergence and initial use of the concept within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) system. Section 3 moves to the interpretation of just transition under the Paris Agreement. The analysis adheres to the international law rules on treaty interpretation and focuses on the concept’s meaning and legal implications and how these have evolved since the adoption of the Agreement. Section 4 sets out to assess the further application of the concept, by providing an account of different international initiatives for the concept’s operationalisation. Section 5 concludes.

2. The Emergence of Just Transition in International Climate Law

The concept of just transition has found its way to international climate debates thanks to efforts by the international trade union movement, led by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).²³ Here, just transition was introduced as a means to illustrate that the ITUC’s support for strengthened climate action was compatible with its core mission to secure social justice for workers and affected communities.²⁴ In parallel with advocating for a just transition within the union movement and together with partner organisations, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO),²⁵ the ITUC actively sought to increase its influence in international climate negotiations and, in 2008, gained a constituency status for trade unions within the UNFCCC.²⁶

As a result of the ITUC’s strengthened engagement as an observer in the UNFCCC negotiations, just transition received broader attention at COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009.²⁷ The concept was included in the draft text for the negotiations, although the text was not adopted.²⁸ Still, this paved the way for the concept’s inclusion in the Cancún Agreements, adopted a year later at COP 16. Just transition was mentioned in the text concerning a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, where it was affirmed that ‘addressing climate change requires a paradigm shift towards building a low-carbon society […] while ensuring a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs’.²⁹ It was further mentioned in the context of the economic and social consequences of response measures. Here, the COP recognised ‘the importance of […] promoting a just transition of the workforce [and] the creation of decent work and quality jobs’, to which it added the noteworthy phrase: ‘in accordance with nationally defined development priorities and strategies’.³⁰

As illustrated by the Cancún Agreements, just transition has, from the outset, been linked with broader commitments under the UNFCCC regime to recognise and minimise the adverse socioeconomic impacts of response measures to climate change,³¹ which includes ‘actions, policies, and programmes that countries […] undertake in response to climate change’.³² The UNFCCC negotiations on the socioeconomic impacts of response measures have traditionally been dominated by oil-exporting countries’ interests, which centre around securing compensation for financial losses due to reduced fossil fuel use.³³ The emphasis, however, has broadened during the years to encompass subjects, such as trade restrictions, the effects of response measures on tourism, and, since the Cancún Agreements, just transition of the workforce.³⁴

COP 16 also agreed to initiate a work programme and possible forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures (hereinafter the ‘forum on the impact of response measures’).³⁵ These were established at COP 17 in Durban with the effect of institutionalising the discussions on the societal effects of response measures within the UNFCCC regime.³⁶ Just transition was chosen as one of the focus areas for the work programme,³⁷ which both demonstrated broad support for the concept³⁸ and provided a continuous space for addressing questions associated with it in the UNFCCC negotiations. The forum’s work on just transition has focused on facilitating knowledge exchange and providing a space for various parties and stakeholders to discuss concerns and present policies and practices that they understand to fit under the just transition umbrella.³⁹ Here, just transition has not been defined in an institutional process but rather used as a directional term guiding the relevant work of the forum.⁴⁰ In the period following COP 17, the forum and its work programme have been modified twice, first at COP 21 in Paris and most recently, at COP 24 in Katowice.⁴¹ Just transition has, nevertheless, remained one of the focus areas, illustrating a shared interest in the topic from different country groups.⁴²

Just transition was further included in the subsequent decisions from COP 17 and 18, alongside more established concepts, such as sustainable development and poverty eradication.⁴³ This illustrates that ITUC, through its continued engagement in the negotiations under the convention, has managed to make the case for the concept’s relevance to international climate governance. In the process, the concept has gained increased support from governments, civil society organisations, the business community and key international organisations, such as ILO and United Nations Environment Programme.⁴⁴ This broad endorsement further paved the way for the concept’s inclusion in the Paris Agreement in 2015.

In the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of the latter Agreement, an alliance between the trade union movement and several other civil society organisations argued for the inclusion of a common article introducing a rights-based approach to climate action with reference to ensuring the respect, protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights, including indigenous rights, gender rights, intergenerational equity, food sovereignty and a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs.⁴⁵ Despite a number of states supporting the idea of introducing a rights-based formulation in the agreement text,⁴⁶ its content was moved up to the preamble and split into two different recitals.⁴⁷ Just transition was separated from the rest of the paragraph and placed in its own recital in the phrase ‘[t]aking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities’.⁴⁸ This constitutes a significant development in the legal evolution of just transition, as will be illustrated in the following section.

3. Just Transition under the Paris Agreement

3.1 The Meaning of Just Transition in the Paris Agreement

This section sets out to interpret the meaning and legal implications of just transition under the Paris Agreement based on the rules of treaty interpretation. It starts with an analysis of the concept’s meaning in the Agreement, followed by a subsection that clarifies what the concept’s placement in the preamble—as opposed to the operative part of the Agreement—means for its legal status. These legal implications are further assessed by focusing on three different functions that the preambular reference to just transition could hold. This is complemented by an analysis of the way the subsequent practice of states, after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, is altering the meaning and possible functions of the concept.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), recognised as the codification of international customary law on treaty interpretation,⁴⁹ a treaty is to be interpreted ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’.⁵⁰ The VCLT further specifies what is to be considered as part of the context of a treaty and what other aspects should—and can—be taken into account when interpreting a treaty.⁵¹ For example, if the meaning of the terms is ambiguous, recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretations, such as the preparatory works of the treaty.⁵² Parties may also give a specific meaning to treaty terms, by, eg, providing a separate definition of the term in the treaty.⁵³

As just transition is an established policy term that has been actively advocated into international climate law, one is tempted to assume it bears a certain established ordinary meaning that would follow into the Agreement. However, as clarified in the introduction, the increased use of the concept has not gathered around a common definition, but rather extended the variety of conceptualisations of just transition. Moreover, the Parties to the Paris Agreement did not provide a separate definition of the concept in the Agreement, or documents preceding its adoption. The more specific content of the just transition reference, consequently, needs to be drawn from its conceptualisation and context in the Agreement text.

The object of the transition is stated clearly in the Paris Agreement’s reference to just transition: it calls for ‘a just transition of the workforce’.⁵⁴ This same wording has been used consistently in the negotiations for the Agreement,⁵⁵ and in COP decisions⁵⁶ and documents produced by the forum on the impact of response measures,⁵⁷ preceding the adoption of the Agreement. Interestingly, the reference does not mention transitions of energy systems or more broadly a net zero transition but instead focuses on transitioning the workforce itself. Consequently, the focus on a just transition would imply a need to manage the transition with a view to recognising and considering the needs and concerns of the workforce undergoing transition. The reference does not clarify what they are transitioning from or to. The subsequent part of the preambular recital, which highlights ‘the creation of decent work and quality jobs’,⁵⁸ nevertheless, indicates a need to provide workers with valuable options if they are forced to transition between jobs, due to climate policies.

The recital is further silent on the specific measures expected for achieving a just transition. It importantly, however, highlights that it should be realised ‘in accordance with nationally defined development priorities’.⁵⁹ The focus on national priorities in this context implies two things. First, it adheres to the idea that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to just transition,⁶⁰ but that states should have a large margin of discretion when implementing just transitions. Second, framing just transition as something to be done in accordance with states’ internal priorities situates just transition as something happening at the national level. Consequently, this indirectly excludes justice considerations of climate measures with cross-border impacts. The focus of just transition, therefore, deviates from the predominant understanding of justice within the UNFCCC system, advanced through the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR),⁶¹ as it does not look at justice between states, but rather applies to justice considerations of specific social groups within them. In this way, just transition can be said to have introduced a new intrastate justice dimension to a UNFCCC context previously dominated by a global North-South division.⁶²

The framing of just transition as an internal state matter is also noticeable in the work done within the UNFCCC’s forum on the impact of response measures. The 2016 technical paper on just transition has as its objective to ‘assist Parties in the process of just transition of their national workforces’,⁶³ and the submissions presented by the Parties within the forum highlight the national measures that are needed for ensuring a just transition.⁶⁴ However, the submissions and statements made by various developing country Parties within the forum make clear their differing positions on this depiction of just transition. Many have from the outset both argued for a clearer focus on the cross-border effects of climate measures within just transition work,⁶⁵ and emphasised the need for developed country Parties to support developing country Parties in respect of their just transition measures.⁶⁶ This approach has not—at least in the past—acquired support from developed country Parties. However, as will be argued later, this seems to be changing in light of recent practices following COP 26 and 27.

3.2 The Legal Status of Just Transition in the Paris Agreement

In order to assess the legal implications of just transition within the Paris Agreement, it is central to first clarify its legal status. In international law, preambular recitals are generally not considered to give rise to enforceable legal obligations.⁶⁷ As the reference to just transition is included in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, the related text is therefore not considered binding in the same sense as an article-based obligation. It is not, however, legally irrelevant.⁶⁸

The VCLT does not elaborate on the role of preambles, and mentions them only once, clarifying that they form part of the text of the treaty and are to be considered as part of the context in treaty interpretation.⁶⁹ The role and relevance of preambles have consequently been left to legal scholars to clarify. Their research points to the varying legal (and other) functions that preambular recitals may have, ranging from clarifying the political setting or objective of the agreement to highlighting substantive obligations prescribed elsewhere.⁷⁰ In some cases preambular recitals have even fulfilled something resembling a legislative function.⁷¹

The growing variety of functions ascribed to preambular recitals relates to how the style and content of treaties and their preambles have developed historically. Over the years, preambles have transformed from rather formal lists of names and titles of the signatories to more elaborate depictions of the hopes and wishes of the contracting parties.⁷² Especially politically sensitive and technically difficult treaties, such as environmental treaties, tend to have longer and often substantively rich preambles.⁷³ In this way, preambles are sometimes used as a way to incorporate substantive matters that have not acquired the necessary support to be included in the operative part of the agreement.⁷⁴ This accurately describes the negotiation history of the reference to just transition in the Paris Agreement. It moreover exemplifies how elaborate preambles can include recitals with varying content, style and negotiating history. Instead of assessing the relevance of a treaty’s preamble as a whole, it is, therefore, increasingly useful to characterise and analyse individual recitals through the different functions they can hold. The value and influence afforded to preambular recitals should also be assessed in relation to the preamble’s drafting history: was the text of the preamble part of the treaty’s negotiations or was it written ‘more or less as an afterthought’?⁷⁵ Since the Paris Agreement’s preamble was the object of intense negotiations,⁷⁶ it can without doubt be considered as a valuable part of the Agreement.

The following subsections assess the legal implications of the preambular reference to just transition by examining the different functions it could hold. Drawing from the various functions ascribed to preambular recitals in the literature on treaty preambles,⁷⁷ three functions are proposed as relevant: the incorporative, interpretative and political functions. The applicability of these functions is further assessed, including with a view to subsequent practice. Accordingly, this article brings forward and explores three different ways of understanding the legal implications of the just transition reference under the Agreement.

3.3 The Incorporative Function

The incorporative function refers to a situation where preambular recitals incorporate other sources of law, such as treaties or relevant legal principles to the context of the treaty at hand. This is done in an effort to highlight the relevance of the external sources, or to settle the relationship between such sources and the treaty to avoid possible future conflicts.⁷⁸

Given the historical link between just transition and trade unions, especially labour law scholars have interpreted just transition as a concept that introduces worker’s rights and labour law standards into the realm of climate law and policy.⁷⁹ This interpretation aligns with the extensive work done on just transition under the ILO, where the implementation of the concept has been linked to specific labour standards.⁸⁰ Following this interpretation, the ITUC, but also previous climate law research, have assumed that the just transition recital in the Paris Agreement implies a reference to labour law provisions or rights.⁸¹ Based on this, the preambular recital on just transition would perform an incorporative function by clarifying Parties’ obligations to observe their labour law commitments when implementing the Paris Agreement. Its role would thus align with the preambular text similarly found in the Paris Agreement that underlines the Parties’ obligation to ‘respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights’ when implementing climate actions.⁸²

However, the language used in the context of just transition does not mention workers’ rights or emphasise specific treaty obligations. Rather, it refers to ‘the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce’.⁸³ The general meaning of imperative is a ‘command, order; rule, guide; an obligatory act or duty; or an obligatory judgement or proposition’⁸⁴ and so it seems that the Parties agree that there are some existing measures, whether obligations or guidance, connected with just transition that need following. Nonetheless, it is difficult to argue that the just transition recital incorporates existing external legal rules into the context of the Paris Agreement, as such rules remain unmentioned. As such, the incorporative function of just transition falls short in terms of its legal content.

3.4 The Interpretative Function

As clarified by the VCLT, preambles form part of the text of the treaty, and can, therefore, be used in the interpretation of treaty terms.⁸⁵ Preambular recitals may thus perform an interpretative function in the case that they entail relevant content for, or, have a connection to the operative treaty terms. Previous literature has highlighted the relevance of this function in relation to just transition but has not explored its implications in detail.⁸⁶ This article argues that there are, at least, two terms of the Paris Agreement to which just transition adds interpretative value: the commitment to consider the impacts of response measures; and the principle of equity.

Both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement contain an explicit obligation to consider the concerns arising from the adverse impacts of the implementation of response measures.⁸⁷ As illustrated in Section 2, just transition has served as a key focus area within UNFCCC’s work relating to this commitment. Accordingly, just transition has influenced the debates on the impacts of response measures, already before its inclusion in the Paris Agreement. The reference to just transition in the Paris Agreement has, moreover, consolidated the concept’s position within the Agreement and further legitimised its use in its interpretation. As the most recent work plan under the forum on the impact of response measures indicates, just transition continues to be a key theme within this workstream.⁸⁸ In this way, the concept assists in the interpretation of what Parties’ commitments in relation to minimising the adverse effects of their response measures should include.

The other—and potentially more wide-reaching—treaty term that just transition relates to is the principle of equity. Equity can be said to provide ‘the dominant normative framework for climate change law’.⁸⁹ It is included as a principle in the UNFCCC and reiterated in the key articles of the Paris Agreement.⁹⁰ The principle has not been defined in an institutional process, which has led to different conceptualisations of it.⁹¹ As it is placed together with the principle of CBDR, they are often assumed to be linked.⁹² Yet, in the Paris Agreement, equity is also deployed on its own,⁹³ which indicates that it has a separate meaning from CBDR. Equity has accordingly also been perceived as an overarching principle that is implemented through a variety of more detailed principles and commitments within the UNFCCC system, such as CBDR.⁹⁴ Following this approach, just transition can be regarded as one of the concepts that belong under the broader guiding principle of equity. When perceived as such, it alters the traditional understanding of what equity means in climate law, by extending the principle’s previous interstate focus to encompass the equity of specific social groups within states.⁹⁵ This interpretation is supported by the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by several Parties, where they have included a reference to just transition under the section dedicated to fairness and equity considerations.⁹⁶ As an example, South Africa’s NDC states that ‘consistent with the emphasis in Article 4.1 on equity, and the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, our national process aims at a just transition’.⁹⁷

3.5 The Political Function

In addition to the legal functions mentioned above, preambular paragraphs may also serve political functions by, inter alia, amplifying the recognition of terms or ideas or further legitimising their use. Parties may thus ‘aim to utilise the preamble in order to tilt things in their favour by having it refer to ideas and ambitions, or a normative framework, or perhaps even something of a definition’.⁹⁸ This non-legal function is also legally significant, as it can feed into state practice and subsequent agreements, and therefore strengthen the conditions for the legal evolution of certain terms or ideas.

From this perspective, the preambular reference to just transition in the Paris Agreement is substantially significant as it—together with the reference to human rights, the rights of particular groups, gender equality and inter-generational equity—broadened the scope of terms and ideas explicitly acknowledged as relevant within international climate law.⁹⁹

This function has been influential at least in the case of just transition, as the preambular reference was followed by a significant increase in the use of the term in the context of states’ implementation activities. As an illustrative example, in the cycle of NDCs initiated in advance of the COP 21 in Paris,¹⁰⁰ only South Africa referred to just transition,¹⁰¹ whereas in the following round of (revised and updated) NDC submissions, which took place in 2020/2021, at least 35 NDCs included a reference to the concept, including the EU’s NDC representing its 27 Member States.¹⁰² Additionally, three NDCs referred to a ‘fair transition’.¹⁰³

3.6 An Evolving Meaning and a New Function

Treaties and the interpretation of their terms are understood as evolutionary, as they are subject to changes enforced by the states party to them either through additional agreements or through subsequent practice.¹⁰⁴ The meaning of just transition and its legal implications under the Paris Agreement may, therefore, evolve if its Parties agree on a new interpretation. Subsequent agreement and practice by parties, however, should not be seen as overriding the other considerations set out in the VCLT’s rules on treaty interpretation but rather ‘be taken into account’¹⁰⁵ as an equally important step in the overall interpretative exercise.¹⁰⁶ In addition to scrutinising the reference to just transition in the Paris Agreement, it is therefore important to evaluate how the concept has been used by the Parties in subsequent agreements and practice.

As COP decisions have a specific mandate to implement the treaties by which they are constituted,¹⁰⁷ they serve as a valuable source for this exercise.¹⁰⁸ It is, nevertheless, important to note that COP decisions do not constitute a way to form new binding obligations, outside the realm of the existing treaty terms.¹⁰⁹ Instead, they are seen to have a unique legal status as droit dérivé norms, and accordingly have legal validity only within the normative powers delegated to them by the Parties to the constitutive treaty.¹¹⁰ Yet, as COP meetings within the UNFCCC system have a rather broad mandate, they can, in addition to implementing particular obligations within the constitutive treaty, introduce new institutional arrangements or substantial recommendations, that are seen as relevant for the ‘effective implementation’ of the Agreement.¹¹¹ COP meetings can accordingly also be characterised as a forum for ‘ongoing dialogue’ between the Parties,¹¹² that advances the implementation—but further also the development—of climate law and governance.

Through the decisions made at COP 26 in Glasgow and COP 27 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Parties have arguably both clarified and extended the content of just transition, compared to its conceptualisation in the Paris Agreement. Paragraph 20 of the Glasgow Climate Pact calls upon the Parties to ‘transition towards low-emission energy systems […] while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognising the need for support towards a just transition’.¹¹³ This same paragraph is reiterated in the Sharm-el-Sheikh Implementation Plan.¹¹⁴ The paragraph is significant as it, for the first time in COP decisions, mentions just transition without a reference to the workforce. Instead, the justness of the transition is connected with supporting the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances. In addition to extending the scope of just transition to generally vulnerable groups, it moreover confirms a clear commitment to distributional justice measures within a just transition.

In line with the paragraph cited above, recent decisions indicate further agreement on just transition measures. The Sharm-el-Sheikh Implementation Plan emphasises that ‘just and equitable transition encompasses pathways that include energy, socioeconomic, workforce and other dimensions, all of which must be based on nationally defined development priorities and include social protection so as to mitigate potential impacts associated with the transition’.¹¹⁵ In addition to the relatively broad categorisation of just transition measures, the paragraph demonstrates a consensus among Parties on the centrality of social protection measures for distributing the potential harms of the transition. It further explicitly links the concept of a just transition to the notion of equity. The same decision moreover outlines that ‘just solutions to the climate crisis must be founded on meaningful and effective social dialogue and participation of all stakeholders’,¹¹⁶ which shows that, in addition to distributional justice elements, also procedural concerns are considered as crucial for implementing just transitions.

While the above-mentioned citations indicate a firm focus on national priorities and national measures for a just (and equitable) transition, new international measures have also been put forward. The Glasgow Climate Pact recognises ‘the need to ensure just transitions that promote sustainable development and eradication of poverty, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs […] including through deployment and transfer of technology, and provision of support to developing country Parties’.¹¹⁷ This reference indicates that just transition measures would encompass the redirection of financial and technical support to developing country Parties and accordingly fall under the realm of the developed country Parties’ existing obligations in terms of financial and technical support.¹¹⁸ Consequently, this reference extends the previous intra-state focus of just transition to justice considerations between states, which in extension brings just transition closer to the traditional understanding of the principle of equity and CBDR.¹¹⁹

This new international dimension of just transition is exemplified by the political declaration on ‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ signed at COP 26 by 16 Western states and the EU. In the declaration the signatories recognise, inter alia, their ‘role in working to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition to a net zero and climate resilient future’ and ‘that all countries must benefit from the opportunities offered by sustainable and just transitions’, which should include ‘access to modern technologies, capacity building and finance, as well as policy solutions to manage transitions in a just and inclusive way’.¹²⁰ The declaration also presents six principles outlining the way in which the signatories will take into account just transition in their ‘international financial and technical assistance programmes when supporting developing and emerging economies’.¹²¹

In addition to clarifying and extending the content of just transition, COP 26 and 27 have further given a more central role to the concept in the overall implementation of the Paris Agreement. Parties are, inter alia, encouraged to communicate their ‘long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies […] towards just transitions to net zero emissions by or around mid-century’.¹²² At COP 27, Parties further resolved to ‘implement ambitious, just, equitable and inclusive transitions to low-emission and climate-resilient development in line with the principles and objectives of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement’.¹²³ In these paragraphs just transition is presented as the overarching method by which to achieve net zero emissions and further as a key part in the implementation of the objectives of the Paris Agreement. This interpretation is supported by Parties decision at COP 27 to establish a dedicated work programme on just transition ‘for discussion of pathways to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement outlined in Article 2, paragraph 1, in the context of Article 2, paragraph 2.’¹²⁴ Further, as part of the work programme, an annual high-level ministerial round table on just transition will be convened.¹²⁵ Accordingly, just transition is not only conceptualised as the method for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, but is moreover equated with realising them in the context of the principles of equity and CBDR outlined in Article 2, paragraph 2. This illustrates a deeper entanglement of the concepts, where just transition, despite its more recent recognition, is proposed as an umbrella term for implementing both the principle of equity and CBDR.

The evolving meaning and growing relevance of just transition are visible also in other subsequent practices by Parties, such as their NDCs.¹²⁶ Of the 35 NDCs that feature a mention of just transition,¹²⁷ only five refer to a just transition specifically of the workforce.¹²⁸ By contrast, the majority of them refer to just transition as a key component in the overarching transition to a ‘low carbon’, ‘net zero’ or ‘climate resilient’ economy or society.¹²⁹ Furthermore, while many of the references to a just transition in NDCs include consideration of workers or job creation, they mostly extend beyond this by focusing on generally vulnerable groups, young people, indigenous peoples, regional concerns or poverty eradication.¹³⁰

The evolving meaning and increased relevance of just transition bring with it a need to re-evaluate the concept’s function under the Paris Agreement. First, the shift away from the workforce per se to generally vulnerable groups, implies a clear shift away from understanding it through the incorporative function, built around the concept’s connection with workers’ rights and labour law. At a minimum, it can no longer be regarded as solely representing these frameworks, as the concept has evolved beyond their scope.

In contrast, the interpretative function has grown in relevance, as recent use of the concept lays out increasingly specific measures that inform how Parties should consider and minimise the socioeconomic impacts of the implementation of response measures. This recent practice has further explicitly extended the traditional interpretation of equity within the Agreement, to encompass also intrastate equity concerns. At the same time, the references to just transition measures in the form of financial and technical support to developing country parties, add new dimensions to the existing obligations of developed country Parties in this regard.

As for the political function, it continues to be relevant, as illustrated by the growing use and importance of the concept within the COP decisions and Parties’ implementation activities. However, not all the initial supporters of a just transition necessarily support the expansion of the concept’s scope, as it risks side-lining the original goal of specifically protecting the workforce.¹³¹

It is also worth asking whether these functions are fit to fully depict the evolving use of just transition and its future role within international climate law. The decisions referring to ‘just transitions to net zero emissions’ and to the establishment of a work programme on just transition ‘for discussion of pathways to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement’,¹³² in particular, show that the Parties intend to interpret just transition(s) as a more comprehensive term that characterises the ‘just’—and desirable—way of implementing net zero transitions and even the overall objectives of the Paris Agreement. Through these decisions, just transition is consequently given stronger normative relevance, as a concept that guides the implementation of the Agreement and its goals. Based on this practice, it approaches the function of a guiding principle within the Agreement. This function can be equated with the role given to guiding principles under the UNFCCC.¹³³

With a view to the literature on the varying normative status of principles under international environmental law, it is fair to argue that just transition—if perceived as a guiding principle under the Agreement—operates within the non-binding normative sphere: as a soft law norm,¹³⁴ as a non-legal principle¹³⁵ or as a principle of emerging law.¹³⁶ The concept has, nevertheless, been afforded (non-binding) normative significance, both through the preambular recital and especially in subsequent practice under the Agreement, through which it ‘directly or indirectly steer[s] the behaviour of its addressees’.¹³⁷ Moreover, as Bosselmann points out, ‘the importance of principles is not so much determined by their legal status, but by their interpretation through governments, courts and other decision-makers’.¹³⁸

The concept’s growing normative force is increasingly apparent, as the recognition of just transition as a guiding principle for climate action is gaining traction at regional and (sub)national levels. Under the EU Climate Law, the Commission is to consider the ‘need to ensure a just and socially fair transition for all’ when proposing 2040 climate targets.¹³⁹ Likewise, the recent framework laws on climate change from Scotland (2019), Fiji (2021), South Korea (2021) and South Africa (2022) define just transition as a guiding principle for the act itself or its climate plans.¹⁴⁰ The concept is further given an indirect guiding role in the framework laws on climate change from Colombia (2021), Ireland (2021), Portugal (2021) and Spain (2021).¹⁴¹ Moreover, some NDC references to just transition echo this approach by adopting just transition as one of the ‘principles that guide […] all national adaptation and mitigation actions’,¹⁴² ‘a vision’ through which the NDC is framed,¹⁴³ and part of the ‘social pillar [that] guides the development and implementation of commitments’ in the NDC.¹⁴⁴

Understanding just transition as a (non-binding) guiding principle under the Paris Agreement further raises the question of the interrelationship between just transition and other existing justice principles within the Agreement, namely, equity and CBDR. As discussed above, just transition can be interpreted as belonging under a broader equity principle. When considering the new international element of just transition, it could moreover be seen to implement the principle of CBDR by extending the existing commitments of developed country Parties to support developing country Parties also in their just transition measures. Alternatively, just transition could be seen to complement CBDR, if CBDR is interpreted as a principle that primarily guides the allocation of responsibilities for climate change mitigation,¹⁴⁵ whereas just transition concerns the—in a way secondary—justice implications of implemented climate measures. Moreover, as illustrated by the new just transition work programme, just transition has also been interpreted as an overarching concept that encompasses both equity and CBDR.

As these options show, the concepts are in many ways overlapping and intertwined. Since all of them lack a detailed institutional definition and are subject to politically contested moral judgements,¹⁴⁶ it is rather challenging to determine their fixed interrelationship. As this section has illustrated, the terms of a treaty moreover evolve through the practice by its Parties. The concrete application of just transition and its relationship to other treaty terms will therefore be determined by how Parties decide to interpret and operationalise it.

4. Operationalising Just Transition

4.1 Common Guidelines for National Measures

As illustrated by the analysis above, the operationalisation of just transition in many ways takes place nationally. This, however, does not exclude international efforts for its operationalisation. With a view to the international focus of this article, and to the concerns raised regarding challenges for the operationalisation of just transition within the UNFCCC system,¹⁴⁷ this section offers a brief assessment of international initiatives that provide more concrete applications for the concept. It accordingly adds a forward-looking element to the analysis and highlights relevant developments for future research.

The development of common guidelines for the implementation of just transition represents an apparent effort to operationalise the concept. In this regard, ILO’s work on just transition and especially the ‘Guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all’ adopted in 2015, serves as a prime example.¹⁴⁸ The guidelines are based on the ‘Resolution concerning sustainable development, decent work and green jobs’ adopted at the International Labour Conference held in 2013,¹⁴⁹ and consequently illustrates a political agreement between states, workers and employers on the basic features of the just transition concept within the ILO. These include ‘anticipating impacts on employment’; ‘adequate and sustainable social protection for job losses and displacement’; ‘skills development’ and ‘social dialogue, including the effective exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively’.¹⁵⁰

Most of the Parties to the Paris Agreement are also members of the ILO.¹⁵¹ This means that work on just transition under the ILO can be seen as relevant for the vast majority of states within the climate regime. The relevance of the ILO guidelines within the UNFCCC is moreover strengthened by several references to them in documents within the forum on the impact of response measures,¹⁵² and in political declarations made on just transition at COP 24 and COP 26 by subsets of Parties. The 2018 Silesia Declaration takes note ‘of the importance’ of the guidelines,¹⁵³ and the declaration on ‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ from 2021 states that the guidelines ‘established a global understanding for the term “just transition”’.¹⁵⁴

In line with the new mandate of the UNFCCC’s forum on the impact of response measures from 2018, states should also agree on common recommendations based on their work within the forum.¹⁵⁵ The first set of recommendations,¹⁵⁶ adopted at COP 26, inter alia encourage Parties to ‘engage relevant stakeholders at each step of the process of designing and implementing climate mitigation policies’, to ‘explore complementary policies, such as economic policies, social protection and labour policies, to help strengthen the outcomes of the implementation of mitigation strategies’ and to use assessment tools to ‘understand the social, economic and employment effects of proposed mitigation measures’.¹⁵⁷ The recommendations further clarify that the relevant stakeholders include, inter alia, ‘workers, employers, organizations, academia, public and private sectors, women and civil society’.¹⁵⁸ These recommended measures align with the basic features of the ILO’s just transition framework,¹⁵⁹ and the measures proposed by the recent Sharm-el-Sheikh Implementation Plan,¹⁶⁰ indicating a shared understanding of the required national actions for a just transition.

As the work within the forum on the impact of response measures progresses, it is expected that it will put forward additional and potentially more specific recommendations relating to just transition. In addition to being a space for facilitating knowledge exchange and capacity building on just transition, the forum moreover provides a platform for the elaboration of common guidelines for the concept’s operationalisation. The same could apply to the new work programme dedicated specifically to just transition, and the annual high-level ministerial round table to be convened in connection to it.¹⁶¹ What the specific mandate of the new work programme will be is, nevertheless, to be determined at the next COP, to be held in late 2023.¹⁶² Based on the decision initiating its establishment, the purpose of the just transition work programme seems to be rather comprehensive, as it should assist in the implementation of the overall goals of the Paris Agreement in accordance with its guiding principles.¹⁶³ With this initial scope, it could further provide a place for clarifying the interrelationship between just transition and the principles of equity and CBDR.

4.2 Planning and Reporting on Just Transition

In contrast to the substantive measures proposed by the guidelines above, the political declarations on just transition, adopted by subsets of parties at COP 24 and COP 26, highlight the procedural role of planning and reporting in the implementation of just transition. The Silesia Declaration encourages the consideration of just transition ‘while preparing and implementing’ NDCs and other climate plans, whereas in the declaration ‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ states pledged to report on their just transition efforts, where relevant, in their national biennial transparency reports (BTRs), as a part of their reporting on progress towards achieving their NDCs.¹⁶⁴

NDCs and the reporting connected with them, such as the BTRs, play a central role in the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Incorporating just transition into planning and reporting measures would, therefore, be a comprehensive way to encourage all Parties to develop their just transition work further. This is something that, for example, trade unions have pushed for as a means of operationalising the work on just transition in a context-specific and country-driven manner.¹⁶⁵ The current specifications on the content of NDCs and related reporting do not, however, mention just transition work per se.¹⁶⁶ Questions relating to just transition, however, may be included in several different parts of NDCs, as illustrated by the increased state practice in this regard. Following the agreed format for the NDCs, just transition measures may, inter alia, be relevant to include under the section outlining the planning process for the NDC, either in relation to the inclusiveness of the planning process or the way in which the economic and social consequences of response measures have been considered in developing the NDC.¹⁶⁷ There is also a specific section on the fairness and ambition of the NDC.¹⁶⁸ This section should specifically include considerations relating to the principles of equity and CBDR,¹⁶⁹ but could well also include just transition measures, as has been illustrated by Parties practice in this regard.¹⁷⁰

BTRs are intended to work as the tool through which the Parties’ progress in implementing their NDCs is assessed. If states highlight their just transition plans and policies in their NDCs, it would be appropriate to account for the progress made in this regard, also in their BTRs. As there is no requirement to include considerations on just transition within NDCs or related reporting, it is up to states to decide the extent to which they account for these considerations in the planning and connected reporting framework, if at all. As the pledge by 16 Western states and the EU shows, there may, however, be interest in including the measures with a view to showcasing the work that has been done.¹⁷¹ The growing tendency to include just transition policies in NDCs may also indicate a trend towards including assessment of just transition measures in the BTRs.

4.3 Just Transition and Climate Finance

Just transition is further gaining relevance within the realm of climate finance. This development relates to the extended scope of the just transition concept, which, according to the Glasgow Climate Pact, includes the ‘deployment and transfer of technology, and provision of support to developing country Parties’.¹⁷² This new international aspect of just transition is concretised in the term just transition financing, which emerged at COP 26. Under the decision on ‘Matters relating to the Standing Committee on Finance’, Parties emphasised the need to ensure that ‘just transition financing is incorporated into approaches to align climate action with the goals of the Paris Agreement’.¹⁷³ The decision thus acknowledges the emergence of a new aspect of climate finance, geared towards dealing with the socioeconomic dimension of climate policies. It also underlines that this form of financing needs to feed into the achievement of the Paris Agreement goals.

An example of just transition financing is provided by the long-term partnership established at COP 26 between the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, the EU and South Africa.¹⁷⁴ The partners, inter alia, promised to make available approximately $8.5 billion over the next three to five years to support South Africa in its just energy transition.¹⁷⁵ Since the launch of this partnership, South Africa has developed a Just Transition Investment Plan, outlining the investment priorities and plans for the energy transition, where the bulk of the investments are directed to energy infrastructure and a small share to skills development and social investment and inclusion.¹⁷⁶ This illustrates how just transition finance may well encompass, or even focus on, mitigation measures. The justness dimension is, nevertheless, visible not only in the amount of finance geared explicitly towards social needs, but as a priority and frame that influences both the development process for and content of the financing plans and related regulatory frameworks.¹⁷⁷

At COP 27, the role of these ‘just energy transition partnerships’ was further acknowledged, as one of the tools for achieving the required reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁷⁸ Multi- or bilateral financial partnerships have moreover been supplemented by the just transition commitments made by Multinational Development Banks (MDB), such as the ‘High-Level Principles on Just Transition’ released before COP 26.¹⁷⁹ The principles aim to ‘provide a common understanding of MDB support for a just transition and guide MDB policies and activities relating to it’.¹⁸⁰ These developments illustrate the growing relevance of just transition also within climate finance.¹⁸¹

4.4 Just Transition in International Supply Chains

Lastly, just transition has also been highlighted in the management of international supply chains. In the declaration on ‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’, the signatories pledged to ‘aim to focus on ensuring that existing supply chains, and the new and emerging supply chains required for the clean transition, create decent work for all, including for the most marginalised, and create equitable employment across borders’.¹⁸² In this regard, they also urged ‘businesses to ensure their supply chains are free of human rights abuses, including through carrying out corporate due diligence’.¹⁸³

The language used in these statements is rather weak, stating an aim to ‘focus on ensuring’ instead of, for instance, the intention to guarantee. Moreover, the format is that of a political declaration. However, the relevance of these statements lies in their content rather than in their legal character as the signatories acknowledge, first, the importance of international supply chains in relation to the implementation of a just transitions and, second, the role the signatories have in securing a just transition within their supply chains. The statements further underline the importance of human rights as a means of securing just transitions. Lastly, they imply a role for companies in securing a just transition internationally through, inter alia, due diligence processes.

This idea is also visible in the EU’s recent legislative proposal for mandatory due diligence processes for companies, which mentions just transition as one of the background drivers for the proposed directive.¹⁸⁴ Responsibilities relating to supply chains and due diligence processes may accordingly provide an additional avenue for furthering just transitions internationally. This development further aligns with the growing expectations put on the private sector in terms of just transition measures.¹⁸⁵

5. Conclusions

This article has provided an analysis of the meaning and legal implications of just transition in international climate law. The analysis has shown how just transition has evolved into an increasingly important concept under the Paris Agreement. It has further illustrated a shift in the concept’s meaning from a labour-centred focus to a more comprehensive concept that underlines the importance of implementing climate measures in a way that engages and protects affected and vulnerable people and communities.

Since the concept is placed in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, the reference to just transition does not create any direct legal obligations. Yet, the concept has, through its political function, introduced a new intrastate justice element to international climate law that draws attention to the need for distributional and procedural justice measures to create just climate law and policy. In addition, just transition gains legal relevance by its interpretative function, through which it both clarifies and adds new dimensions to the interpretation of existing principles and obligations under the Agreement.

The references to just transition, in the preamble and subsequent practice under the Paris Agreement, have clarified what actions states should take to minimise the adverse impacts of their climate measures. These references have also extended the previous interstate scope of the principle of equity to encompass equity concerns of specific social groups within states. In addition, the concept has introduced new socioeconomic dimensions to the developed country Parties’ commitments in relation to their financial and technical support to developing country Parties. This has added an international dimension to the just transition concept, which brings it closer to the traditional understanding of the principle of equity and CBDR. Consequently, just transition is increasingly interrelated and entangled with the established justice principles under the Agreement.

Through recent practice, Parties have further given stronger normative relevance to just transition by deploying it as a concept that guides the overall implementation of the Agreement and its goals. Based on this practice, just transition approaches a new function as a non-binding—or emerging—guiding principle within the Agreement.

Finally, this study has highlighted international initiatives that contribute to the operationalisation of just transition. These initiatives include both substantial and procedural measures that complement—and amplify—the growing national implementation of just transitions.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Kati Kulovesi and Harro van Asselt for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this article, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Research for this article was conducted under the Academy of Finland Strategic Research Council project 2035Legitimacy (Grant No 335559).

Footnotes

1

Paris Agreement (adopted 12.12.2015, in force 4.11.2016) 3156 UNTS art 2(1)(a) and 4(1) outlining the collective legal goal to ‘hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C […] pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C’ and to be carbon neutral in ‘the second half of this century’.

2

IPCC, ‘Summary for policymakers’ in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (2022) 24–35.

3

UNDP, Human Development Report 2020—The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene (2020) 56ff.

4

IPCC, ‘Summary for policymakers’ in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (2022) 9–11.

5

IPCC (n 2) 42–43 and UNDP, Human Development Report 2021/2022—Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives: Shaping our Future in a Transforming World (2022) 39–44.

6

UNDP, ibid 39–41; Elizabeth Fisher, ‘Unearthing the Relationship between Environmental Law and Populism’ (2019) 31 JEL 383; Sanja Bogojević, ‘Legal Dilemmas of Climate Action’ (2023) 35 JEL.

7

Anabella Rosemberg, ‘Building a Just Transition: The Linkages between Climate Change and Employment’ (2010) 2 International Journal of Labour Research 125, 141; Edouard Morena and others, Mapping Just Transition(s) to a Low-Carbon World (Just Transition Research Collaborative, UNRISD 2018), 6; Dimitris Stevis, Edouard Morena and Dunja Krause, ‘Introduction: The Genealogy and Contemporary Politics of Just Transitions’ in Edouard Morena, Dunja Krause and Dimitris Stevis (eds), Just Transitions: Social Justice in the Shift Towards a Low-Carbon World (Pluto Press 2020) 9–11.

8

See an overview of different just transition definitions in Alexandra R Harrington, Just Transitions and the Future of Law and Regulation (Palgrave Macmillan 2022) 4–7.

9

On arguments for a narrower use of the concept see, eg, Ann Eisenberg, ‘Just Transitions’ (2019) 92 Southern California Law Review 273, 287ff and for an expansive use see, eg, Harrington, ibid, 20; Nicholas Bainton and others, ‘The Energy-extractives Nexus and the Just Transition’ (2021) 29 Sustainable Development, 629–630; Matthew J Burke, ‘Post-growth Policies for the Future of Just Transitions in an Era of Uncertainty’ (2022) 136 Futures.

10

See Becca Wilgosh, Alevgul H Sorman and Iñaki Barcena, ‘When Two Movements Collide: Learning from Labour and Environmental Struggles for Future Just Transitions’ (2022) 137 Futures 1, especially figure 3 on page 6, which shows a significant increase in just transition references since 2015.

11

Morena and others (n 7).

12

Dimitris Stevis and Romain Felli, ‘Planetary Just Transition? How Inclusive and How Just?’ (2020) 6 Earth System Governance.

13

Wilgosh, Sorman and Barcena (n 10).

14

See Darren McCauley and Raphael Heffron ‘Just Transition: Integrating Climate, Energy and Environmental Justice’, (2018) 111 Energy Policy, emphasising elements of distributive, procedural and restorative justice and Stephen Williams and Andréanne Doyon, ‘Justice in Energy Transitions’ (2019) 31 Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 144, further highlighting justice as recognition.

15

Paris Agreement (n 1) preamble recital 10.

16

Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law) [2021] OJ L 243, arts 4(5)(c) and 9.

17

European Commission, ‘The Just Transition Mechanism: making sure no one is left behind’ available at: <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/finance-and-green-deal/just-transition-mechanism_en> accessed 14 March 2023 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund [2021] OJ L 231/1.

18

See the framework climate change laws of Scotland: The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) Act 2019 (Commencement) Regulations 2020, s 35(20), 35C; Colombia: L. 2169, diciembre 22, 2021 Diario Oficial No. 51.896 de 2021, art 3 para 2; Fiji: Climate Change Act 2021, s 5 (f); Ireland: Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, s 4(8)(k); Portugal: Lei n.º 98/2021 de 31 de dezembro, art 69; South Korea: Framework Act On Carbon Neutrality And Green Growth For Coping With Climate Crisis, Sep. 24, 2021, art 3 para 4, available at: <https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=59958&lang=ENG> accessed 14 March 2023; Spain: Ley 7/2021, de 20 de mayo, de cambio climático y transición energética, art 27–29; South Africa: Climate Change Bill 9 of 2022, s 2 (d), 3(d).

19

Eisenberg (n 9) 273.

20

David Doorey, ‘Just Transitions Law: Putting Labour Law to Work on Climate Change’ (2017) 30 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 201; Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, ‘Just Transitions for Workers: When Climate Change Met Labour Justice’ in Alan Bogg, Jacob Rowbottom and Alison L Young (eds), The Constitution of Social Democracy: Essays in Honour of Keith Ewing (Hart 2020) 429.

21

Eisenberg (n 9); Ghaleigh, ibid; Harrington (n 8); Tonia Novitz, ‘Engagement with Sustainability at the International Labour Organization and Wider Implications for Collective Worker Voice’ (2020) 159 International Labour Review 465; Craig Holt Segall, ‘Just Transitions for Oil and Gas Communities’ (2021) 39 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 177.

22

Ghaleigh, ibid 438–441 assesses the initial use of just transition under the UNFCCC but provides only a brief interpretation of its meaning and legal status. Harrington, ibid, chapter 2 discusses international, regional and (sub)national regulatory frameworks that implicitly or explicitly relate to just transition but does not analyse the legal conceptualisation of just transition or its specific legal implications within international climate law.

23

Stefania Barca, ‘Greening the Job: Trade Unions, Climate Change and the Political Ecology of Labour’ in Raymond Bryant (ed) International Handbook of Political Ecology (Edward Elgar 2015) 392; David Doorey, ‘A Transnational Law of Just Transitions for Climate Change and Labour’ in Adelle Blackett and Anne Trebilcock (eds) Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law (Edward Elgar 2015) 260; Morena and others (n 7) 10 and Anabella Rosemberg, ‘“No Jobs on a Dead Planet”: The International Trade Union Movement and Just Transition’ in Edouard Morena, Dunja Krause and Dimitris Stevis (eds) Just Transitions: Social Justice in the Shift Towards a Low-Carbon World (Pluto Press 2020) 35–40.

24

Adrien Thomas, ‘Framing the Just Transition: How International Trade Unions Engage with UN Climate Negotiations’ (2021) 70 Global Environmental Change, 5–6 and Jen Iris Allan, The New Climate Activism: NGO Authority and Participation in Climate Change Governance (University of Toronto Press 2020) 75.

25

See Rosemberg (n 23) 40ff on the ITUC’s work with different national and regional trade unions regarding climate policy and just transition and ILO, ‘The Green Jobs Initiative’, available at: <https://www.ilo.org/beijing/what-we-do/projects/WCMS_182418/lang--en/index.htm> accessed 14 March 2023.

26

Thomas (n 24) 5. The ITUC was denied full participation at UNFCCC meetings at first, as its role in the negotiations was questioned, especially by other constituency groups, combined with reservations regarding trade unions’ positive effect on the negotiations, Rosemberg (n 23) 38–40 and Allan (n 24) 82–83.

27

Rosemberg, ibid 45–46 and Allan, ibid 61. See also UNFCCC ‘Draft Protocol to the Convention Prepared by the Government of Costa Rica to be Adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties’ (8 June 2009) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2009/6, 5.

28

UNFCCC ‘Revised Negotiating Text’ (22 June 2009) UN Doc FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1. See also analysis in Rosemberg (n 23) 45–46.

29

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention’ (15 March 2011) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 section I. A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, para 10.

30

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.16’, ibid, section E. Economic and social consequences of response measures, recital 4.

31

UNFCCC (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107 art 4(1)(f–h), (8) and (10), Kyoto Protocol (adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162 arts 2(3) and 3(14) and Paris Agreement (n 1) art 4(15).

32

Annela Anger-Kraavi and Nicholas Chan, ‘Pocket Guide to Response Measures’ (Oxford Climate Policy 2021).

33

Jon Barnett and Suraje Dessai, ‘Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the UNFCCC: Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures’ (2002) 2 Climate Policy 231.

34

Nicholas Chan, ‘The “New” Impacts of the Implementation of Climate Change Response Measures’ (2016) 25 RECIEL 228, 231ff.

35

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.16’ (n 29) para 93.

36

According to Anger-Kraavi and Chan (n 32) 14, the forum was created in an attempt to consolidate and centralise the discussions on response measures under the UNFCCC which were previously spread out across many separate agenda items. See also Allan (n 24) 180, noting that this was a political compromise aimed at meeting the wishes of some countries in the Arab Group.

37

UNFCCC ‘Decision 8/CP.17, Forum and work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (15 March 2012) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2 para 1(g).

38

Interestingly, none of the submissions from parties to the UNFCCC ‘Views on the modalities for the operationalization of the work programme and on a possible forum on response measures’ (15 April 2011) UN Doc FCCC/SB/2011/MISC.2 mention the just transition concept. The ILO, however, dedicated its entire submission to it.

39

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Report on the in-forum workshop on area (g)’ (10 October 2013) UN Doc FCCC/SB/2013/INF.10 and UNFCCC ‘Workshop on views and experiences on economic diversification and transformation and on a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs’ (28 October 2016) UN Doc FCCC/SB/2016/INF.2.

40

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs’ (26 October 2016) UN Doc FCCC/TP/2016/7, which does not introduce a definition on just transition, but rather outlines the work done in relation to it.

41

UNFCCC ‘Decision 11/CP.21, Forum and work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (29 January 2016) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.2 and UNFCCC ‘Decision 7/CMA.1 Modalities, work programme and functions of the forum under the Paris Agreement on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (19 March 2019) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.1.

42

See, eg, the UNFCCC ‘Areas of convergence related to areas of cooperation on the issue of the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (19 November 2014) UN Doc FCCC/TP/2014/12 table on page 6.

43

See UNFCCC ‘Decision 2/CP.17, Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention’ (15 March 2012) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 paras 87–89; UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.18, Agreed outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan’ (28 February 2013) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1 section E. Economic and social consequences of response measures, recital 4.

44

Edouard Morena, ‘Securing Workers’ Rights in the Transition to a Low-carbon World’ in Sébastien Duyck, Sébastien Jodoin and Alyssa Johl (eds), Routledge Handbook of Human Rights and Climate Governance (Routledge 2018) 295 and Rosemberg (n 23) 48.

45

WEDO (Women’s Environment & Development Organisation), ‘COP21: Human Rights and Gender Equality’, available at: <https://wedo.org/cop21-human-rights-gender-equality/> accessed 14 March 2023. See also Morena, ibid 295.

46

According to WEDO, ibid, the supporters included Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, Guatemala, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Philippines, Switzerland, Sweden and Uruguay.

47

Paris Agreement (n 1) preamble recital 10 and 11.

48

ibid, preamble recital 10.

49

See, eg, Case concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) (Judgement) [1991] ICJ Rep 91, 69–70 para 48.

50

VCLT (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 art 31(1).

51

ibid art 31(2-4) and 32.

52

ibid art 32(a).

53

Ibid art 31(4). See also analysis in Richard Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (2nd ed., OUP 2015) 337.

54

Paris Agreement (n 1) preamble recital 10 (emphasis added).

55

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Negotiating text’ (25 February 2015) UN Doc FCCC/ADP/2015/1 and UNFCCC ‘Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action’ (6 November 2015), available at: <https://unfccc.int/documents/8917> accessed 14 March 2023.

56

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.16’ (n 29) para 10; UNFCCC ‘Decision 2/CP.17’ (n 43) para 88; UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.18’ (n 43) section E. Economic and social consequences of response measures, recital 4; UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.25’ (n 43) para 16.

57

See the wording of the areas of work within the forum’s work programmes in UNFCCC ‘Decision 8/CP.17’ (n 37) para 1(g); UNFCCC ‘Decision 11/CP.21’ (n 41) para 5(b) and UNFCCC ‘Decision 7/CMA.1’ (n 41) Annex para 2(b).

58

Paris Agreement (n 1) preamble recital 10.

59

ibid.

60

This is underlined, eg, by ILO, Guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all (2015) para 13 (f).

61

The principles are codified in UNFCCC (n 31) art 3(1) and in the Paris Agreement (n 1) art 2(2), 4(1) and 14(1). For an analysis of these principles and how they are linked see, eg, Cinnamon P Carlarne and JD Colavecchio, ‘Balancing Equity and Effectiveness: The Paris Agreement & the Future of International Climate Change Law’ (2019) 27 N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal 107, 115–118 and 124–126.

62

This is also argued by Morena and others (n 7) 9.

63

UNFCCC ‘Just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs’ (n 40) para 4 (emphasis added). Technical papers published by the UNFCCC Secretariat generally summarise knowledge and best practices on a specific theme or policy area, for the benefit of the Parties.

64

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Synthesis paper on the work of the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (4 November 2014) UN Doc FCCC/SB/2014/INF.4 paras 46–48.

65

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Views on the work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (18 April 2013) UN Doc FCCC/SB/2013/MISC.2, 13; UNFCCC ‘Report on the in-forum workshop on area (g)’ (n 39) para 9 and 19; ‘Submission by Chana: Views on the scope of the review of the work of the improved forum based on the agreed scope of the review as contained in the Annex of the draft conclusions’ (October 2018), available at: <https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/SubmissionsStaging/Documents/201810171132---Ghana%20RM%20Submission%20for%20UNFCCC.pdf> accessed 14 March 2023.

66

See, eg, UNFCCC ‘Report on the in-forum workshop on area (g)’ (n 39) para 37.

67

Jan Klabbers, ‘Treaties and Their Preambles’ in Michael Bowman and Dino Kritsiotis (eds) Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (CUP 2018) 172.

68

See Max H Hulme, ‘Preambles in Treaty Interpretation’ (2016) 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1281, 1288–89, where he defines the spectrum for preambles’ legal relevance as ranging from the ‘ceremonial extreme’, with little legal relevance, to the ‘substantive extreme’, where it is ‘capable of providing substantive content—ie, creating rights and imposing obligations’.

69

VCLT (n 50) art 31(1-2).

70

Makane Moïse Mbengue, ‘Preamble’, Max Planck Encyclopedias of Public International Law (2006), available at: <https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1456?prd=EPIL> accessed 14 March 2023 and Klabbers (n 67).

71

See analysis in Klabbers, ibid 193 on the preamble of the 1961 European Social Charter.

72

Klabbers (n 67) 178.

73

ibid 179.

74

ibid 198. See also Martti Koskenniemi, ‘The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ in Gudmundur Alfredsson and Asbjorn Eide (eds) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Kluwer 1999) 27, emphasising the preamble’s dual position as a celebration and a refusal, where the latter position marks the substance which was left out of the operative part of the treaty.

75

Gardiner (n 53) 206.

76

María Pía Carazo, ‘Contextual Provisions (Preamble and Article 1)’ in Daniel Klein and others (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (OUP 2017) 107–109 and Ben Boer, ‘The Preamble’ in Geert Van Calster and Leonie Reins (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Commentary (Edward Elgar 2021) P.02–P.05.

77

See Mbenge (n 70) and Klabbers (n 67).

78

Mbenge, ibid paras 9–10.

79

Lene Olsen, ‘Supporting a Just Transition: The Role of International Labour Standards’ (2010) 2 International Journal of Labour Research 293; Katherine H Regan, ‘The Case for Enhancing Climate Change Negotiations with a Labor Rights Perspective’ (2010) 35 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 249; Doorey (n 23); Eisenberg (n 9).

80

See, eg, ILO (n 60) guidelines and their Annex 1. These guidelines are discussed in more detail in section 4.1.

81

ITUC, ‘Summary report of the Glasgow Climate Negotiations COP26’ 15 November 2021 available at: <https://www.industriall-union.org/cop26-concludes-with-half-hearted-glasgow-climate-pact> accessed 14 March 2023, 4, stating that the preamble recital on just transition is a reference to labour rights. See also Carazo (n 76) 114, for the conclusion that the recital showcases Parties’ awareness of the potential conflict between climate actions and labour law provisions.

82

Paris Agreement (n 1), preamble recital 11.

83

ibid, preamble recital 10 (emphasis added).

84

See ‘Imperative’ (noun) Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperative> accessed 14 March 2023.

85

VCLT (n 50) art 31(1-2).

86

Ghaleigh (n 20) 439 recognises the interpretative function of the just transition reference and notes that it could contribute to ‘establishing the meaning of treaty provisions and clarifying their purpose’. He does not, however, elaborate on which provisions of the Agreement it could relate to.

87

UNFCCC (n 31) art 4(8) and (10) and Paris Agreement (n 1) art 4(15).

88

UNFCCC ‘Decision 4/CP.25, Workplan of the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures and its Katowice Committee of Experts on the Impacts of the Implementation of Response Measures’ (16 March 2020) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2019/13/Add.1 Annex II, activity 2, 4, 7.

89

Carlarne and Colavecchio (n 61) 124.

90

UNFCCC (n 31) art 3(1) and Paris Agreement (n 1) art 2(2), 4(1) and 14(1).

91

Carlarne and Colavecchio (n 61) 125.

92

See, eg, Christina Voigt, ‘Equity in the 2015 Climate Agreement’ (2014) 4 Climate Law 50–69, 51; Werner Scholtz, ‘Equity’ in Lavanya Rajamani and Jacqueline Peel (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (2nd ed., OUP 2021) 347–348.

93

Paris Agreement (n 1) art 4(1) and 14(1).

94

See analysis in Carlarne and Colavecchio (n 61) 126 and Tuula Honkonen, The Common but Differentiated Responsibility Principle in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Regulatory and Policy Aspects (Kluwer Law International 2009) 100.

95

This intrastate perspective on equity is also advanced in Sonja Kolansky et al, Building Climate Equity: Creating a New Approach from the Ground Up (World Resource Institute 2015) 12, which stresses the need to understand ‘the ways in which climate policy intersects with other dimensions of human development, both globally and domestically’ to advance equitable climate change policy.

96

See, eg, NDC by Canada (2021) 22, Montenegro (2021) 13, South Africa (2021) 27, South Korea (2021) 27 and United Kingdom (2022) 44. Accessed through UNFCCC’s NDC registry, available at: <https://unfccc.int/NDCREG>. NDCs are nationally made climate plans that clarify the climate actions, such as targets and policies, a state aims to implement as a contribution to global climate action.

97

See NDC by South Africa, ibid.

98

Klabbers (n 67) 182.

99

Carazo (n 76) 107. See also Tracy Bach, ‘Human Rights in a Climate Changed World: The Impact of COP21, Nationally Determined Contributions, and National Courts’ (2016) 40 Vermont Law Review 561 and Sébastien Duyck and others, ‘Human Rights and the Paris Agreement’s Implementation Guidelines: Opportunities to Develop a Rights-Based Approach’ (2018) 12 CCLR 191.

100

See UNFCCC ‘Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions’ (30 October 2015) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/7.

101

South Africa’s NDC (2016) 2 and 8, available at (n 96).

102

See NDCs by Albania (2021), Argentina (2020), Belize (2021), Bolivia (2022), Canada (2021), Chile (2020), Colombia (2020), Costa Rica (2020), Côte d’Ivoire (2022), Dominica (2022), Dominican Republic (2020), Egypt (2022), EU (2020), Guatemala (2021), Haiti (2021), Iceland (2021), Indonesia (2021), Lebanon (2021), Mauritania (2021), Mauritius (2021), Montenegro (2021), Namibia (2021), North Macedonia (2021), Norway (2020), Oman (2021), Pakistan (2021), Paraguay (2021), Philippines (2021), Republic of Korea (2021), Serbia (2022), South Africa (2021), Suriname (2020), United Kingdom (2020), Ukraine (2021), Zimbabwe (2021), available at (n 96).

103

See NDCs by Bosnia and Herzegovina 2021, Cabo Verde 2020 and Moldova 2020, available ibid.

104

VCLT (n 50) art 31(3)(a–b). See further Eirik Bjorge, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties (OUP 2014).

105

VCLT (n 50) art 31(3).

106

See International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties’, adopted by the ILC at its seventieth session in 2018, Conclusion 2(5), clarifying that ‘[t]he interpretation of a treaty consists of a single combined operation, which places appropriate emphasis on the various means of interpretation indicated, respectively, in arts 31 and 32’.

107

UNFCCC (n 31) art 7(2). See also Paris Agreement (n 1) article 16 (4) providing the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Agreement (CMA) a similar mandate.

108

See ILC (n 106) Conclusion 11(2), stating that a decision by a Conference of States Parties may, depending on the circumstances, ‘embody, explicitly or implicitly, a subsequent agreement under art 31, paragraph 3 (a), or give rise to subsequent practice under art 31, paragraph 3 (b)’ and that this ‘depends primarily on the treaty and any applicable rules of procedure’.

109

Daniel Bondansky, ‘The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement’ (2016) 25 RECIEL 142, 148.

110

Pierre-Marie Dupuy and Jorge E Viñuales, International Environmental Law (2nd ed., CUP 2018) 41–42. See also discussion in Robin R Churchill and Geir Ulfstein, ‘Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law’ (2000) 94 AJIL 623, 638ff.

111

UNFCCC (n 31) art 7(2); Paris Agreement (n 1) article 16(4) in respect to the CMA. See further discussion on the normative force of COP decisions in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Lavanya Rajamani, International Climate Change Law (OUP 2017) 19–20.

112

See Jutta Brunnée, ‘COPing with Consent: Law-Making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (2002) 15 LJIL 1, 40, who further argues that COP meetings should be seen as spaces for law-making precisely due to their interactional character.

113

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.26, Glasgow Climate Pact’ (8 March 2022) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1 para 20. See also UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CMA.3, Glasgow Climate Pact’ (8 March 2022) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/10/Add.1, which restates the paragraph cited above in para 36.

114

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CP.27, Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan’ (advance unedited version) para 13 and UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CMA.4 Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan’ (advance unedited version) para 28, available at: <https://unfccc.int/cop27/auv> accessed 14 March 2023.

115

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CP.27’ ibid para 29.

116

ibid para 28.

117

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.26’ (n 113) para 52.

118

Paris Agreement (n 1) art 4(5), 9, 10 and 11.

119

See also Harrington (n 8) 23, who suggests that CBDR provides an ‘implicit methodology for just transitions’.

120

‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ adopted 4 November 2021 at the COP 26 in Glasgow, UK, para 4, available at: <https://ukcop26.org/supporting-the-conditions-for-a-just-transition-internationally/> accessed 14 March 2023.

121

ibid para 5.

122

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CMA.3’ (n 113) para 32 and UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CMA.4’ (n 114) para 24 (emphasis added).

123

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CMA.4’ (n 114) para 10.

124

ibid para 52.

125

ibid para 53.

126

ILC (n 106), Conclusion 4(2) defines a subsequent practice as consisting of ‘conduct in the application of a treaty, after its conclusion, which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty’. As NDCs are one of the key implementation activities of the Paris Agreement, they are arguably central to the evaluation of the subsequent practice of the Agreement’s application.

127

See n 102.

128

NDCs by: Colombia (2020), Dominica (2022), Indonesia (2021), Palestine (2021) and Mauritius (2021), available at (n 96). Note also that in Palestine’s submission just transition is mentioned through a citation of a COP decision.

129

NDCs by Argentina (2020), Belize (2021), Bolivia (2022), Canada (2021), Chile (2020), Colombia (2020), Costa Rica (2020), Dominica (2022), EU (2020), Indonesia (2021), Namibia (2021), Oman (2021), Philippines (2021), the Republic of Korea (2021), South Africa (2021), United Kingdom (2020) and Zimbabwe (2021), available at ibid.

130

See, eg, NDC by Canada from 2021, 9–10 stressing the special concerns of ‘low-income Canadians, women, Indigenous communities, and people living in rural and remote areas’ and by Argentina from 2020, stressing the importance of ‘acknowledg[ing] the structural conditions based on gender, social dimension, ethnic groups, age, and religion, amongst others, that have an impact on the construction and determination of vulnerabilities and capacities’, available at ibid.

131

See ITUC (n 81) 3, stating that ‘[m]ajor challenges remain however, as governments, companies and organisations are giving their own interpretations to the concept of Just Transition, sometimes leaving out the focus on workers and jobs’.

132

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CMA.3’ (n 113) para 32 and UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CMA.4’ (n 114) para 24 and para 52.

133

UNFCCC (n 31) art 3.

134

Ulrich Beyerlin, ‘Different Types of Norms in Environmental Law: Policies, Principles and Rules’ in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (OUP 2007) 426, 428.

135

Eloise Scotford, Environmental Principles and the Evolution of Environmental Law (Hart 2017) 34ff.

136

Nicolas de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (2nd ed., OUP 2020) 460–61.

137

Beyerlin (n 134) 428.

138

Klaus Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance (Routledge 2016) 44. This view is supported by Beyerlin (n 134) 438.

139

European Climate Law (n 16) art 4(5)(c).

140

Scotland (n 18) s 35(22)(a); Fiji (n 18) s 5 (f); South Korea (n 18) art 3 para 4; South Africa (n 18) s 3(d).

141

Colombia (n 18) art 3 para 2; Ireland (n 18) s 4(8)(k); Portugal (n 18) art 69; Spain (n 18) preamble section III, IV and art 27.

142

NDC by Argentina from 2020, 10, available (n 96).

143

NDC by Costa Rica from 2020, 6, available ibid.

144

NDC by Chile from 2020, 11, available ibid.

145

Lavanya Rajamani, ‘The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and the Balance of Commitments under the Climate Regime’ (2000) 9 RECIEL 120, 123, eg, argues that the principle of CBDR ‘legitimizes asymmetry of commitments under a regime’.

146

See discussion in Carlarne and Colavecchio (n 61) 115–116.

147

Kirsten EH Jenkins and others, ‘Politicising the Just Transition: Linking Global Climate Policy, Nationally Determined Contributions and Targeted Research Agendas’ (2020) 15 Geoforum 138, 139.

148

ILO (n 60).

149

International Labour Conference, ‘Conclusions concerning achieving decent work, green jobs and sustainable development’ adopted at the 102nd Session 2013.

150

ibid para 13(e).

151

Andorra, Bhutan, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco and Nauru have ratified the Paris Agreement but are not ILO members. Compare UN Treaty Collection, Paris Agreement, available at: <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en> and ILO, Member States, available at: <https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/member-states/lang--en/index.htm> accessed 14 March 2023.

152

See UNFCCC ‘Just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality job’ (n 40), paras 8, 53 and 55, and UNFCCC ‘Workshop on views and experiences on economic diversification and transformation and on a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs’ (n 39) para 61.

153

‘Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration’ adopted at the Leaders’ Summit during the COP 24 on 3 December 2018 in Katowice, Poland, para 6. The declaration was endorsed by one-fourth of the Parties to the UNFCCC according to Kirsten EH Jenkins, ‘Implementing Just Transition after COP24’ (Climate Strategies 2019) 8.

154

‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ (n 120) para 2.

155

UNFCCC ‘Decision 7/CMA.1’ (n 41) para 12.

156

These recommendations are connected with activity 1 of the forum’s workplan. See UNFCCC ‘Decision 4/CP.25’ (n 88) Annex II. Further recommendations are therefore to be expected as the work of the forum progresses.

157

UNFCCC ‘Decision 19/CP.26, Matters relating to the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures’ (8 March 2022) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.2 Annex I paras 1, 2 and 4.

158

ibid Annex I para 1.

159

See the measures highlighted in International Labour Conference (n 149) para 13(e).

160

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CP.27’ (n 114) paras 28–29.

161

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CMA.4’ (n 114) paras 52–53.

162

ibid, para 52.

163

ibid.

164

‘Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration’ (n 153) 6 (ii); ‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ (n 120) principle 6.

165

Jenkins (n 153) 7.

166

See UNFCCC ‘Decision 4/CMA.1, Further guidance in relation to the mitigation section of decision 1/CP.21’ (19 March 2019) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.1. Annex I para 28 and UNFCCC ‘Decision 18/CMA.1, Modalities, procedures and guidelines for the transparency framework for action and support referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement’ (19 March 2019) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.2 Annex, especially section ‘III. Information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving nationally determined contributions under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement’.

167

UNFCCC ‘Decision 4/CMA.1’ ibid Annex I para 4(a) and (d)(i).

168

ibid Annex I para 6.

169

ibid read together with the Paris Agreement (n 1) art 4(3), (4) and (6).

170

See n 96.

171

‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ (n 120) principle 6.

172

UNFCCC ‘Decision 1/CP.26’ (n 113) para 52.

173

UNFCCC ‘Decision 5/CP.26, Matters relating to the Standing Committee on Finance’ (8 March 2022) UN Doc FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1 para 10.

174

‘Political declaration on the just energy transition in South Africa’ adopted 2.11.2021 at the COP26 in Glasgow UK, available at: <https://ukcop26.org/political-declaration-on-the-just-energy-transition-in-south-africa/> accessed 14 March 2023.

175

ibid para 18.

176

Republic of South Africa, ‘South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET IP) 2023-2027’, November 2022, at 7, available at: <https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/content/south-africa%27s-just-energy-transition-investment-plan-jet-ip-2023-2027> accessed 14 March 2022.

177

ibid 3, 30 and 41ff.

178

UNFCCC ‘Decision -/CP.27’ (n 114) para 8.

179

‘MDB Just Transition High-Level Principles’, available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/ener/items/730934/en> accessed 14 March 2023.

180

ibid para 3.

181

See further on different just transition finance initiatives in Nick Robins and Sabrina Muller, ‘Lessons from COP26 for financing the just transition’ (Policy Brief, London School of Economic, 20 December 2021), available at: <https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/lessons-from-cop26-for-financing-the-just-transition/> accessed 14 March 2023.

182

‘Supporting the conditions for a just transition internationally’ (n 120) para 5.

183

ibid.

184

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, COM(2022) 71 final, recitals 3 and 9.

185

See, eg, the evaluation of high-emitting companies just transition performance by Would Benchmarking Alliance, ‘Just Transition Assessment 2021’ (1 November 2021) available at: <https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/2021-just-transition-assessment/> accessed 14 March 2023.