ABSTRACT
An international institutional framework beyond 2012 does not mean that we should aim at a completely different approach from the Kyoto Protocol. If we return back to the fundamental principle of multilateral agreements, there is nothing more difficult and costly than to dissolve agreements and policies that have been created by international consensus. The only way to create an institutional framework that will surpass the Protocol is to build it upon the institutions that have already been established under the Kyoto Protocol along with strengthening its measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the debate on future international institutions on climate change, however, some have suggested to revoke the Protocol due mainly to the US non-ratification to the Protocol as the largest emitter of the GHGs (Greenhouse Gases). Some others accuse the Kyoto Protocol for not posing any targets to developing countries, which are expected to be the larger emitters by absolute numbers in a few decades. The debate gets even more complicated in a
country like Japan, whose largest export and import trading partners, the US and China, do not have a binding target under the current international framework. Under such circumstances, it may appear for those who are concerned about trading that Japan is the only country that must ‘suffer’ from reduction commitments out of its major trading partners. Although there are such voices and proposals, it is highly unlikely that a ‘revolutionary’ approach will be created to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol. Considering the socio-economic costs and implications of establishing a new framework completely from scratch, it is best to take an incremental approach to create an international framework going beyond the Kyoto Protocol.
