Abstract

The principal aim under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been to establish a legally-binding regime regulating emission of greenhouse gas. The hopes were tempered at Copenhagen which charted no clear path towards a treaty with binding commitments. The result, instead, was the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding agreement that captured political consensus on a number of core issues absent its formal adoption by the Conference of the Parties. Thus, the achievement of an agreement in the climate summit at Cancun seemed a herculean task. However, after two weeks of hectic UN-led parleys, the nations of the world arguably reached a forward-looking deal that leaves open an extension of the Kyoto Protocol as well as the crucial question of the level of emission limitation and reduction commitments. Cancun outcome can be perceived in twin contexts; (a) As a continuation of series of efforts since the establishment of UNFCCC to have a legally binding regime; and (b) as a resurgent hope to get on board after a failed effort at Copenhagen. The dynamics of climate change presents varied dilemmas of justice. The paper, in particular, delves upon the issue of distributive justice in reference to Cancun agreements, to intuit the viability of a new era that would lead to a climate responsible pathway