The Kyoto Protocol can be defined as the implementation of the UNFCCC. At the time, it was the first global commitment to govern emissions responsible for global warming and laid the groundwork for subsequent international agreements on climate change. Although the protocol was signed on March 16, 1998, it did not come into force until February 16, 2005. Even the idea of who their workers are is shattered, lost in the maze of multiple layers of global outsourcing of the supply chain, outsourcing and agencies, and all so that companies can evade the responsibility of workers who contribute to their profits. The same cannot be said of the Kyoto Protocol. In accordance with Article 18 of the Kyoto Protocol, any compliance mechanism with “binding consequences” must be approved by an amendment that must be ratified by at least three-quarters of the parts of Kyoto, and even then it would only be binding on the parties that have ratified it. The parties to the protocol have not been able to pass such an amendment. As idealized as it is by those calling for a binding climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism is a political agreement that has no binding legal status. Implementation of the Paris Agreement has been underway in recent years and one of the main milestones is the adoption of the Paris Agreement (Katowice Rulebook) regulatory framework at the Katowice Climate Summit (COP 24). This document allows, among other things, to enter into force the different information and commitments and compare them as for the same ones; monitoring compliance with the agreement, the overall diagnostic methodology to be developed; The adaptation and technology transfer issues that will be strengthened; Negotiations for climate finance, which are expected to be launched by 2025. The initial 2013 agreement included a dispute resolution process with different steps to resolve issues between global unions and corporate signatories.
It provided that, in the absence of a resolution, the parties could challenge a final and binding arbitration in a procedure subject to UNICTRAL rules on international commercial arbitration. This is the first time that this system has been put in place to resolve labour disputes, and the experience of making cases under it has given IndustriALL and UNI some valuable lessons about its more general ability to reconcile global employment contracts. However, states do not act as they see fit. They are motivated to sign agreements and take steps to comply with these agreements, for a lot of reasons related to the interest of the company, public pressure, reputation, the trade of horses – in fact, for political reasons. The “legally binding” nature of the undertaking should simply not be significant for these reasons. However, in the absence of binding rules, NCMs are sensitive to issues that affect their reputation. Global outrage over the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh in 2013, which claimed the lives of more than 1,100 workers and injured many others, has been felt throughout the textile and clothing industry, and especially by brands that have bought clothing in the building.